Being the party of deficit reduction isn't a vision.
Dunno, being a safe pair of hands that can be trusted to grow the economy with low taxes and restrained regulation is a vision - it works for a lot of governments.
The hitch is that it's hard to run on that while simultaneously wreaking havoc your country's economy by ripping up its established trade relationships to replace them with who-knows-what, even if that's what the voters asked you to do.
Yeah. Low taxes, light regulation and small state is a vision. But to the dismay of many on here - it doesn't seem to be the TM vision.
On Corbyn, a few thoughts, trying to be dispassionate:
- The polls don't show that he's more popular than Labour. There are still a significant number of voters with doubts. May is still marginally ahead as best PM. - More than any other politician at the moment, he inspires genuine affection and enthusiasm in a lot of people - the 35% or so who like him mostly *really* like him. That doesn't necessarily transfer to anyone else, so the left would be mistaken to think they can just swap him for another leftie and get the same result. - He's proved amply that he doesn't fall apart or lash out wildly under fire. Voters do respect that - it's one of several important characteristics in a PM. He seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable. - Trials by fire don't repeat in the same form. "They're all bonkers Trots who like terrorists" largely flopped, and will flop again. I gather the Tories will try "Their spending policies will ruin the economy" instead, but their own bung to the DUP and open debate about breaching the pay cap are undermining that. People don't really follow the details, but they do feel that if we're going to spend billions, let it be on something useful in Britain, not on motorways in Armagh. - A more subtle issue is that the Tories essentially concede that the spending would be nice if we could afford it. The small-state case is being quietly abandoned, and I'm not sure the Tories can win without it.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Morning PtP
I am not sure "underestimated Corbyn" is quite right. All of the criticism of him is valid. What we missed, like Trump, is the mood of the electorate.
Everything said about Trump was true. He won anyway. And now he is demonstrating just how bad everyone knew he would be.
Corbyn would be as bad as everyone thinks. But he might win anyway.
Very fair, Scott, but I did have electoral appeal in mind when mentioning underestimation.
We won't know how he will perform in office until elected, obviously, but you'd have to say that if he has surprised before he can surprise again.
I know the thought won't improve your enjoyment of the cornflakes this morning but it really does look like when rather than if he's elected. How soon and for how long depends as much as anything on the way the Conservatives play their hand.
My Dad was a good card player. He always said any fool can play a good hand, but it takes a good player to play a bad one.
Good luck.
To stick with the cards, the Tories' problem is that they don't have too many. Getting rid of May is one of the few potentially high ones that they have, and their problem is when to play it; a problem compounded by their last leadership replacement having turned out so badly. My guess is that most of them know that Brexit is a weight dragging them down from which they cannot escape, and are saving Mrs May to throw overboard at what they hope will be the most appropriate time.
On Corbyn, a few thoughts, trying to be dispassionate:
- The polls don't show that he's more popular than Labour. There are still a significant number of voters with doubts. May is still marginally ahead as best PM. - More than any other politician at the moment, he inspires genuine affection and enthusiasm in a lot of people - the 35% or so who like him mostly *really* like him. That doesn't necessarily transfer to anyone else, so the left would be mistaken to think they can just swap him for another leftie and get the same result. - He's proved amply that he doesn't fall apart or lash out wildly under fire. Voters do respect that - it's one of several important characteristics in a PM. He seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable. - Trials by fire don't repeat in the same form. "They're all bonkers Trots who like terrorists" largely flopped, and will flop again. I gather the Tories will try "Their spending policies will ruin the economy" instead, but their own bung to the DUP and open debate about breaching the pay cap are undermining that. People don't really follow the details, but they do feel that if we're going to spend billions, let it be on something useful in Britain, not on motorways in Armagh. - A more subtle issue is that the Tories essentially concede that the spending would be nice if we could afford it. The small-state case is being quietly abandoned, and I'm not sure the Tories can win without it.
Is a motorway in Armagh not useful to Britain?
Don't think the DUP would put a motorway in Armagh anyway.
The result of the EU referendum campaign was a profound psychological blow for a great many people who are still fighting it, magnifying every problem and forecasting doom. It doesn’t help that the government may be a shambles, unable to enact its manifesto and riven with infighting that goes right to the top of the cabinet.
But Brexit has its own logic and its own momentum: if it makes sense for Britain and the EU to co-operate on issues such as defence, trade, patents and scientific research, then a deal is likely. That is not blind hope, but what is happening already.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Morning PtP
I am not sure "underestimated Corbyn" is quite right. All of the criticism of him is valid. What we missed, like Trump, is the mood of the electorate.
Everything said about Trump was true. He won anyway. And now he is demonstrating just how bad everyone knew he would be.
Corbyn would be as bad as everyone thinks. But he might win anyway.
Very fair, Scott, but I did have electoral appeal in mind when mentioning underestimation.
We won't know how he will perform in office until elected, obviously, but you'd have to say that if he has surprised before he can surprise again.
I know the thought won't improve your enjoyment of the cornflakes this morning but it really does look like when rather than if he's elected. How soon and for how long depends as much as anything on the way the Conservatives play their hand.
My Dad was a good card player. He always said any fool can play a good hand, but it takes a good player to play a bad one.
Good luck.
To stick with the cards, the Tories' problem is that they don't have too many. Getting rid of May is one of the few potentially high ones that they have, and their problem is when to play it; a problem compounded by their last leadership replacement having turned out so badly. My guess is that most of them know that Brexit is a weight dragging them down from which they cannot escape, and are saving Mrs May to throw overboard at what they hope will be the most appropriate time.
So the judgement call is not whether to discard the rag, but when? I see.
Time for Hammond to pull something imaginative out of the bag, now it is clear Nurses and Teachers have been getting pay rises above inflation he can give improved pay offers to the low paid Public Sector workers who have no access to incremental increases.
Anybody say under 20k per annum give them inflationary increases for 2 years, got to be a winner surely.
Given inflation is now at about 2.9% nurses and teachers have not been getting pay rises above inflation
It's a 1% cap on nurses I think. That's less than RPI everyyear and CPI most years I think.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Morning PtP
I am not sure "underestimated Corbyn" is quite right. All of the criticism of him is valid. What we missed, like Trump, is the mood of the electorate.
Everything said about Trump was true. He won anyway. And now he is demonstrating just how bad everyone knew he would be.
Corbyn would be as bad as everyone thinks. But he might win anyway.
Very fair, Scott, but I did have electoral appeal in mind when mentioning underestimation.
We won't know how he will perform in office until elected, obviously, but you'd have to say that if he has surprised before he can surprise again.
I know the thought won't improve your enjoyment of the cornflakes this morning but it really does look like when rather than if he's elected. How soon and for how long depends as much as anything on the way the Conservatives play their hand.
My Dad was a good card player. He always said any fool can play a good hand, but it takes a good player to play a bad one.
Good luck.
Corbyn will be absolutely awful.
He will be found out. It's a question of when, not if.
On Corbyn, a few thoughts, trying to be dispassionate:
- The polls don't show that he's more popular than Labour. There are still a significant number of voters with doubts. May is still marginally ahead as best PM. - More than any other politician at the moment, he inspires genuine affection and enthusiasm in a lot of people - the 35% or so who like him mostly *really* like him. That doesn't necessarily transfer to anyone else, so the left would be mistaken to think they can just swap him for another leftie and get the same result. - He's proved amply that he doesn't fall apart or lash out wildly under fire. Voters do respect that - it's one of several important characteristics in a PM. He seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable. - Trials by fire don't repeat in the same form. "They're all bonkers Trots who like terrorists" largely flopped, and will flop again. I gather the Tories will try "Their spending policies will ruin the economy" instead, but their own bung to the DUP and open debate about breaching the pay cap are undermining that. People don't really follow the details, but they do feel that if we're going to spend billions, let it be on something useful in Britain, not on motorways in Armagh. - A more subtle issue is that the Tories essentially concede that the spending would be nice if we could afford it. The small-state case is being quietly abandoned, and I'm not sure the Tories can win without it.
Is a motorway in Armagh not useful to Britain?
On a point of pedantry, the Nation is Great Britain AND Northern Ireland. So no, a motorway in Armagh is of limited use to Britain, but we know what you mean.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
What attacks? There was absolutely no attempt by the Tories in the election campaign to attack Corbybn's near-insane economic policies, and to point out quite how much they would impoverish voters. There was hardly any attempt to go for him on his weakness on terrorism and defence. There was absolutely no attempt to counter the ludicrous claim by his supporters that he's a man who sticks to his principles, in contrast to Theresa May.
We kept waiting for the attacks. They never happened, and that, above all, was the principal failure of the Conservative campaign. They - or at least Theresa May - must have thought that the more people heard Corbyn, the more they'd understand how utterly unsuitable he is for high office. The problem with that was that there was zero scrutiny of what he was saying.
The Grenfell Tower residents are rightly angry about what happened and feel, probably with justification, that they were let down by the authorities. I have some understanding for their suspicion of the most establishment individual possible deciding who was to blame. It's up to Martin Moore-Bick to convince residents that he's on their side, even if his conclusions aren't welcome to them.
Who do you think they would want to do the inquiry? Diane Abbott?
They should expect not to be patronised as they have been by the authorities to date and for the inquiry to be far reaching and for it to be rigorous in getting to the truth.
The residents aren't being entirely rational, but people with empathy will understand that.
Time for Hammond to pull something imaginative out of the bag, now it is clear Nurses and Teachers have been getting pay rises above inflation he can give improved pay offers to the low paid Public Sector workers who have no access to incremental increases.
Anybody say under 20k per annum give them inflationary increases for 2 years, got to be a winner surely.
Given inflation is now at about 2.9% nurses and teachers have not been getting pay rises above inflation
It's a 1% cap on nurses I think. That's less than RPI everyyear and CPI most years I think.
Exactly, the Tories will certainly have to at least implement the pay review body recommendations in the autumn
On Corbyn, a few thoughts, trying to be dispassionate:
- The polls don't show that he's more popular than Labour. There are still a significant number of voters with doubts. May is still marginally ahead as best PM. - More than any other politician at the moment, he inspires genuine affection and enthusiasm in a lot of people - the 35% or so who like him mostly *really* like him. That doesn't necessarily transfer to anyone else, so the left would be mistaken to think they can just swap him for another leftie and get the same result. - He's proved amply that he doesn't fall apart or lash out wildly under fire. Voters do respect that - it's one of several important characteristics in a PM. He seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable. - Trials by fire don't repeat in the same form. "They're all bonkers Trots who like terrorists" largely flopped, and will flop again. I gather the Tories will try "Their spending policies will ruin the economy" instead, but their own bung to the DUP and open debate about breaching the pay cap are undermining that. People don't really follow the details, but they do feel that if we're going to spend billions, let it be on something useful in Britain, not on motorways in Armagh. - A more subtle issue is that the Tories essentially concede that the spending would be nice if we could afford it. The small-state case is being quietly abandoned, and I'm not sure the Tories can win without it.
Generally a good summary.
My one quibble would be that he can fall apart and lash out when under fire - as demonstrated by some of his testy comments to audience members on Question Time and the Woman's Hour interview. The fire needs to be detailed and forensic on policies, though. He's very good at deflecting personal attacks over issues such as links to IRA/Hammas etc.
Yes, I agree with Nick and yourself here, Andy.
There's still something of the Student Activist about JC. In some ways that's appealing but at times he is too readily nettled, too ready for a fight. It came across when Andrew Neil raised the question about his remarks during the Falklands War. It was a below the belt punch but he could have dealt with it easily, with humour, or contempt, as he saw fit. He was momentarily unsettled though which suggests he still feels a bit of a victim (and to be fair much of the commentariat has victimised him.)
But this is to quibble too. He had a storming Election and it will be interesting to see where he takes the Party from here.
Yes, he's totally unable to deal with those who don't buy into his pre-existing world view.
The Grenfell Tower residents are rightly angry about what happened and feel, probably with justification, that they were let down by the authorities. I have some understanding for their suspicion of the most establishment individual possible deciding who was to blame. It's up to Martin Moore-Bick to convince residents that he's on their side, even if his conclusions aren't welcome to them.
I'm sure the residents (the actual residents, rather than the rag bag of lefty agitators claiming to represent them) want primarily to be rehoused, followed by a swift inquest into the deaths, followed by the wider inquiry to identify policy failures that may have contributed to the fire.
The Grenfell Tower residents are rightly angry about what happened and feel, probably with justification, that they were let down by the authorities. I have some understanding for their suspicion of the most establishment individual possible deciding who was to blame. It's up to Martin Moore-Bick to convince residents that he's on their side, even if his conclusions aren't welcome to them.
Who do you think they would want to do the inquiry? Diane Abbott?
Adele, or possibly the spirit of the late Nelson Mandela via ouija board. It isn't Martin Moore-Bick to convince anyone he is on their side: that is for advocates for the residents to do. I hope such advocates will be appointed, at taxpayers' expense.
On Corbyn, a few thoughts, trying to be dispassionate:
- The polls don't show that he's more popular than Labour. There are still a significant number of voters with doubts. May is still marginally ahead as best PM. - More than any other politician at the moment, he inspires genuine affection and enthusiasm in a lot of people - the 35% or so who like him mostly *really* like him. That doesn't necessarily transfer to anyone else, so the left would be mistaken to think they can just swap him for another leftie and get the same result. - He's proved amply that he doesn't fall apart or lash out wildly under fire. Voters do respect that - it's one of several important characteristics in a PM. He seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable. - Trials by fire don't repeat in the same form. "They're all bonkers Trots who like terrorists" largely flopped, and will flop again. I gather the Tories will try "Their spending policies will ruin the economy" instead, but their own bung to the DUP and open debate about breaching the pay cap are undermining that. People don't really follow the details, but they do feel that if we're going to spend billions, let it be on something useful in Britain, not on motorways in Armagh. - A more subtle issue is that the Tories essentially concede that the spending would be nice if we could afford it. The small-state case is being quietly abandoned, and I'm not sure the Tories can win without it.
Is a motorway in Armagh not useful to Britain?
On a point of pedantry, the Nation is Great Britain AND Northern Ireland. So no, a motorway in Armagh is of limited use to Britain, but we know what you mean.
To be even more pedantic: in official-speak, Britain means the UK, not just GB.
Is anyone else getting fed up with the Grenfell tower ex residents just hecklng everyone. What were they heckling Sir Martin for? Why dont they just give him a chance?
Lack of empathy, the same crime of which the PM was accused.
Yes, what everyone wants is a latter day Jesus Christ.
Corbyn has the rhetoric, the beard, the initials, and the charisma. So that's alright then.
On Corbyn, a few thoughts, trying to be dispassionate:
- The polls don't show that he's more popular than Labour. There are still a significant number of voters with doubts. May is still marginally ahead as best PM. - More than any other politician at the moment, he inspires genuine affection and enthusiasm in a lot of people - the 35% or so who like him mostly *really* like him. That doesn't necessarily transfer to anyone else, so the left would be mistaken to think they can just swap him for another leftie and get the same result. - He's proved amply that he doesn't fall apart or lash out wildly under fire. Voters do respect that - it's one of several important characteristics in a PM. He seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable. - Trials by fire don't repeat in the same form. "They're all bonkers Trots who like terrorists" largely flopped, and will flop again. I gather the Tories will try "Their spending policies will ruin the economy" instead, but their own bung to the DUP and open debate about breaching the pay cap are undermining that. People don't really follow the details, but they do feel that if we're going to spend billions, let it be on something useful in Britain, not on motorways in Armagh. - A more subtle issue is that the Tories essentially concede that the spending would be nice if we could afford it. The small-state case is being quietly abandoned, and I'm not sure the Tories can win without it.
Is a motorway in Armagh not useful to Britain?
On a point of pedantry, the Nation is Great Britain AND Northern Ireland. So no, a motorway in Armagh is of limited use to Britain, but we know what you mean.
OK, I'll now attempt to out-pedant you difficult though that may be ;-) Britain could be taken as shorthand for the British Isles in which case.....
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
What attacks? There was absolutely no attempt by the Tories in the election campaign to attack Corbybn's near-insane economic policies, and to point out quite how much they would impoverish voters. There was hardly any attempt to go for him on his weakness on terrorism and defence. There was absolutely no attempt to counter the ludicrous claim by his supporters that he's a man who sticks to his principles, in contrast to Theresa May.
We kept waiting for the attacks. They never happened, and that, above all, was the principal failure of the Conservative campaign. They - or at least Theresa May - must have thought that the more people heard Corbyn, the more they'd understand how utterly unsuitable he is for high office. The problem with that was that there was zero scrutiny of what he was saying.
Steady, Richard! I was thinking of the longer term stuff and principally in the Press and places like this, where the criticism was often vitriolic and focused heavily on his alleged dark associations.
It would have been great if his policy proposals had been scrutinised properly during the elction, I agree, but it's hardly his fault if they weren't. Nor mine!
On Corbyn, a few thoughts, trying to be dispassionate:
- The polls don't show that he's more popular than Labour. There are still a significant number of voters with doubts. May is still marginally ahead as best PM. - More than any other politician at the moment, he inspires genuine affection and enthusiasm in a lot of people - the 35% or so who like him mostly *really* like him. That doesn't necessarily transfer to anyone else, so the left would be mistaken to think they can just swap him for another leftie and get the same result. - He's proved amply that he doesn't fall apart or lash out wildly under fire. Voters do respect that - it's one of several important characteristics in a PM. He seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable. - Trials by fire don't repeat in the same form. "They're all bonkers Trots who like terrorists" largely flopped, and will flop again. I gather the Tories will try "Their spending policies will ruin the economy" instead, but their own bung to the DUP and open debate about breaching the pay cap are undermining that. People don't really follow the details, but they do feel that if we're going to spend billions, let it be on something useful in Britain, not on motorways in Armagh. - A more subtle issue is that the Tories essentially concede that the spending would be nice if we could afford it. The small-state case is being quietly abandoned, and I'm not sure the Tories can win without it.
Is a motorway in Armagh not useful to Britain?
On a point of pedantry, the Nation is Great Britain AND Northern Ireland. So no, a motorway in Armagh is of limited use to Britain, but we know what you mean.
OK, I'll now attempt to out-pedant you difficult though that may be ;-) Britain could be taken as shorthand for the British Isles in which case.....
Shall we call this a draw, before we bore everybody to death?
If we could wake up tomorrow morning with another Cons leader I would be happy. But not if that was The Moggster, or even DD, or...or...
Which means that there won't be a coronation next time, and it will, rightly, be a fight. Which means several months, which means huge disruption at a time when, regardless of your view of their competence, the govt needs to be fully focused on Brexit.
So post-Mar 2019 for me. Plus, I think @Charles mentioned they would go earlier than full term "if the polls looked good."
To which I say: ha haha hahahahahaha hahahahahaha.
I cannot see anyone, especially this set of Cons, going to the polls earlier than they absolutely have to.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
What attacks? There was absolutely no attempt by the Tories in the election campaign to attack Corbybn's near-insane economic policies, and to point out quite how much they would impoverish voters. There was hardly any attempt to go for him on his weakness on terrorism and defence. There was absolutely no attempt to counter the ludicrous claim by his supporters that he's a man who sticks to his principles, in contrast to Theresa May.
We kept waiting for the attacks. They never happened, and that, above all, was the principal failure of the Conservative campaign. They - or at least Theresa May - must have thought that the more people heard Corbyn, the more they'd understand how utterly unsuitable he is for high office. The problem with that was that there was zero scrutiny of what he was saying.
Steady, Richard! I was thinking of the longer term stuff and principally in the Press and places like this, where the criticism was often vitriolic and focused heavily on his alleged dark associations.
It would have been great if his policy proposals had been scrutinised properly during the elction, I agree, but it's hardly his fault if they weren't. Nor mine!
All of the criticism was entirely valid, and there was nothing "alleged" about any of his associations. His record stands for itself.
It's amazing that someone with your intelligence has been taken in by this charlatan.
Will Labour split if this happens. Its a dangerous time for the nation. The hard left must be kept out at all costs. They will destroy the fabric of our society/.
I wouldn't set much store in what South Tyneside grass roots momentum group thinks. I also imagine most members quite like their local MP and so wouldn't be keen on a deselection.
The only way I see to guarantee a Tory majority is for labour to split into two parties.
really. One woman MP has got a lot of trouble from Momentum in Liverpool IIRC.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
What attacks? There was absolutely no attempt by the Tories in the election campaign to attack Corbybn's near-insane economic policies, and to point out quite how much they would impoverish voters. There was hardly any attempt to go for him on his weakness on terrorism and defence. There was absolutely no attempt to counter the ludicrous claim by his supporters that he's a man who sticks to his principles, in contrast to Theresa May.
We kept waiting for the attacks. They never happened, and that, above all, was the principal failure of the Conservative campaign. They - or at least Theresa May - must have thought that the more people heard Corbyn, the more they'd understand how utterly unsuitable he is for high office. The problem with that was that there was zero scrutiny of what he was saying.
Lol. You must have been experiencing a different campaign from the rest of us. Labour's failings were all most Tories wanted to talk about, and commentators struggled to get them to say anything about their own plans; culminating in the notorious Boris interview where the answer to every single question was the potential horror of Corbyn. All echoed and amplified by multiple tabloid front pages knocking Corbyn most days.
Where you have a point is on the economy, where the Tories didn't lay any blows - because they couldn't, having abandoned their approach to the economy in preference to pursuing the political goal of Brexit. If you don't cost your own proposals, because they don't add up, opportunity to fault your opponents for the same failings is limited.
One of our esteemed posters, IanB2 I believe, characterised the current situation elegantly as one in which the Conservatives were buying every day in office with two in opposition. The exchange rate may have changed though. It is starting to look like a one for three deal.
But the Party isn't dumb. It can see the main problem. I expect May to be out by Conference, probably to be replaced by Hammond. He won't turn fortunes around but he should, as you suggest, stop the bleeding.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Has anybody suggested policies to them?
If the Conservative isn't dumb, then the last thing they would do is replace May with Hammond.
If the Tories want to start winning voters from the centre which they need to have any hope at the next election there is no alternative to Hammond.
Is anyone else getting fed up with the Grenfell tower ex residents just hecklng everyone. What were they heckling Sir Martin for? Why dont they just give him a chance?
Lack of empathy, the same crime of which the PM was accused.
Yes, what everyone wants is a latter day Jesus Christ.
Corbyn has the rhetoric, the beard, the initials, and the charisma. So that's alright then.
Nobody is dissing technical skills, but these people are not electricians, or computer experts. A certain amount of empathy is required as part of the job description. May showed a chronic lack of it in the aftermath of Grenfell. It sounds like the same may have applied to the Judge.
I'm sure they were both surprised by the strength of reaction to their well-intentioned actions, which in itself indicates the kind of lack of empathy likely to make their jobs difficult for them.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
What attacks? There was absolutely no attempt by the Tories in the election campaign to attack Corbybn's near-insane economic policies, and to point out quite how much they would impoverish voters. There was hardly any attempt to go for him on his weakness on terrorism and defence. There was absolutely no attempt to counter the ludicrous claim by his supporters that he's a man who sticks to his principles, in contrast to Theresa May.
We kept waiting for the attacks. They never happened, and that, above all, was the principal failure of the Conservative campaign. They - or at least Theresa May - must have thought that the more people heard Corbyn, the more they'd understand how utterly unsuitable he is for high office. The problem with that was that there was zero scrutiny of what he was saying.
Fiona Hill. Nick Timothy.
Total fucking idiots who deserve a hot poker up the arse and to beg for penance for the rest of their lives.
One of our esteemed posters, IanB2 I believe, characterised the current situation elegantly as one in which the Conservatives were buying every day in office with two in opposition. The exchange rate may have changed though. It is starting to look like a one for three deal.
But the Party isn't dumb. It can see the main problem. I expect May to be out by Conference, probably to be replaced by Hammond. He won't turn fortunes around but he should, as you suggest, stop the bleeding.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Has anybody suggested policies to them?
If the Conservative isn't dumb, then the last thing they would do is replace May with Hammond.
If the Tories want to start winning voters from the centre which they need to have any hope at the next election there is no alternative to Hammond.
Rudd, her own constituency notwithstanding. OK she is a posho, but she was a spirited remainer, and has an ear for people.
Or it's a known unknown off the back benches (Boles, Herbert, etc).
The Grenfell Tower residents are rightly angry about what happened and feel, probably with justification, that they were let down by the authorities. I have some understanding for their suspicion of the most establishment individual possible deciding who was to blame. It's up to Martin Moore-Bick to convince residents that he's on their side, even if his conclusions aren't welcome to them.
Who do you think they would want to do the inquiry? Diane Abbott?
They should expect not to be patronised as they have been by the authorities to date and for the inquiry to be far reaching and for it to be rigorous in getting to the truth.
The residents aren't being entirely rational, but people with empathy will understand that.
The problem is that some of them - or perhaps those so ill-advising them - don't want the inquiry to be far-reaching or for it to be rigorous in getting to the truth. They want it to reach conclusions they've already decided on, whatever the evidence.
There may be several sides to the inquiry: there should be a highly technical study of what went wrong and why: from how the fire started to why it spread so quickly.
Then there will be the decisions that led to those events happening: from the choice of cladding to the reasons behind the evacuation method decided upon, or the reactions of the firefighters on the night.
Then there might also be a very human aspect on the victims and how they died.
It might be best if these were somewhat separated. As I've argued passim, give the technical side to a team from RAIB or AAIB who produce excellent reports into highly technical failures, and won't have any skin in the game. I don't have full confidence in the BRE and other organisations in relation to this matter.
But we need the truth, and to ensure that something similar doesn't happen again.
Will Labour split if this happens. Its a dangerous time for the nation. The hard left must be kept out at all costs. They will destroy the fabric of our society/.
I wouldn't set much store in what South Tyneside grass roots momentum group thinks. I also imagine most members quite like their local MP and so wouldn't be keen on a deselection.
The only way I see to guarantee a Tory majority is for labour to split into two parties.
really. One woman MP has got a lot of trouble from Momentum in Liverpool IIRC.
They see her as a Jew, not as a woman.
You're a bit preoccupied with the Kangaroos, aren't you Alice?
The Conservatives will not prosper again in public opinion until they have a leader who can take them beyond talking about Brexit.
It's entirely possible that's decades away. The Conservatives aren't the least bit interested yet in moving beyond Brexit as a topic of discussion.
That's why it has to be a Remainer as next leader.
That post is unintentionally hilarious.
well....Tezza is of course a remainer, Hammond is one also. But I think the Cons need someone who is also a human being, going down the pub factor needs to be taken into account.
Steady, Richard! I was thinking of the longer term stuff and principally in the Press and places like this, where the criticism was often vitriolic and focused heavily on his alleged dark associations.
It would have been great if his policy proposals had been scrutinised properly during the elction, I agree, but it's hardly his fault if they weren't. Nor mine!
No, it's the fault of those running the Conservative campaign. I suppose you could also say it's partly the fault of the media, in that they spent all their time on scrutiny of the Conservative proposals, but in the context that was fair enough because no-one at the time thought Labour would get anywhere near power, so the Labour manifesto was of little interest.
The lesson - for the Conservatives and indeed other parties - is that you should always go on the offensive, treat every election as a close one, and take nothing for granted.
As for the attacks in the press on Corbyn's terrorist sympathies, I thought they were extremely mild given the reality. This is a man whose has been on the side of Britain's, and especially the United States', enemies thoughout his career. McDonnell's record is even worse. I don't think that most voters were made aware of this; not everyone reads the Daily Mail.
One of our esteemed posters, IanB2 I believe, characterised the current situation elegantly as one in which the Conservatives were buying every day in office with two in opposition. The exchange rate may have changed though. It is starting to look like a one for three deal.
But the Party isn't dumb. It can see the main problem. I expect May to be out by Conference, probably to be replaced by Hammond. He won't turn fortunes around but he should, as you suggest, stop the bleeding.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Has anybody suggested policies to them?
If the Conservative isn't dumb, then the last thing they would do is replace May with Hammond.
If the Tories want to start winning voters from the centre which they need to have any hope at the next election there is no alternative to Hammond.
Boris tops the poll amongst all voters in early Tory leadership polls, Hammond has fewer negatives than Boris in those polls but also far fewer voters who are positive about him either.
The Conservatives will not prosper again in public opinion until they have a leader who can take them beyond talking about Brexit.
It's entirely possible that's decades away. The Conservatives aren't the least bit interested yet in moving beyond Brexit as a topic of discussion.
Brexit will be done and dusted in 2 years. Then the Tories either beat Corbyn or Corbyn wins and the Tories instantly become the default opposition to Corbyn's socialist government
The Conservatives will not prosper again in public opinion until they have a leader who can take them beyond talking about Brexit.
It's entirely possible that's decades away. The Conservatives aren't the least bit interested yet in moving beyond Brexit as a topic of discussion.
+1.
Brexit is massively important, but it's hardly the only issue facing the country. Corbyn, perhaps because of his own divided loyalties and party on the issue, is concentrating his fire elsewhere. And that is a large part of why he is doing well.
Steady, Richard! I was thinking of the longer term stuff and principally in the Press and places like this, where the criticism was often vitriolic and focused heavily on his alleged dark associations.
It would have been great if his policy proposals had been scrutinised properly during the elction, I agree, but it's hardly his fault if they weren't. Nor mine!
No, it's the fault of those running the Conservative campaign. I suppose you could also say it's partly the fault of the media, in that they spent all their time on scrutiny of the Conservative proposals, but in the context that was fair enough because no-one at the time thought Labour would get anywhere near power, so the Labour manifesto was of little interest.
The lesson - for the Conservatives and indeed other parties - is that you should always go on the offensive, treat every election as a close one, and take nothing for granted.
As for the attacks in the press on Corbyn's terrorist sympathies, I thought they were extremely mild given the reality. This is a man whose has been on the side of Britain's, and especially the United States', enemies thoughout his career. McDonnell's record is even worse. I don't think that most voters were made aware of this; not everyone reads the Daily Mail.
Yes, they are thoroughly disgusting people.
Can you imagine Corbyn chairing a COBRA meeting, being asked to respond to a security threat, acting on intelligence, or determining what to do regarding an emerging international incident?
His first (and only thought) would be: what have the US and UK done to bring about this situation, and how can I condemn it and empathise with those who threaten us?
Time for Hammond to pull something imaginative out of the bag, now it is clear Nurses and Teachers have been getting pay rises above inflation he can give improved pay offers to the low paid Public Sector workers who have no access to incremental increases.
Anybody say under 20k per annum give them inflationary increases for 2 years, got to be a winner surely.
I'm not sure Hammond can win whatever he does or doesn't do.
When you say "now it is clear Nurses and Teachers have been getting pay rises above inflation"
Have they? This is news to me.
Points & bands means that some get bigger pay rises than others some years.
'Staff will normally progress to the next pay point annually until they reach the top of the pay band.'
I assume any nominal pay rise is a rise of all bands ?
I think a solution might be to drop the number of points per band to say three or so. The bands are fine (Those are different jobs after all) but the 'points' within the bands act as pay increases in themselves, I don't see the need for more than 3 per band (I make no comment on the pay points for those points but a 3% gap per point - reflecting 3 years of experience) might be appropriate.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Morning PtP
I am not sure "underestimated Corbyn" is quite right. All of the criticism of him is valid. What we missed, like Trump, is the mood of the electorate.
Everything said about Trump was true. He won anyway. And now he is demonstrating just how bad everyone knew he would be.
Corbyn would be as bad as everyone thinks. But he might win anyway.
An astute post. It's the only thing that fits all the facts. It's not Corbyn it's the zeitgeist. The same thing that won it for Brexit and won it for Trump. But as everyone knows the zeitgeist can change literally overnight.
If anyone wants a 200 euro bet at even money that Corbyn never becomes Prime Minister speak now.
Steady, Richard! I was thinking of the longer term stuff and principally in the Press and places like this, where the criticism was often vitriolic and focused heavily on his alleged dark associations.
It would have been great if his policy proposals had been scrutinised properly during the elction, I agree, but it's hardly his fault if they weren't. Nor mine!
No, it's the fault of those running the Conservative campaign. I suppose you could also say it's partly the fault of the media, in that they spent all their time on scrutiny of the Conservative proposals, but in the context that was fair enough because no-one at the time thought Labour would get anywhere near power, so the Labour manifesto was of little interest.
The lesson - for the Conservatives and indeed other parties - is that you should always go on the offensive, treat every election as a close one, and take nothing for granted.
As for the attacks in the press on Corbyn's terrorist sympathies, I thought they were extremely mild given the reality. This is a man whose has been on the side of Britain's, and especially the United States', enemies thoughout his career. McDonnell's record is even worse. I don't think that most voters were made aware of this; not everyone reads the Daily Mail.
Good post, Richard, but I laughed out loud at the last line!
True, not everyone reads the Daily Mail, and not everyone believes it either!
A thought struck me. If, as I believe, Brexit and the whole UKIP phenomenon was mostly an exercise in nostalgia with the idea things used to be better then now - the problem is Brexit is the present. The here and now. It requires painful trade-offs and compromises, and hard decisions, which obviously are not a part of nostalgia. You should be hiking across the sunlit uplands with a broad smile on your face.
Brexit was definitely an act of cultural mourning. I remember some doddery old coffin dodger being quizzed in a vox pop about their decision to vote leave. The tremulous reply was "We remember the old days." They're probably dead now.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
What attacks? There was absolutely no attempt by the Tories in the election campaign to attack Corbybn's near-insane economic policies, and to point out quite how much they would impoverish voters. There was hardly any attempt to go for him on his weakness on terrorism and defence. There was absolutely no attempt to counter the ludicrous claim by his supporters that he's a man who sticks to his principles, in contrast to Theresa May.
We kept waiting for the attacks. They never happened, and that, above all, was the principal failure of the Conservative campaign. They - or at least Theresa May - must have thought that the more people heard Corbyn, the more they'd understand how utterly unsuitable he is for high office. The problem with that was that there was zero scrutiny of what he was saying.
Lol. You must have been experiencing a different campaign from the rest of us. Labour's failings were all most Tories wanted to talk about, and commentators struggled to get them to say anything about their own plans; culminating in the notorious Boris interview where the answer to every single question was the potential horror of Corbyn. All echoed and amplified by multiple tabloid front pages knocking Corbyn most days.
Where you have a point is on the economy, where the Tories didn't lay any blows - because they couldn't, having abandoned their approach to the economy in preference to pursuing the political goal of Brexit. If you don't cost your own proposals, because they don't add up, opportunity to fault your opponents for the same failings is limited.
Yes I find it strange that people think Corbyn wasn't attacked.
I also think TM went on about the economy plenty just not as much as Dave. Her catchphrase was strong and stable leadership, not long term economic plan.
The Grenfell Tower residents are rightly angry about what happened and feel, probably with justification, that they were let down by the authorities. I have some understanding for their suspicion of the most establishment individual possible deciding who was to blame. It's up to Martin Moore-Bick to convince residents that he's on their side, even if his conclusions aren't welcome to them.
Who do you think they would want to do the inquiry? Diane Abbott?
They should expect not to be patronised as they have been by the authorities to date and for the inquiry to be far reaching and for it to be rigorous in getting to the truth.
The residents aren't being entirely rational, but people with empathy will understand that.
The problem is that some of them - or perhaps those so ill-advising them - don't want the inquiry to be far-reaching or for it to be rigorous in getting to the truth. They want it to reach conclusions they've already decided on, whatever the evidence.
There may be several sides to the inquiry: there should be a highly technical study of what went wrong and why: from how the fire started to why it spread so quickly.
Then there will be the decisions that led to those events happening: from the choice of cladding to the reasons behind the evacuation method decided upon, or the reactions of the firefighters on the night.
Then there might also be a very human aspect on the victims and how they died.
It might be best if these were somewhat separated. As I've argued passim, give the technical side to a team from RAIB or AAIB who produce excellent reports into highly technical failures, and won't have any skin in the game. I don't have full confidence in the BRE and other organisations in relation to this matter.
But we need the truth, and to ensure that something similar doesn't happen again.
Indeed. There could be some awkward findings, e.g. stories of escapees blocking the stairs for others by taking luggage with them could have resulted in some deaths.
The inquiry is there to find out the truth, not to give the residents a shoulder to cry on. Their demands to be rehoused immediately at taxpayers expense in central London are already grating.
One of our esteemed posters, IanB2 I believe, characterised the current situation elegantly as one in which the Conservatives were buying every day in office with two in opposition. The exchange rate may have changed though. It is starting to look like a one for three deal.
But the Party isn't dumb. It can see the main problem. I expect May to be out by Conference, probably to be replaced by Hammond. He won't turn fortunes around but he should, as you suggest, stop the bleeding.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Has anybody suggested policies to them?
If the Conservative isn't dumb, then the last thing they would do is replace May with Hammond.
If the Tories want to start winning voters from the centre which they need to have any hope at the next election there is no alternative to Hammond.
Boris tops the poll amongst all voters in early Tory leadership polls, Hammond has fewer negatives than Boris in those polls but also far fewer voters who are positive about him either.
I have just offered a bet for 200 euros that Corbyn will never be Prime Minister. I'll go to 400 that Boris won't.
The Grenfell Tower residents are rightly angry about what happened and feel, probably with justification, that they were let down by the authorities. I have some understanding for their suspicion of the most establishment individual possible deciding who was to blame. It's up to Martin Moore-Bick to convince residents that he's on their side, even if his conclusions aren't welcome to them.
Who do you think they would want to do the inquiry? Diane Abbott?
They should expect not to be patronised as they have been by the authorities to date and for the inquiry to be far reaching and for it to be rigorous in getting to the truth.
The residents aren't being entirely rational, but people with empathy will understand that.
The problem is that some of them - or perhaps those so ill-advising them - don't want the inquiry to be far-reaching or for it to be rigorous in getting to the truth. They want it to reach conclusions they've already decided on, whatever the evidence.
There may be several sides to the inquiry: there should be a highly technical study of what went wrong and why: from how the fire started to why it spread so quickly.
Then there will be the decisions that led to those events happening: from the choice of cladding to the reasons behind the evacuation method decided upon, or the reactions of the firefighters on the night.
Then there might also be a very human aspect on the victims and how they died.
It might be best if these were somewhat separated. As I've argued passim, give the technical side to a team from RAIB or AAIB who produce excellent reports into highly technical failures, and won't have any skin in the game. I don't have full confidence in the BRE and other organisations in relation to this matter.
But we need the truth, and to ensure that something similar doesn't happen again.
I agree with this but to restate my point below that others disagreed with, Sir Martin Moore-Bick should convince the residents that he's on their side and being on their side means getting to the truth. Lawyers have a tendency in my experience of not seeing the wood for the trees. A lot of their work revolves around close interpretation of texts, so it's not surprising. Public inquiries are typically the establishment's expensive and showy way of being seen to address an embarrassing problem while not assigning blame to any individual. This inquiry might be different of course.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Morning PtP
I am not sure "underestimated Corbyn" is quite right. All of the criticism of him is valid. What we missed, like Trump, is the mood of the electorate.
Everything said about Trump was true. He won anyway. And now he is demonstrating just how bad everyone knew he would be.
Corbyn would be as bad as everyone thinks. But he might win anyway.
An astute post. It's the only thing that fits all the facts. It's not Corbyn it's the zeitgeist. The same thing that won it for Brexit and won it for Trump. But as everyone knows the zeitgeist can change literally overnight.
If anyone wants a 200 euro bet at even money that Corbyn never becomes Prime Minister speak now.
Interesting observation from Ruth Davidson in a long Twitter response to the Zoomers who have complained about her Honorary Colonelship:
As a coda; the change in approach from the SNP these past few months has been really interesting. Support them or not, they were always a serious party of government. But their crouching defensiveness over the sort of stuff they would have simply brushed off a couple of years ago has been remarkable to observe. The effort that must be involved in being so furious all the time must be exhausting.
One of our esteemed posters, IanB2 I believe, characterised the current situation elegantly as one in which the Conservatives were buying every day in office with two in opposition. The exchange rate may have changed though. It is starting to look like a one for three deal.
But the Party isn't dumb. It can see the main problem. I expect May to be out by Conference, probably to be replaced by Hammond. He won't turn fortunes around but he should, as you suggest, stop the bleeding.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Has anybody suggested policies to them?
If the Conservative isn't dumb, then the last thing they would do is replace May with Hammond.
Grrr, typing too fast on my kindle keyboard! 'If the Conservatives were not dumb'!
All of the criticism was entirely valid, and there was nothing "alleged" about any of his associations. His record stands for itself.
JC's associations have been deweaponised; they are simply not relevant. HM the Q has broken bread with Seamus Mag Aonghusa and Maybot's genuflections before the Saudis are worse than anything JC did with Hamas.
From what I could see or hear, the concerns many have about the Grenfell Tower enquiry is that ultimately those who were responsible and those in authority over them will not be held accountable which means the judicial process and the threat of conviction and incarceration.
For me, this is less Hillsborough and more Aberfan - the Davies enquiry took 76 days despite the obfuscation of the National Coal Board. Grenfell is our Aberfan and we need to get the enquiry done right, quick and ensure this can never be repeated.
Another day, another set of speculation over who should lead the Conservative Party and the usual side-swipes from the usual suspects about how bad Corbyn is or would be. I alluded to the analogy with Harold Wilson during the GE campaign (I'm overdoing the 60s analogies today, I think).
I'll be honest - I like Corbyn. I saw a video he did thanking public sector workers for their work at Manchester, Grenfell, London Bridge and of course Finsbury Park (in his constituency). The delivery was a little off but the warmth was such a contrast to May. Let's not forget Thatcher could do warmth (sparingly but when it was deployed it was so much more effective) and I'm sure May isn't a cold person in private and probably tells a mean "knock knock" joke but the attempts at informality don't come easily to her it seems.
I'll also be honest and admit I have my reservations about Corbyn as Prime Minister. To follow the Wilson analogy a little further, the reality of 21st Century Cabinet Government is that it's more presidential and less collegiate than in Wilson's day. I suspect "the power" will lie elsewhere.
Do I think Corbyn's leadership will turn Britain into a Venezulean-style dystopia within a few months ? No. Do I think people will be tired of the Conservatives in 2022 after 12 years of Government ? If still led by May, yes, but a 1990-style reinvention might work but it would require an unknown or someone completely disassociated from what has gone before.
One of our esteemed posters, IanB2 I believe, characterised the current situation elegantly as one in which the Conservatives were buying every day in office with two in opposition. The exchange rate may have changed though. It is starting to look like a one for three deal.
But the Party isn't dumb. It can see the main problem. I expect May to be out by Conference, probably to be replaced by Hammond. He won't turn fortunes around but he should, as you suggest, stop the bleeding.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Has anybody suggested policies to them?
If the Conservative isn't dumb, then the last thing they would do is replace May with Hammond.
If the Tories want to start winning voters from the centre which they need to have any hope at the next election there is no alternative to Hammond.
Boris tops the poll amongst all voters in early Tory leadership polls, Hammond has fewer negatives than Boris in those polls but also far fewer voters who are positive about him either.
I have just offered a bet for 200 euros that Corbyn will never be Prime Minister. I'll go to 400 that Boris won't.
If May goes and Boris succeeds her he automatically becomes PM
Time for Hammond to pull something imaginative out of the bag, now it is clear Nurses and Teachers have been getting pay rises above inflation he can give improved pay offers to the low paid Public Sector workers who have no access to incremental increases.
Anybody say under 20k per annum give them inflationary increases for 2 years, got to be a winner surely.
I'm not sure Hammond can win whatever he does or doesn't do.
When you say "now it is clear Nurses and Teachers have been getting pay rises above inflation"
Have they? This is news to me.
Points & bands means that some get bigger pay rises than others some years.
'Staff will normally progress to the next pay point annually until they reach the top of the pay band.'
I assume any nominal pay rise is a rise of all bands ?
I think a solution might be to drop the number of points per band to say three or so. The bands are fine (Those are different jobs after all) but the 'points' within the bands act as pay increases in themselves, I don't see the need for more than 3 per band (I make no comment on the pay points for those points but a 3% gap per point - reflecting 3 years of experience) might be appropriate.
9 points for a band seems excessive to me.
That's a good link, which illustrates the issue well.
Within large areas of the public sector, people 'progress', ofen annually and automatically, in a way that just doesn't happen in the private sector.
Thus a 1% annual rise in every number on the pay scale generates a larger pay increase for the people employed within.
Time for Hammond to pull something imaginative out of the bag, now it is clear Nurses and Teachers have been getting pay rises above inflation he can give improved pay offers to the low paid Public Sector workers who have no access to incremental increases.
Anybody say under 20k per annum give them inflationary increases for 2 years, got to be a winner surely.
I'm not sure Hammond can win whatever he does or doesn't do.
When you say "now it is clear Nurses and Teachers have been getting pay rises above inflation"
Have they? This is news to me.
Yes with the incremental rises they have access to they averaged between 3 and 4% in 2015/2016.
One of our esteemed posters, IanB2 I believe, characterised the current situation elegantly as one in which the Conservatives were buying every day in office with two in opposition. The exchange rate may have changed though. It is starting to look like a one for three deal.
But the Party isn't dumb. It can see the main problem. I expect May to be out by Conference, probably to be replaced by Hammond. He won't turn fortunes around but he should, as you suggest, stop the bleeding.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Has anybody suggested policies to them?
If the Conservative isn't dumb, then the last thing they would do is replace May with Hammond.
If the Tories want to start winning voters from the centre which they need to have any hope at the next election there is no alternative to Hammond.
Rudd, her own constituency notwithstanding. OK she is a posho, but she was a spirited remainer, and has an ear for people.
Or it's a known unknown off the back benches (Boles, Herbert, etc).
I like her but If the Tories go for a woman they expect to see nothing but her masculine side. Think Iron Lady ...Balls of Steel...Bloody Difficult Woman etc. That's not Amber Rudd
[snip] For me, this is less Hillsborough and more Aberfan - the Davies enquiry took 76 days despite the obfuscation of the National Coal Board. Grenfell is our Aberfan and we need to get the enquiry done right, quick and ensure this can never be repeated. [snip]
Yes, the parallels with Aberfan are strong. Both were horrendous tragedies which simply should never have happened.
Your point on the Davies inquiry is an interesting one. We seem to have totally lost the capability to do public inquiries in any reasonable timescale. Too many lawyers, too much TV coverage, too much mission creep, too many people trying to push their own political agendas rather than allowing the inquiry to do its job - which is not to be 'on the side' of the residents, or of anyone else, but to find out what went wrong, and make recommendations to ensure that it won't happen again. In the case of Grenfell, it should be a fairly straightforward inquiry, but I'm quite certain it won't be.
The Grenfell Tower residents are rightly angry about what happened and feel, probably with justification, that they were let down by the authorities. I have some understanding for their suspicion of the most establishment individual possible deciding who was to blame. It's up to Martin Moore-Bick to convince residents that he's on their side, even if his conclusions aren't welcome to them.
Who do you think they would want to do the inquiry? Diane Abbott?
They should expect not to be patronised as they have been by the authorities to date and for the inquiry to be far reaching and for it to be rigorous in getting to the truth.
The residents aren't being entirely rational, but people with empathy will understand that.
The problem is that some of them - or perhaps those so ill-advising them - don't want the inquiry to be far-reaching or for it to be rigorous in getting to the truth. They want it to reach conclusions they've already decided on, whatever the evidence.
There may be several sides to the inquiry: there should be a highly technical study of what went wrong and why: from how the fire started to why it spread so quickly.
Then there will be the decisions that led to those events happening: from the choice of cladding to the reasons behind the evacuation method decided upon, or the reactions of the firefighters on the night.
Then there might also be a very human aspect on the victims and how they died.
It might be best if these were somewhat separated. As I've argued passim, give the technical side to a team from RAIB or AAIB who produce excellent reports into highly technical failures, and won't have any skin in the game. I don't have full confidence in the BRE and other organisations in relation to this matter.
But we need the truth, and to ensure that something similar doesn't happen again.
Indeed. There could be some awkward findings, e.g. stories of escapees blocking the stairs for others by taking luggage with them could have resulted in some deaths.
The inquiry is there to find out the truth, not to give the residents a shoulder to cry on. Their demands to be rehoused immediately at taxpayers expense in central London are already grating.
Agreed that the technical enquiry needs to be impartial and factual, as @JosiasJessop suggests along the lines of an AAIB or RAIB report - and possibly supervised by one of those agencies which are trusted to do this in a calm and dry manner.
One of our esteemed posters, IanB2 I believe, characterised the current situation elegantly as one in which the Conservatives were buying every day in office with two in opposition. The exchange rate may have changed though. It is starting to look like a one for three deal.
But the Party isn't dumb. It can see the main problem. I expect May to be out by Conference, probably to be replaced by Hammond. He won't turn fortunes around but he should, as you suggest, stop the bleeding.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Has anybody suggested policies to them?
If the Conservative isn't dumb, then the last thing they would do is replace May with Hammond.
If the Tories want to start winning voters from the centre which they need to have any hope at the next election there is no alternative to Hammond.
Boris tops the poll amongst all voters in early Tory leadership polls, Hammond has fewer negatives than Boris in those polls but also far fewer voters who are positive about him either.
I have just offered a bet for 200 euros that Corbyn will never be Prime Minister. I'll go to 400 that Boris won't.
If May goes and Boris succeeds her he automatically becomes PM
Exactly! I offer the bet in the knowledge that the Tory selectorate will know that.
If the Conservative party want to regain their polling lead they need to demonstrate competent governance. They have perhaps a year or two in which to do this but need to start now - which means uniting behind the Prime Minister and being professional in governing.
A divisive leadership challenge will just get in the way of any recovery. There is no messiah leader waiting in the wings.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Morning PtP
I am not sure "underestimated Corbyn" is quite right. All of the criticism of him is valid. What we missed, like Trump, is the mood of the electorate.
Everything said about Trump was true. He won anyway. And now he is demonstrating just how bad everyone knew he would be.
Corbyn would be as bad as everyone thinks. But he might win anyway.
An astute post. It's the only thing that fits all the facts. It's not Corbyn it's the zeitgeist. The same thing that won it for Brexit and won it for Trump. But as everyone knows the zeitgeist can change literally overnight.
If anyone wants a 200 euro bet at even money that Corbyn never becomes Prime Minister speak now.
I agree with this but to restate my point below that others disagreed with, Sir Martin Moore-Bick should convince the residents that he's on their side and being on their side means getting to the truth. Lawyers have a tendency in my experience of not seeing the wood for the trees. A lot of their work revolves around close interpretation of texts, so it's not surprising. Public inquiries are typically the establishment's expensive and showy way of being seen to address an embarrassing problem while not assigning blame to any individual. This inquiry might be different of course.
How can he get them on his side, when some of them (and those representing them) aren't even giving him a chance? He was criticised the moment his name was announced.
The only conclusion is that such people don't want a fair inquiry.
I think you're far too cynical about inquiries. The second Francis report into Stafford only occurred because Francis himself (a QC) criticised the terms of reference of the first inquiry he was given. That second report was excellent.
I could also point you at Lord Scarman's report into the Brixton riots back in ?1981? that told some very uncomfortable truths. I daresay there are many other excellent examples.
A technocrat might be able to produce a very good report into the technical failures (then again, a technocrat might have vested interests). He would be much less able to look into the other areas.
I agree with this but to restate my point below that others disagreed with, Sir Martin Moore-Bick should convince the residents that he's on their side and being on their side means getting to the truth. Lawyers have a tendency in my experience of not seeing the wood for the trees. A lot of their work revolves around close interpretation of texts, so it's not surprising. Public inquiries are typically the establishment's expensive and showy way of being seen to address an embarrassing problem while not assigning blame to any individual. This inquiry might be different of course.
One may smile, and smile, and be a villain. Impartiality is of course the ultimate aim here, but ostensible empathy is no guarantee of it. Being a retired appeal court judge is, hopefully, the best guarantee of it, watertight though it certainly is not.
The inquiry is in any event going to come down to the close interpretation of texts. There will, I can guarantee, be at least four incompatible expert reports on the technicalities (how fire started, how it spread) each of them as long as a novel and a lot less comprehensible. If Moore Bick did hull insurance work at the bar (he seems to have been more a cargo kinda guy) he will know his way round such documents.
One of our esteemed posters, IanB2 I believe, characterised the current situation elegantly as one in which the Conservatives were buying every day in office with two in opposition. The exchange rate may have changed though. It is starting to look like a one for three deal.
But the Party isn't dumb. It can see the main problem. I expect May to be out by Conference, probably to be replaced by Hammond. He won't turn fortunes around but he should, as you suggest, stop the bleeding.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Has anybody suggested policies to them?
If the Conservative isn't dumb, then the last thing they would do is replace May with Hammond.
If the Tories want to start winning voters from the centre which they need to have any hope at the next election there is no alternative to Hammond.
Boris tops the poll amongst all voters in early Tory leadership polls, Hammond has fewer negatives than Boris in those polls but also far fewer voters who are positive about him either.
I have just offered a bet for 200 euros that Corbyn will never be Prime Minister. I'll go to 400 that Boris won't.
If May goes and Boris succeeds her he automatically becomes PM
Exactly! I offer the bet in the knowledge that the Tory selectorate will know that.
You're right. Boris was a good mayor and can just about bluster his way as FS, but he isn't PM material and those who would make the decision know that.
Time for Hammond to pull something imaginative out of the bag, now it is clear Nurses and Teachers have been getting pay rises above inflation he can give improved pay offers to the low paid Public Sector workers who have no access to incremental increases.
Anybody say under 20k per annum give them inflationary increases for 2 years, got to be a winner surely.
I'm not sure Hammond can win whatever he does or doesn't do.
When you say "now it is clear Nurses and Teachers have been getting pay rises above inflation"
Have they? This is news to me.
Yes with the incremental rises they have access to they averaged between 3 and 4% in 2015/2016.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Morning PtP
I am not sure "underestimated Corbyn" is quite right. All of the criticism of him is valid. What we missed, like Trump, is the mood of the electorate.
Everything said about Trump was true. He won anyway. And now he is demonstrating just how bad everyone knew he would be.
Corbyn would be as bad as everyone thinks. But he might win anyway.
An astute post. It's the only thing that fits all the facts. It's not Corbyn it's the zeitgeist. The same thing that won it for Brexit and won it for Trump. But as everyone knows the zeitgeist can change literally overnight.
If anyone wants a 200 euro bet at even money that Corbyn never becomes Prime Minister speak now.
You think he will or he won't?
He wont
I'll have 20 euro at 2-1 that he will if you'll offer that? Evens isn't tempting to me.
On the inquiry, the Grenfell residents are entitled to expect empathy from the Prime Minister. From the inquiry chair they should be expecting justice.
I agree with this but to restate my point below that others disagreed with, Sir Martin Moore-Bick should convince the residents that he's on their side and being on their side means getting to the truth. Lawyers have a tendency in my experience of not seeing the wood for the trees. A lot of their work revolves around close interpretation of texts, so it's not surprising. Public inquiries are typically the establishment's expensive and showy way of being seen to address an embarrassing problem while not assigning blame to any individual. This inquiry might be different of course.
How can he get them on his side, when some of them (and those representing them) aren't even giving him a chance? He was criticised the moment his name was announced.
The only conclusion is that such people don't want a fair inquiry.
I think you're far too cynical about inquiries. The second Francis report into Stafford only occurred because Francis himself (a QC) criticised the terms of reference of the first inquiry he was given. That second report was excellent.
I could also point you at Lord Scarman's report into the Brixton riots back in ?1981? that told some very uncomfortable truths. I daresay there are many other excellent examples.
A technocrat might be able to produce a very good report into the technical failures (then again, a technocrat might have vested interests). He would be much less able to look into the other areas.
I am furious with the calls for heads of inquiries to be replaced. Absolutely furious. It questions the abilities and honesty of those who graciously accept the difficult appointments.
The media that stoke and report on this should be utterly, utterly ashamed of themselves.
[snip] For me, this is less Hillsborough and more Aberfan - the Davies enquiry took 76 days despite the obfuscation of the National Coal Board. Grenfell is our Aberfan and we need to get the enquiry done right, quick and ensure this can never be repeated. [snip]
Yes, the parallels with Aberfan are strong. Both were horrendous tragedies which simply should never have happened.
Your point on the Davies inquiry is an interesting one. We seem to have totally lost the capability to do public inquiries in any reasonable timescale. Too many lawyers, too much TV coverage, too much mission creep, too many people trying to push their own political agendas rather than allowing the inquiry to do its job - which is not to be 'on the side' of the residents, or of anyone else, but to find out what went wrong, and make recommendations to ensure that it won't happen again. In the case of Grenfell, it should be a fairly straightforward inquiry, but I'm quite certain it won't be.
That's why I'd split it up. I'd have one report into the purely technical side. It would look into what happened and what decisions contributed. It would not look into who made those decisions, or why they were made. I'd give it to a well-respected organisation not directly connected with the construction industry: RAIB, MAIB or AAIB would be ideal.
Hopefully this report would give us some immediate actions that can be taken.
We can then take more time into the more human side of the tragedy, including apportioning blame to organisations or individuals..
Time for Hammond to pull something imaginative out of the bag, now it is clear Nurses and Teachers have been getting pay rises above inflation he can give improved pay offers to the low paid Public Sector workers who have no access to incremental increases.
Anybody say under 20k per annum give them inflationary increases for 2 years, got to be a winner surely.
I'm not sure Hammond can win whatever he does or doesn't do.
When you say "now it is clear Nurses and Teachers have been getting pay rises above inflation"
Have they? This is news to me.
Points & bands means that some get bigger pay rises than others some years.
'Staff will normally progress to the next pay point annually until they reach the top of the pay band.'
I assume any nominal pay rise is a rise of all bands ?
I think a solution might be to drop the number of points per band to say three or so. The bands are fine (Those are different jobs after all) but the 'points' within the bands act as pay increases in themselves, I don't see the need for more than 3 per band (I make no comment on the pay points for those points but a 3% gap per point - reflecting 3 years of experience) might be appropriate.
9 points for a band seems excessive to me.
That's a good link, which illustrates the issue well.
Within large areas of the public sector, people 'progress', ofen annually and automatically, in a way that just doesn't happen in the private sector.
Thus a 1% annual rise in every number on the pay scale generates a larger pay increase for the people employed within.
In the large corporates where I worked the automatic increments for 'experience' plus increases in the pay scale were dropped in the 1980s. Instead people got a single percentage increase from 0% to say 5% based on performance assessment. Managers normally had a cap on how many top performers they could award top percentage pay increases.
On the inquiry, the Grenfell residents are entitled to expect empathy from the Prime Minister. From the inquiry chair they should be expecting justice.
If they expect justice, then they should understand that 'justice' means that no individual or organisation might have ultimate blame for what happened. There may have been many individual, small mistakes that led to this tragedy, but none that are criminal or even particularly blameworthy.
I admit that seems unlikely at the moment, but 'justice' invariably needs to be fair to all sides, and not just the victims.
On the inquiry, the Grenfell residents are entitled to expect empathy from the Prime Minister. From the inquiry chair they should be expecting justice.
If the Grenfell residents want to change the terms of reference they should lobby the DCMS.
If they want a different inquiry head they should lobby the Chief Justice.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Morning PtP
I am not sure "underestimated Corbyn" is quite right. All of the criticism of him is valid. What we missed, like Trump, is the mood of the electorate.
Everything said about Trump was true. He won anyway. And now he is demonstrating just how bad everyone knew he would be.
Corbyn would be as bad as everyone thinks. But he might win anyway.
An astute post. It's the only thing that fits all the facts. It's not Corbyn it's the zeitgeist. The same thing that won it for Brexit and won it for Trump. But as everyone knows the zeitgeist can change literally overnight.
If anyone wants a 200 euro bet at even money that Corbyn never becomes Prime Minister speak now.
You think he will or he won't?
He wont
I'll have 20 euro at 2-1 that he will if you'll offer that? Evens isn't tempting to me.
I just watched an old BBC 4 program by Nicholas Parsons (of 'Just a Minute' fame) on clocks, and particularly the Marie Antoinette watch. It turns out that Parsons has loved clocks and watches since he was a child, nearly became an engineer, and restores them.
It's easy to see celebrities as one-dimensional. It's good to see one who has a very deep and very human love for a rather esoteric topic.
I agree with this but to restate my point below that others disagreed with, Sir Martin Moore-Bick should convince the residents that he's on their side and being on their side means getting to the truth. Lawyers have a tendency in my experience of not seeing the wood for the trees. A lot of their work revolves around close interpretation of texts, so it's not surprising. Public inquiries are typically the establishment's expensive and showy way of being seen to address an embarrassing problem while not assigning blame to any individual. This inquiry might be different of course.
How can he get them on his side, when some of them (and those representing them) aren't even giving him a chance? He was criticised the moment his name was announced.
The only conclusion is that such people don't want a fair inquiry.
I think you're far too cynical about inquiries. The second Francis report into Stafford only occurred because Francis himself (a QC) criticised the terms of reference of the first inquiry he was given. That second report was excellent.
I could also point you at Lord Scarman's report into the Brixton riots back in ?1981? that told some very uncomfortable truths. I daresay there are many other excellent examples.
A technocrat might be able to produce a very good report into the technical failures (then again, a technocrat might have vested interests). He would be much less able to look into the other areas.
According to the BBC report the main response at Sir Martin Moore-Bick's uncomfortable meeting with residents was one of scepticism than of outright rejection. That scepticism is understandable and possibly justified. It's up to Sir Martin to prove them wrong. You could argue Sir Martin is their best and only chance of getting to the truth. It's in the residents' interest to go along with it.
Indeed some public inquiries do get to the bottom of the problem. Let's hope this is one. Again that's up to Sir Martin. Unfortunately most are mainly for show.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Morning PtP
I am not sure "underestimated Corbyn" is quite right. All of the criticism of him is valid. What we missed, like Trump, is the mood of the electorate.
Everything said about Trump was true. He won anyway. And now he is demonstrating just how bad everyone knew he would be.
Corbyn would be as bad as everyone thinks. But he might win anyway.
An astute post. It's the only thing that fits all the facts. It's not Corbyn it's the zeitgeist. The same thing that won it for Brexit and won it for Trump. But as everyone knows the zeitgeist can change literally overnight.
If anyone wants a 200 euro bet at even money that Corbyn never becomes Prime Minister speak now.
You think he will or he won't?
He wont
I'll have 20 euro at 2-1 that he will if you'll offer that? Evens isn't tempting to me.
OK.
Great! Is the custom that we pick someone to be the judge/impartial observer?
Corbyn said that in his first two outings after the election was called he was given an impression of many people will turn up. It was double that. Then at the very last minute, a meeting was arranged in Crewe. It could not have been well publicised except through social media. 600 people turned up.
That is when he said he realised "something was happening".
One of our esteemed posters, IanB2 I believe, characterised the current situation elegantly as one in which the Conservatives were buying every day in office with two in opposition. The exchange rate may have changed though. It is starting to look like a one for three deal.
Politics doesn't work like that.
Oh, but sometimes it does. What I was trying to express succinctly was that a discredited government limping along with the electorate counting its days will tend to lose more badly when the day eventually comes, and losing more badly means it will take longer to recover and eventually end its spell in opposition. The dog-end of the Major government illustrates this clearly, with other candidates being Labour prior to 1979 and prior to 2010.
Whether or not this term settles into that pattern remains to be seen, but the signs are that it might. In addition the Tories are of course tied to Brexit, which could see them out of power for a generation if it goes badly and/or the party splits in the process.
One of our esteemed posters, IanB2 I believe, characterised the current situation elegantly as one in which the Conservatives were buying every day in office with two in opposition. The exchange rate may have changed though. It is starting to look like a one for three deal.
Politics doesn't work like that.
Oh, but sometimes it does. What I was trying to express succinctly was that a discredited government limping along with the electorate counting its days will tend to lose more badly when the day eventually comes, and losing more badly means it will take longer to recover and eventually end its spell in opposition. The dog-end of the Major government illustrates this clearly, with other candidates being Labour prior to 1979 and prior to 2010.
Whether or not this term settles into that pattern remains to be seen, but the signs are that it might. In addition the Tories are of course tied to Brexit, which could see them out of power for a generation if it goes badly and/or the party splits in the process.
The Conservatives' problem is not that they are in government. Their problem is that they are being consumed by the flame of Brexit.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Morning PtP
I am not sure "underestimated Corbyn" is quite right. All of the criticism of him is valid. What we missed, like Trump, is the mood of the electorate.
Everything said about Trump was true. He won anyway. And now he is demonstrating just how bad everyone knew he would be.
Corbyn would be as bad as everyone thinks. But he might win anyway.
An astute post. It's the only thing that fits all the facts. It's not Corbyn it's the zeitgeist. The same thing that won it for Brexit and won it for Trump. But as everyone knows the zeitgeist can change literally overnight.
If anyone wants a 200 euro bet at even money that Corbyn never becomes Prime Minister speak now.
You think he will or he won't?
He wont
I'll have 20 euro at 2-1 that he will if you'll offer that? Evens isn't tempting to me.
OK.
Great! Is the custom that we pick someone to be the judge/impartial observer?
I've got a question for the pb tories, I suspect until you're able to answer it the party will continue to flounder.
Whether or not I agree with Corbyn I know exactly what he stands for: what does Mrs May's Conservative Party believe in?
Serious question.
As JRM spotted during the QS debate, it stands for 'Safety First' - which is not enough for enough of the electorate to secure a majority. Contrastingly, it is apparently enough to stop Corbyn winning when he is the alternative.
One of our esteemed posters, IanB2 I believe, characterised the current situation elegantly as one in which the Conservatives were buying every day in office with two in opposition. The exchange rate may have changed though. It is starting to look like a one for three deal.
But the Party isn't dumb. It can see the main problem. I expect May to be out by Conference, probably to be replaced by Hammond. He won't turn fortunes around but he should, as you suggest, stop the bleeding.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Has anybody suggested policies to them?
If the Conservative isn't dumb, then the last thing they would do is replace May with Hammond.
If the Tories want to start winning voters from the centre which they need to have any hope at the next election there is no alternative to Hammond.
Rudd, her own constituency notwithstanding. OK she is a posho, but she was a spirited remainer, and has an ear for people.
Or it's a known unknown off the back benches (Boles, Herbert, etc).
I like her but If the Tories go for a woman they expect to see nothing but her masculine side. Think Iron Lady ...Balls of Steel...Bloody Difficult Woman etc. That's not Amber Rudd
How is Rudd any different ? She does not come across as a softie. The way she felled Boris in a TV debate demonstrates that.
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
Morning PtP
I am not sure "underestimated Corbyn" is quite right. All of the criticism of him is valid. What we missed, like Trump, is the mood of the electorate.
Everything said about Trump was true. He won anyway. And now he is demonstrating just how bad everyone knew he would be.
Corbyn would be as bad as everyone thinks. But he might win anyway.
An astute post. It's the only thing that fits all the facts. It's not Corbyn it's the zeitgeist. The same thing that won it for Brexit and won it for Trump. But as everyone knows the zeitgeist can change literally overnight.
If anyone wants a 200 euro bet at even money that Corbyn never becomes Prime Minister speak now.
You think he will or he won't?
He wont
I'll have 20 euro at 2-1 that he will if you'll offer that? Evens isn't tempting to me.
OK.
Great! Is the custom that we pick someone to be the judge/impartial observer?
The problem of Corbyn remains, however, as you indicate. Like many here, I vastly underestimated him and it appears obvious the Conservatives did too. All manner of attacks have failed. They need to try a new line.
What attacks? There was absolutely no attempt by the Tories in the election campaign to attack Corbybn's near-insane economic policies, and to point out quite how much they would impoverish voters. There was hardly any attempt to go for him on his weakness on terrorism and defence. There was absolutely no attempt to counter the ludicrous claim by his supporters that he's a man who sticks to his principles, in contrast to Theresa May.
We kept waiting for the attacks. They never happened, and that, above all, was the principal failure of the Conservative campaign. They - or at least Theresa May - must have thought that the more people heard Corbyn, the more they'd understand how utterly unsuitable he is for high office. The problem with that was that there was zero scrutiny of what he was saying.
You must have missed the campaign. And certainly you did not see the video which Carlotta regularly updated us on how many people had viewed it. Last count was 5m.
I've got a question for the pb tories, I suspect until you're able to answer it the party will continue to flounder.
Whether or not I agree with Corbyn I know exactly what he stands for: what does Mrs May's Conservative Party believe in?
Serious question.
Sound government, of course.
You see this is the problem, until its addressed they're going nowhere. No political party ever has campaigned on unsound govt. Soundbites aren't enough.
Immigration? Grammar schools? Fox hunting? Public sector pay? Deficit reduction?
On Corbyn, a few thoughts, trying to be dispassionate:
- The polls don't show that he's more popular than Labour. There are still a significant number of voters with doubts. May is still marginally ahead as best PM. - More than any other politician at the moment, he inspires genuine affection and enthusiasm in a lot of people - the 35% or so who like him mostly *really* like him. That doesn't necessarily transfer to anyone else, so the left would be mistaken to think they can just swap him for another leftie and get the same result. - He's proved amply that he doesn't fall apart or lash out wildly under fire. Voters do respect that - it's one of several important characteristics in a PM. He seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable. - Trials by fire don't repeat in the same form. "They're all bonkers Trots who like terrorists" largely flopped, and will flop again. I gather the Tories will try "Their spending policies will ruin the economy" instead, but their own bung to the DUP and open debate about breaching the pay cap are undermining that. People don't really follow the details, but they do feel that if we're going to spend billions, let it be on something useful in Britain, not on motorways in Armagh. - A more subtle issue is that the Tories essentially concede that the spending would be nice if we could afford it. The small-state case is being quietly abandoned, and I'm not sure the Tories can win without it.
Comments
Low taxes, light regulation and small state is a vision. But to the dismay of many on here - it doesn't seem to be the TM vision.
But Brexit has its own logic and its own momentum: if it makes sense for Britain and the EU to co-operate on issues such as defence, trade, patents and scientific research, then a deal is likely. That is not blind hope, but what is happening already.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/the-quiet-successes-of-brexit/
This card-playing analogy is working out well.
He will be found out. It's a question of when, not if.
We kept waiting for the attacks. They never happened, and that, above all, was the principal failure of the Conservative campaign. They - or at least Theresa May - must have thought that the more people heard Corbyn, the more they'd understand how utterly unsuitable he is for high office. The problem with that was that there was zero scrutiny of what he was saying.
The residents aren't being entirely rational, but people with empathy will understand that.
He simply isn't very bright.
Corbyn has the rhetoric, the beard, the initials, and the charisma. So that's alright then.
Britain could be taken as shorthand for the British Isles in which case.....
It would have been great if his policy proposals had been scrutinised properly during the elction, I agree, but it's hardly his fault if they weren't. Nor mine!
My €0.02?
If we could wake up tomorrow morning with another Cons leader I would be happy. But not if that was The Moggster, or even DD, or...or...
Which means that there won't be a coronation next time, and it will, rightly, be a fight. Which means several months, which means huge disruption at a time when, regardless of your view of their competence, the govt needs to be fully focused on Brexit.
So post-Mar 2019 for me. Plus, I think @Charles mentioned they would go earlier than full term "if the polls looked good."
To which I say: ha haha hahahahahaha hahahahahaha.
I cannot see anyone, especially this set of Cons, going to the polls earlier than they absolutely have to.
It's amazing that someone with your intelligence has been taken in by this charlatan.
I despair.
Where you have a point is on the economy, where the Tories didn't lay any blows - because they couldn't, having abandoned their approach to the economy in preference to pursuing the political goal of Brexit. If you don't cost your own proposals, because they don't add up, opportunity to fault your opponents for the same failings is limited.
I'm sure they were both surprised by the strength of reaction to their well-intentioned actions, which in itself indicates the kind of lack of empathy likely to make their jobs difficult for them.
Total fucking idiots who deserve a hot poker up the arse and to beg for penance for the rest of their lives.
Or it's a known unknown off the back benches (Boles, Herbert, etc).
There may be several sides to the inquiry: there should be a highly technical study of what went wrong and why: from how the fire started to why it spread so quickly.
Then there will be the decisions that led to those events happening: from the choice of cladding to the reasons behind the evacuation method decided upon, or the reactions of the firefighters on the night.
Then there might also be a very human aspect on the victims and how they died.
It might be best if these were somewhat separated. As I've argued passim, give the technical side to a team from RAIB or AAIB who produce excellent reports into highly technical failures, and won't have any skin in the game. I don't have full confidence in the BRE and other organisations in relation to this matter.
But we need the truth, and to ensure that something similar doesn't happen again.
It's entirely possible that's decades away. The Conservatives aren't the least bit interested yet in moving beyond Brexit as a topic of discussion.
Both Tezza and Hammond score zero on this test.
The lesson - for the Conservatives and indeed other parties - is that you should always go on the offensive, treat every election as a close one, and take nothing for granted.
As for the attacks in the press on Corbyn's terrorist sympathies, I thought they were extremely mild given the reality. This is a man whose has been on the side of Britain's, and especially the United States', enemies thoughout his career. McDonnell's record is even worse. I don't think that most voters were made aware of this; not everyone reads the Daily Mail.
Brexit is massively important, but it's hardly the only issue facing the country. Corbyn, perhaps because of his own divided loyalties and party on the issue, is concentrating his fire elsewhere. And that is a large part of why he is doing well.
Can you imagine Corbyn chairing a COBRA meeting, being asked to respond to a security threat, acting on intelligence, or determining what to do regarding an emerging international incident?
His first (and only thought) would be: what have the US and UK done to bring about this situation, and how can I condemn it and empathise with those who threaten us?
The man would get people killed.
https://twitter.com/jayceebrownbook/status/882663340060942336
https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/about/careers-nhs/nhs-pay-and-benefits/agenda-change-pay-rates
'Staff will normally progress to the next pay point annually until they reach the top of the pay band.'
I assume any nominal pay rise is a rise of all bands ?
I think a solution might be to drop the number of points per band to say three or so. The bands are fine (Those are different jobs after all) but the 'points' within the bands act as pay increases in themselves, I don't see the need for more than 3 per band (I make no comment on the pay points for those points but a 3% gap per point - reflecting 3 years of experience) might be appropriate.
9 points for a band seems excessive to me.
In the unlikely event it wasn't said yesterday whilst I was traveling Root is a god.
If anyone wants a 200 euro bet at even money that Corbyn never becomes Prime Minister speak now.
True, not everyone reads the Daily Mail, and not everyone believes it either!
I gotta go. Catch you later.
I also think TM went on about the economy plenty just not as much as Dave.
Her catchphrase was strong and stable leadership, not long term economic plan.
The inquiry is there to find out the truth, not to give the residents a shoulder to cry on. Their demands to be rehoused immediately at taxpayers expense in central London are already grating.
As a coda; the change in approach from the SNP these past few months has been really interesting. Support them or not, they were always a serious party of government. But their crouching defensiveness over the sort of stuff they would have simply brushed off a couple of years ago has been remarkable to observe. The effort that must be involved in being so furious all the time must be exhausting.
Seamus Mag Aonghusa and Maybot's genuflections before the Saudis are worse than anything JC did with Hamas.
Plenty to chew over this morning it seems.
From what I could see or hear, the concerns many have about the Grenfell Tower enquiry is that ultimately those who were responsible and those in authority over them will not be held accountable which means the judicial process and the threat of conviction and incarceration.
For me, this is less Hillsborough and more Aberfan - the Davies enquiry took 76 days despite the obfuscation of the National Coal Board. Grenfell is our Aberfan and we need to get the enquiry done right, quick and ensure this can never be repeated.
Another day, another set of speculation over who should lead the Conservative Party and the usual side-swipes from the usual suspects about how bad Corbyn is or would be. I alluded to the analogy with Harold Wilson during the GE campaign (I'm overdoing the 60s analogies today, I think).
I'll be honest - I like Corbyn. I saw a video he did thanking public sector workers for their work at Manchester, Grenfell, London Bridge and of course Finsbury Park (in his constituency). The delivery was a little off but the warmth was such a contrast to May. Let's not forget Thatcher could do warmth (sparingly but when it was deployed it was so much more effective) and I'm sure May isn't a cold person in private and probably tells a mean "knock knock" joke but the attempts at informality don't come easily to her it seems.
I'll also be honest and admit I have my reservations about Corbyn as Prime Minister. To follow the Wilson analogy a little further, the reality of 21st Century Cabinet Government is that it's more presidential and less collegiate than in Wilson's day. I suspect "the power" will lie elsewhere.
Do I think Corbyn's leadership will turn Britain into a Venezulean-style dystopia within a few months ? No. Do I think people will be tired of the Conservatives in 2022 after 12 years of Government ? If still led by May, yes, but a 1990-style reinvention might work but it would require an unknown or someone completely disassociated from what has gone before.
Within large areas of the public sector, people 'progress', ofen annually and automatically, in a way that just doesn't happen in the private sector.
Thus a 1% annual rise in every number on the pay scale generates a larger pay increase for the people employed within.
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/882923417229553666
Your point on the Davies inquiry is an interesting one. We seem to have totally lost the capability to do public inquiries in any reasonable timescale. Too many lawyers, too much TV coverage, too much mission creep, too many people trying to push their own political agendas rather than allowing the inquiry to do its job - which is not to be 'on the side' of the residents, or of anyone else, but to find out what went wrong, and make recommendations to ensure that it won't happen again. In the case of Grenfell, it should be a fairly straightforward inquiry, but I'm quite certain it won't be.
A divisive leadership challenge will just get in the way of any recovery. There is no messiah leader waiting in the wings.
The only conclusion is that such people don't want a fair inquiry.
I think you're far too cynical about inquiries. The second Francis report into Stafford only occurred because Francis himself (a QC) criticised the terms of reference of the first inquiry he was given. That second report was excellent.
I could also point you at Lord Scarman's report into the Brixton riots back in ?1981? that told some very uncomfortable truths. I daresay there are many other excellent examples.
A technocrat might be able to produce a very good report into the technical failures (then again, a technocrat might have vested interests). He would be much less able to look into the other areas.
The inquiry is in any event going to come down to the close interpretation of texts. There will, I can guarantee, be at least four incompatible expert reports on the technicalities (how fire started, how it spread) each of them as long as a novel and a lot less comprehensible. If Moore Bick did hull insurance work at the bar (he seems to have been more a cargo kinda guy) he will know his way round such documents.
Evens isn't tempting to me.
https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=ulJfWfnmMrPHXuq3ubgI&gws_rd=ssl#q=Ten+ways+HMRC+can+tell+if+you’re+a+tax+cheat
The media that stoke and report on this should be utterly, utterly ashamed of themselves.
Hopefully this report would give us some immediate actions that can be taken.
We can then take more time into the more human side of the tragedy, including apportioning blame to organisations or individuals..
Amber Rudd leading the Conservatives Emily Thornberry leading Labour and Jo Swinson leading the Lib Dems.
Genuine choice and the losers wouldn't scare the horses.
I admit that seems unlikely at the moment, but 'justice' invariably needs to be fair to all sides, and not just the victims.
If they want a different inquiry head they should lobby the Chief Justice.
This needs pointing out to them.
I just watched an old BBC 4 program by Nicholas Parsons (of 'Just a Minute' fame) on clocks, and particularly the Marie Antoinette watch. It turns out that Parsons has loved clocks and watches since he was a child, nearly became an engineer, and restores them.
It's easy to see celebrities as one-dimensional. It's good to see one who has a very deep and very human love for a rather esoteric topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Antoinette_(watch)
Indeed some public inquiries do get to the bottom of the problem. Let's hope this is one. Again that's up to Sir Martin. Unfortunately most are mainly for show.
Is the custom that we pick someone to be the judge/impartial observer?
That is when he said he realised "something was happening".
Whether or not this term settles into that pattern remains to be seen, but the signs are that it might. In addition the Tories are of course tied to Brexit, which could see them out of power for a generation if it goes badly and/or the party splits in the process.
Whether or not I agree with Corbyn I know exactly what he stands for: what does Mrs May's Conservative Party believe in?
Serious question.
We can't just be 'Unionists who are just a little bit less chavvy than the DUP' and hope to prosper.
Immigration?
Grammar schools?
Fox hunting?
Public sector pay?
Deficit reduction?
Its all about headlines, nothing else.