They sound rather sanctimonious on the 4 freedoms, ignoring the fact Germany put transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries from 2004 to 2011 unlike the UK
While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....
It all depends on who is perceived to be the cause - if, as I suspect, the EU demand 60-100 billion exit bill the mood of the Country could very quickly become anti EU
But it would be a kind of impotent rage. It's all very well whipping up anti-EU feeling but we have limited time to make some serious choices and many of the people in the Cabinet campaigned to put us in this position.
Who is whipping up anti EU feeling other than the EU with idiotic ransom demands. It is to be hoped Barnier has more sense then to go down that road - it will end in tears for the EU as much as the UK and could start the most damaging row within the EU themselves.
I and indeed everyone on here knows you are a disciple of all things EU but even you must see immense danger to Europe in all this
The EU cannot allow the UK to retain any of the benefits of EU membership after it has left the EU, even if this means short to medium term pain for itself. Allowing such freeloading would encourage other countries to do the same and ultimately lead to the demise of the EU. This is why there will be few concessions from the EU, even if it costs them dearly to begin with.
They sound rather sanctimonious on the 4 freedoms, ignoring the fact Germany put transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries from 2004 to 2011 unlike the UK
While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....
It all depends on who is perceived to be the cause - if, as I suspect, the EU demand 60-100 billion exit bill the mood of the Country could very quickly become anti EU
But it would be a kind of impotent rage. It's all very well whipping up anti-EU feeling but we have limited time to make some serious choices and many of the people in the Cabinet campaigned to put us in this position.
Who is whipping up anti EU feeling other than the EU with idiotic ransom demands. It is to be hoped Barnier has more sense then to go down that road - it will end in tears for the EU as much as the UK and could start the most damaging row within the EU themselves.
I and indeed everyone on here knows you are a disciple of all things EU but even you must see immense danger to Europe in all this
The EU cannot allow the UK to retain any of the benefits of EU membership after it has left the EU, even if this means short to medium term pain for itself. Allowing such freeloading would encourage other countries to do the same and ultimately lead to the demise of the EU. This is why there will be few concessions from the EU, even if it costs them dearly to begin with.
I wonder if Nigel Lawson was right about this when he said don't even bother negotiating as the EU won't give anything. It really is IN or OUT.
While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....
It all depends on who is perceived to be the cause - if, as I suspect, the EU demand 60-100 billion exit bill the mood of the Country could very quickly become anti EU
But it would be a kind of impotent rage. It's all very well whipping up anti-EU feeling but we have limited time to make some serious choices and many of the people in the Cabinet campaigned to put us in this position.
Who is whipping up anti EU feeling other than the EU with idiotic ransom demands. It is to be hoped Barnier has more sense then to go down that road - it will end in tears for the EU as much as the UK and could start the most damaging row within the EU themselves.
I and indeed everyone on here knows you are a disciple of all things EU but even you must see immense danger to Europe in all this
The EU cannot allow the UK to retain any of the benefits of EU membership after it has left the EU, even if this means short to medium term pain for itself. Allowing such freeloading would encourage other countries to do the same and ultimately lead to the demise of the EU. This is why there will be few concessions from the EU, even if it costs them dearly to begin with.
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was Blair
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GE
IMHO, Blair rather than Kinnock was one difference between 1997 and 1992 but not as influential as 1. the economy (following the EMF debacle), 2. the expenses scandle, and 3. voters just wanting a change after 18 years of Tory rule.
In 1992 there was a recession and the Tories won, in 1997 the economy was growing and the Tories lost. Do not underestimate the anti Kinnock vote in 1992.
Well, maybe you're right.
A month ago I was convinced Labour would get all but wiped out at the GE and would never succeed unless they adopted a Blairite candidate to capture the centre ground...
Now there seems every possiblilty that Corbyn can win with an unashamedly left programme. Who have thought it eh?
He may but the cost of his policies are coming under increasing scrutiny and debate unlike at the GE. Indeed I can hardly believe I have said that because allowing Corbyn off without any debate on his so called costed manifesto beggars belief.
It will not happen next time - in fact I would expect it to be at the centre of the whole campaign
The Tories and the Tory press did not focus on Jezza's spending programme because there was nothing much to go at there. If their 'so-called' (as you put it) costing had been riddled with holes you can be sure the Tories and r/w press would have banged on about it endlessly. As it was, it was the Tories who pledged £8bn for the NHS without explaining where it was coming from.
Labour were open, they plan to spend and tax more. Could it be that neoliberalism has had its day in this country?
While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....
Why? Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard Brexit
How do you know that??
As that was the Tory platform, if not they were staunchly anti Corbyn anyway
In other words you're guessing
The strange thing was Brexit hardly figured in the GE campaign... partly because Labour chose not to contest
I am not guessing in the sense that every poll on Brexit after the EU referendum has shown a majority of Tory voters back hard Brexit
I am not sure which polls you mean. I'd be interest to see one that supported your view that Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard Brexit
While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....
Why? Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard Brexit
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was Blair
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GE
IMHO, Blair rather than Kinnock was one difference between 1997 and 1992 but not as influential as 1. the economy (following the EMF debacle), 2. the expenses scandle, and 3. voters just wanting a change after 18 years of Tory rule.
In 1992 there was a recession and the Tories won, in 1997 the economy was growing and the Tories lost. Do not underestimate the anti Kinnock vote in 1992.
Well, maybe you're right.
A month ago I was convinced Labour would get all but wiped out at the GE and would never succeed unless they adopted a Blairite candidate to capture the centre ground...
Now there seems every possiblilty that Corbyn can win with an unashamedly left programme. Who have thought it eh?
He may but the cost of his policies are coming under increasing scrutiny and debate unlike at the GE. Indeed I can hardly believe I have said that because allowing Corbyn off without any debate on his so called costed manifesto beggars belief.
It will not happen next time - in fact I would expect it to be at the centre of the whole campaign
The Tories and the Tory press did not focus on Jezza's spending programme because there was nothing much to go at there. If their 'so-called' (as you put it) costing had been riddled with holes you can be sure the Tories and r/w press would have banged on about it endlessly. As it was, it was the Tories who pledged £8bn for the NHS without explaining where it was coming from.
Labour were open, they plan to spend and tax more. Could it be that neoliberalism has had its day in this country?
The 8 billion was in the previous budget. Labour's proposals have been roundly condemned by the IFS and Theresa May's mistake was not to allow Hammond to take the tax and borrowing proposals apart.
It is beginning to happen. Labour did not even cost the 40 billion needed to cancel the public sector pay freeze or the tens of billions needed for social care.
They sound rather sanctimonious on the 4 freedoms, ignoring the fact Germany put transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries from 2004 to 2011 unlike the UK
The transitional period cut both ways. The accession states also put controls on free movement of capital in some sectors to allow their economies to adjust, but once a transition is complete it cannot be undone.
It was free movement of labour and people without controls from Eastern Europe which ultimately produced the Brexit vote, there is no reason at all the UK cannot put the controls on free movement it was entitled to but Blair refused to for 7 years just as Germany did, even if that means some restrictions on UK capital being sent to Eastern Europe in response
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was Blair
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GE
IMHO, Blair rather than Kinnock was one difference between 1997 and 1992 but not as influential as 1. the economy (following the EMF debacle), 2. the expenses scandle, and 3. voters just wanting a change after 18 years of Tory rule.
In 1992 there was a recession and the Tories won, in 1997 the economy was growing and the Tories lost. Do not underestimate the anti Kinnock vote in 1992.
Well, maybe you're right.
A month ago I was convinced Labour would get all but wiped out at the GE and would never succeed unless they adopted a Blairite candidate to capture the centre ground...
Now there seems every possiblilty that Corbyn can win with an unashamedly left programme. Who have thought it eh?
He may but the cost of his policies are coming under increasing scrutiny and debate unlike at the GE. Indeed I can hardly believe I have said that because allowing Corbyn off without any debate on his so called costed manifesto beggars belief.
It will not happen next time - in fact I would expect it to be at the centre of the whole campaign
The Tories and the Tory press did not focus on Jezza's spending programme because there was nothing much to go at there. If their 'so-called' (as you put it) costing had been riddled with holes you can be sure the Tories and r/w press would have banged on about it endlessly. As it was, it was the Tories who pledged £8bn for the NHS without explaining where it was coming from.
Labour were open, they plan to spend and tax more. Could it be that neoliberalism has had its day in this country?
The costings and tax revenue estimates were totally unrealistic. The key trick, or honest delusion, take your pick, was to assume that economic behaviour like investing would not be affected by big tax rate changes. Lots of growth was assumed and re-nationalisation costs were not included. There was also a big commitment to massively increase the deficit for "investment". Again the implied assumption was that lenders would be to happy to lend at current interest rates despite an almost certain loss of confidence.
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was Blair
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GE
In 1992 there was a recession and the Tories won, in 1997 the economy was growing and the Tories lost. Do not underestimate the anti Kinnock vote in 1992.
Well, maybe you're right.
A month ago I was convinced Labour would get all but wiped out at the GE and would never succeed unless they adopted a Blairite candidate to capture the centre ground...
Now there seems every possiblilty that Corbyn can win with an unashamedly left programme. Who have thought it eh?
He may but the cost of his policies are coming under increasing scrutiny and debate unlike at the GE. Indeed I can hardly believe I have said that because allowing Corbyn off without any debate on his so called costed manifesto beggars belief.
It will not happen next time - in fact I would expect it to be at the centre of the whole campaign
The Tories and the Tory press did not focus on Jezza's spending programme because there was nothing much to go at there. If their 'so-called' (as you put it) costing had been riddled with holes you can be sure the Tories and r/w press would have banged on about it endlessly. As it was, it was the Tories who pledged £8bn for the NHS without explaining where it was coming from.
Labour were open, they plan to spend and tax more. Could it be that neoliberalism has had its day in this country?
The 8 billion was in the previous budget. Labour's proposals have been roundly condemned by the IFS and Theresa May's mistake was not to allow Hammond to take the tax and borrowing proposals apart.
It is beginning to happen. Labour did not even cost the 40 billion needed to cancel the public sector pay freeze or the tens of billions needed for social care.
We've had this discussion before about the "£40bn" to remove the public sector pay freeze... It would only cost £40bn over the term of the parliament if inflation averaged above 3.5% and even then it would not be additional spending in real terms, it's just a a reflection of inflation
In any event, the Tories will be quietly adopting that particular policy by the autumn
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....
It all depends on who is perceived to be the cause - if, as I suspect, the EU demand 60-100 billion exit bill the mood of the Country could very quickly become anti EU
But it would be a kind of impotent rage. It's all very well whipping up anti-EU feeling but we have limited time to make some serious choices and many of the people in the Cabinet campaigned to put us in this position.
Who is whipping up anti EU feeling other than the EU with idiotic ransom demands. It is to be hoped Barnier has more sense then to go down that road - it will end in tears for the EU as much as the UK and could start the most damaging row within the EU themselves.
I and indeed everyone on here knows you are a disciple of all things EU but even you must see immense danger to Europe in all this
The EU cannot allow the UK to retain any of the benefits of EU membership after it has left the EU, even if this means short to medium term pain for itself. Allowing such freeloading would encourage other countries to do the same and ultimately lead to the demise of the EU. This is why there will be few concessions from the EU, even if it costs them dearly to begin with.
I wonder if Nigel Lawson was right about this when he said don't even bother negotiating as the EU won't give anything. It really is IN or OUT.
Quite probably. Also, we shouldn't expect German car manufacturers to come riding to the rescue. While they might make a few noises about the need for free trade with the UK, German companies are well-known for their ability to take a long-term view. For them, the survival of the EU as a whole is ultimately of greater importance than the loss of some trade with the UK.
He may but the cost of his policies are coming under increasing scrutiny and debate unlike at the GE. Indeed I can hardly believe I have said that because allowing Corbyn off without any debate on his so called costed manifesto beggars belief.
It will not happen next time - in fact I would expect it to be at the centre of the whole campaign
The Tories and the Tory press did not focus on Jezza's spending programme because there was nothing much to go at there. If their 'so-called' (as you put it) costing had been riddled with holes you can be sure the Tories and r/w press would have banged on about it endlessly. As it was, it was the Tories who pledged £8bn for the NHS without explaining where it was coming from.
Labour were open, they plan to spend and tax more. Could it be that neoliberalism has had its day in this country?
The 8 billion was in the previous budget. Labour's proposals have been roundly condemned by the IFS and Theresa May's mistake was not to allow Hammond to take the tax and borrowing proposals apart.
It is beginning to happen. Labour did not even cost the 40 billion needed to cancel the public sector pay freeze or the tens of billions needed for social care.
We've had this discussion before about the "£40bn" to remove the public sector pay freeze... It would only cost £40bn over the term of the parliament if inflation averaged above 3.5% and even then it would not be additional spending in real terms, it's just a a reflection of inflation
In any event, the Tories will be quietly adopting that particular policy by the autumn
Maybe but if they do it will be properly costed and not mickey mouse money
While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....
It all depends on who is perceived to be the cause - if, as I suspect, the EU demand 60-100 billion exit bill the mood of the Country could very quickly become anti EU
But it would be a kind of impotent rage. It's all very well whipping up anti-EU feeling but we have limited time to make some serious choices and many of the people in the Cabinet campaigned to put us in this position.
Who is whipping up anti EU feeling other than the EU with idiotic ransom demands. It is to be hop I and indeed everyone on here knows you are a disciple of all things EU but even you must see immense danger to Europe in all this
The EU cannot allow the UK to retain any of the benefits of EU membership after it has left the EU, even if this means short to medium term pain for itself. Allowing such freeloading would encourage other countries to do the same and ultimately lead to the demise of the EU. This is why there will be few concessions from the EU, even if it costs them dearly to begin with.
I wonder if Nigel Lawson was right about this when he said don't even bother negotiating as the EU won't give anything. It really is IN or OUT.
There is no such thing as soft Brexit, only Brexit and no Brexit. Tusk stated it last October, and Barnier repeated it this week.
Why some Britons are so keen to ignore this clear and consistent position, I do not know. A few on the Tory right like JRM seem of the same opinion, but the others simply do not seem to be listening.
While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....
It all depends on who is perceived to be the cause - if, as I suspect, the EU demand 60-100 billion exit bill the mood of the Country could very quickly become anti EU
But it would be a kind of impotent rage. It's all very well whipping up anti-EU feeling but we have limited time to make some serious choices and many of the people in the Cabinet campaigned to put us in this position.
Who is whipping up anti EU feeling other than the EU with idiotic ransom demands. It is to be hop I and indeed everyone on here knows you are a disciple of all things EU but even you must see immense danger to Europe in all this
The EU cannot allow the UK to retain any of the benefits of EU membership after it has left the EU, even if this means short to medium term pain for itself. Allowing such freeloading would encourage other countries to do the same and ultimately lead to the demise of the EU. This is why there will be few concessions from the EU, even if it costs them dearly to begin with.
I wonder if Nigel Lawson was right about this when he said don't even bother negotiating as the EU won't give anything. It really is IN or OUT.
There is no such thing as soft Brexit, only Brexit and no Brexit. Tusk stated it last October, and Barnier repeated it this week.
Why some Britons are so keen to ignore this clear and consistent position, I do not know. A few on the Tory right like JRM seem of the same opinion, but the others simply do not seem to be listening.
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....
It all depends on who is perceived to be the cause - if, as I suspect, the EU demand 60-100 billion exit bill the mood of the Country could very quickly become anti EU
But it would be a kind of impotent rage. It's all very well whipping up anti-EU feeling but we have limited time to make some serious choices and many of the people in the Cabinet campaigned to put us in this position.
Who is whipping up anti EU feeling other than the EU with idiotic ransom demands. It is to be hoped Barnier has more sense then to go down that road - it will end in tears for the EU as much as the UK and could start the most damaging row within the EU themselves.
I and indeed everyone on here knows you are a disciple of all things EU but even you must see immense danger to Europe in all this
The EU cannot allow the UK to retain any of the benefits of EU membership after it has left the EU, even if this means short to medium term pain for itself. Allowing such freeloading would encourage other countries to do the same and ultimately lead to the demise of the EU. This is why there will be few concessions from the EU, even if it costs them dearly to begin with.
I wonder if Nigel Lawson was right about this when he said don't even bother negotiating as the EU won't give anything. It really is IN or OUT.
Quite probably. Also, we shouldn't expect German car manufacturers to come riding to the rescue. While they might make a few noises about the need for free trade with the UK, German companies are well-known for their ability to take a long-term view. For them, the survival of the EU as a whole is ultimately of greater importance than the loss of some trade with the UK.
Assuming we do end up with either a hard brexit or a 'no deal' exit (is there a difference?) what will happen to the border with Ireland? I can't get my head around a hard brexit but soft Irish border - and will the DUP support anthyng that introduces a hard Irish boarder?
He may but the cost of his policies are coming under increasing scrutiny and debate unlike at the GE. Indeed I can hardly believe I have said that because allowing Corbyn off without any debate on his so called costed manifesto beggars belief.
It will not happen next time - in fact I would expect it to be at the centre of the whole campaign
The Tories and the Tory press did not focus on Jezza's spending programme because there was nothing much to go at there. If their 'so-called' (as you put it) costing had been riddled with holes you can be sure the Tories and r/w press would have banged on about it endlessly. As it was, it was the Tories who pledged £8bn for the NHS without explaining where it was coming from.
Labour were open, they plan to spend and tax more. Could it be that neoliberalism has had its day in this country?
The 8 billion was in the previous budget. Labour's proposals have been roundly condemned by the IFS and Theresa May's mistake was not to allow Hammond to take the tax and borrowing proposals apart.
It is beginning to happen. Labour did not even cost the 40 billion needed to cancel the public sector pay freeze or the tens of billions needed for social care.
We've had this discussion before about the "£40bn" to remove the public sector pay freeze... It would only cost £40bn over the term of the parliament if inflation averaged above 3.5% and even then it would not be additional spending in real terms, it's just a a reflection of inflation
In any event, the Tories will be quietly adopting that particular policy by the autumn
Maybe but if they do it will be properly costed and not mickey mouse money
I think what you are saying is only the Tories can run the economy because only the Tories can run the economy. By the time of the next election I've a feeling that argument won't wash with the majority.
He may but the cost of his policies are coming under increasing scrutiny and debate unlike at the GE. Indeed I can hardly believe I have said that because allowing Corbyn off without any debate on his so called costed manifesto beggars belief.
It will not happen next time - in fact I would expect it to be at the centre of the whole campaign
The Tories and the Tory press did not focus on Jezza's spending programme because there was nothing much to go at there. If their 'so-called' (as you put it) costing had been riddled with holes you can be sure the Tories and r/w press would have banged on about it endlessly. As it was, it was the Tories who pledged £8bn for the NHS without explaining where it was coming from.
Labour were open, they plan to spend and tax more. Could it be that neoliberalism has had its day in this country?
The 8 billion was in the previous budget. Labour's proposals have been roundly condemned by the IFS and Theresa May's mistake was not to allow Hammond to take the tax and borrowing proposals apart.
It is beginning to happen. Labour did not even cost the 40 billion needed to cancel the public sector pay freeze or the tens of billions needed for social care.
We've had this discussion before about the "£40bn" to remove the public sector pay freeze... It would only cost £40bn over the term of the parliament if inflation averaged above 3.5% and even then it would not be additional spending in real terms, it's just a a reflection of inflation
In any event, the Tories will be quietly adopting that particular policy by the autumn
Maybe but if they do it will be properly costed and not mickey mouse money
I think what you are saying is only the Tories can run the economy because only the Tories can run the economy. By the time of the next election I've a feeling that argument won't wash with the majority.
While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....
It all depends on who is perceived to be the cause - if, as I suspect, the EU demand 60-100 billion exit bill the mood of the Country could very quickly become anti EU
But it would be a kind of impotent rage. It's all very well whipping up anti-EU feeling but we have limited time to make some serious choices and many of the people in the Cabinet campaigned to put us in this position.
Who is whipping up anti EU feeling other than the EU with idiotic ransom demands. It is to be hop I and indeed everyone on here knows you are a disciple of all things EU but even you must see immense danger to Europe in all this
The EU cannot allow the UK to retain any of the benefits of EU membership after it has left the EU, even if this means short to medium term pain for itself. Allowing such freeloading would encourage other countries to do the same and ultimately lead to the demise of the EU. This is why there will be few concessions from the EU, even if it costs them dearly to begin with.
I wonder if Nigel Lawson was right about this when he said don't even bother negotiating as the EU won't give anything. It really is IN or OUT.
There is no such thing as soft Brexit, only Brexit and no Brexit. Tusk stated it last October, and Barnier repeated it this week.
Why some Britons are so keen to ignore this clear and consistent position, I do not know. A few on the Tory right like JRM seem of the same opinion, but the others simply do not seem to be listening.
There is no such thing as soft Brexit, only Brexit and no Brexit. Tusk stated it last October, and Barnier repeated it this week.
Why some Britons are so keen to ignore this clear and consistent position, I do not know. A few on the Tory right like JRM seem of the same opinion, but the others simply do not seem to be listening.
Soft Brexit is an option - Tusk and Barnier are simply stating that it is impossible according to current Tory red lines on FoM.
If the EU said we could stop FoM there wouldn't even have been a day's discussion over whether to stay in the EEA or not. Of course, immigration undeniably played a large part in the leave vote, but so did £350mil for the NHS, and no one is talking about the importance of that in delivering Brexit. We are limiting our options unnecessarily.
If the EU said we could stop FoM there wouldn't even have been a day's discussion over whether to stay in the EEA or not.
Oh I think there would. Most of the Tory Brexiteers care about 'sovereignty', not immigration and being in the EEA would not satisfy them one bit.
No, interestingly Survation has a plurality of Tories wanting to stay in the customs union, it is only the single market they oppose staying in because the EU will not budge one inch on FoM controls
There is no such thing as soft Brexit, only Brexit and no Brexit. Tusk stated it last October, and Barnier repeated it this week.
Why some Britons are so keen to ignore this clear and consistent position, I do not know. A few on the Tory right like JRM seem of the same opinion, but the others simply do not seem to be listening.
Soft Brexit is an option - Tusk and Barnier are simply stating that it is impossible according to current Tory red lines on FoM.
If the EU said we could stop FoM there wouldn't even have been a day's discussion over whether to stay in the EEA or not. Of course, immigration undeniably played a large part in the leave vote, but so did £350mil for the NHS, and no one is talking about the importance of that in delivering Brexit. We are limiting our options unnecessarily.
As Alistair Meek's chart recently showed us it was immigration which was by far and away the no 1 issue for Leave voters
While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....
It all depends on who is perceived to be the cause - if, as I suspect, the EU demand 60-100 billion exit bill the mood of the Country could very quickly become anti EU
But it would be a kind of impotent rage. It's all very well whipping up anti-EU feeling but we have limited time to make some serious choices and many of the people in the Cabinet campaigned to put us in this position.
Who is whipping up anti EU feeling other than the EU with idiotic ransom demands. It is to be hop I and indeed everyone on here knows you are a disciple of all things EU but even you must see immense danger to Europe in all this
The EU cannot allow the UK to reith.
I wonder if Nigel Lawson was right about this when he said don't even bother negotiating as the EU won't give anything. It really is IN or OUT.
There is no such thing as soft Brexit, only Brexit and no Brexit. Tusk stated it last October, and Barnier repeated it this week.
Why some Britons are so keen to ignore this clear and consistent position, I do not know. A few on the Tory right like JRM seem of the same opinion, but the others simply do not seem to be listening.
Wouldn't you see joining EFTA as a soft-brexit?
We are negotiating with the EU not the EEA or EFTA. It is not on the menu.
Excellent article full of righteous anger. I'm surprised there aren't more people baring their teeth.
"I considered publishing a special issue of the magazine in which, in a series of specially commissioned signed essays, we would indict the guilty men of Brexit. As I’ve said before, I am no ardent Brussels-phile but the referendum campaign had appalled us. David Cameron’s carelessness and insouciance in calling and leading such a wretched campaign and then walking away from the consequences of his actions disgusted us."
"We despised the narcissism and game-playing of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, newspaper columnists masquerading as statesmen. The xenophobia of the right-wing press and Nigel Farage had been loathsome. The Remain campaign had been little better, from the fear-mongering of the Treasury to the lacklustre performance of Jeremy Corbyn"
A couple of weeks ago I was cycling along Oriental Road in Woking. It is a mostly Muslim area with Britain's first purpose built Mosque on it.
Anyway, I was cycling along minding my own business when a car pulled along side me and the driver sounded his horn. I looked to my right an the young Asian man driving it yelled "CUNT" at the top of his voice at me before driving off. I nearly caught up with him as he got stopped behind parked cars.
This happened two days after the attack at Finsbury Park. I am 95% certain it was a racially motivated hate crime. I didn't bother to report it because I have a life and couldn't give a fuck what some twat shouts at me. But I wouldn't report it because I know gets chucked into stats like the one reported by the Independent.
Ironically Norway was another of Churchill's cock-ups but led directly to his becoming prime minister. The parallel needs a prominent Leaver as next PM. Cometh the hour, cometh Boris?
There is no such thing as soft Brexit, only Brexit and no Brexit. Tusk stated it last October, and Barnier repeated it this week.
Why some Britons are so keen to ignore this clear and consistent position, I do not know. A few on the Tory right like JRM seem of the same opinion, but the others simply do not seem to be listening.
Soft Brexit is an option - Tusk and Barnier are simply stating that it is impossible according to current Tory red lines on FoM.
If the EU said we could stop FoM there wouldn't even have been a day's discussion over whether to stay in the EEA or not. Of course, immigration undeniably played a large part in the leave vote, but so did £350mil for the NHS, and no one is talking about the importance of that in delivering Brexit. We are limiting our options unnecessarily.
As Alistair Meek's chart recently showed us it was immigration which was by far and away the no 1 issue for Leave voters
Sure, and I'm largely in agreement with you that something like implementing transitional controls, or some sort of fig leaf (Liechtenstein isn't a great comparison obviously, but they do have fudged rules over FoM so it is possible if not an easy option) would be needed to sell it.
Or at least, full EEA under a transition arrangement, allowing a true debate for the next election where parties can state whether they want to make it permanent or go for true hard Brexit. I think this would be the healthiest option for the country.
While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....
Why? Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard Brexit
How do you know that??
As that was the Tory platform, if not they were staunchly anti Corbyn anyway
In other words you're guessing
The strange thing was Brexit hardly figured in the GE campaign... partly because Labour chose not to contest
I am not guessing in the sense that every poll on Brexit after the EU referendum has shown a majority of Tory voters back hard Brexit
I am not sure which polls you mean. I'd be interest to see one that supported your view that Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard Brexit
Pollsters really shouldn't use soft / hard brexit, as nobody really knows what they mean. They should be asking exact questions such as brexit which includes....and then lists various things like not in single market etc.
While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....
Why? Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard Brexit
How do you know that??
As that was the Tory platform, if not they were staunchly anti Corbyn anyway
In other words you're guessing
The strange thing was Brexit hardly figured in the GE campaign... partly because Labour chose not to contest
I am not guessing in the sense that every poll on Brexit after the EU referendum has shown a majority of Tory voters back hard Brexit
I am not sure which polls you mean. I'd be interest to see one that supported your view that Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard Brexit
Pollsters really shouldn't use soft / hard brexit, as nobody really knows what they mean. They should be asking exact questions such as brexit which includes....and then lists various things like not in single market etc.
People don't know what the single market is either.
A couple of weeks ago I was cycling along Oriental Road in Woking. It is a mostly Muslim area with Britain's first purpose built Mosque on it.
Anyway, I was cycling along minding my own business when a car pulled along side me and the driver sounded his horn. I looked to my right an the young Asian man driving it yelled "CUNT" at the top of his voice at me before driving off. I nearly caught up with him as he got stopped behind parked cars.
This happened two days after the attack at Finsbury Park. I am 95% certain it was a racially motivated hate crime. I didn't bother to report it because I have a life and couldn't give a fuck what some twat shouts at me. But I wouldn't report it because I know gets chucked into stats like the one reported by the Independent.
Unless your race is "cuntish" that's not a hate crime.
It's barely a crime.
This is a hate crime. Don't trivialise such crimes, please.
I think PB's history department will confirm Churchill became PM before Dunkirk.
£1 a week seems rather a lot for the New Statesman, doesn't it?.
It's a good magazine, much better than the left wing newspapers these days. Think the price is in line with other magazines. Though really they should charge a paywall. I take the Eurostar a lot and every time I buy the Economist or the spectator for the journey, but never the new statesman, because I know I can get it free online. Unprincipled of me sure, but it's human nature.
People don't know what the single market is either.
Well no, I take your point. Although they could ask it after explanation text of what it is, as the single market is a concrete definite static agreement.
My general point still stands they should be asking specifics elements of potential brexit, not soft / hard, which means whatever people want them to be. What the media says is hard / soft changes weekly.
A couple of weeks ago I was cycling along Oriental Road in Woking. It is a mostly Muslim area with Britain's first purpose built Mosque on it.
Anyway, I was cycling along minding my own business when a car pulled along side me and the driver sounded his horn. I looked to my right an the young Asian man driving it yelled "CUNT" at the top of his voice at me before driving off. I nearly caught up with him as he got stopped behind parked cars.
This happened two days after the attack at Finsbury Park. I am 95% certain it was a racially motivated hate crime. I didn't bother to report it because I have a life and couldn't give a fuck what some twat shouts at me. But I wouldn't report it because I know gets chucked into stats like the one reported by the Independent.
Unless your race is "cuntish" that's not a hate crime.
What is a "hate crime" is almost entirely subjective.
If the EU said we could stop FoM there wouldn't even have been a day's discussion over whether to stay in the EEA or not.
Oh I think there would. Most of the Tory Brexiteers care about 'sovereignty', not immigration and being in the EEA would not satisfy them one bit.
No, interestingly Survation has a plurality of Tories wanting to stay in the customs union, it is only the single market they oppose staying in because the EU will not budge one inch on FoM controls
I am not sure that it is possible to be in the customs union but not the EU. I may be wrong but I do not think there is any precedent for it, not even Turkey apparently.
A couple of weeks ago I was cycling along Oriental Road in Woking. It is a mostly Muslim area with Britain's first purpose built Mosque on it.
Anyway, I was cycling along minding my own business when a car pulled along side me and the driver sounded his horn. I looked to my right an the young Asian man driving it yelled "CUNT" at the top of his voice at me before driving off. I nearly caught up with him as he got stopped behind parked cars.
This happened two days after the attack at Finsbury Park. I am 95% certain it was a racially motivated hate crime. I didn't bother to report it because I have a life and couldn't give a fuck what some twat shouts at me. But I wouldn't report it because I know gets chucked into stats like the one reported by the Independent.
Unless your race is "cuntish" that's not a hate crime.
What is a "hate crime" is almost entirely subjective.
No it isn't. If the person shouted "whitey" then that is a hate crime.
While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
My guess is that voters are now less anti-Corbyn than they were last month.
Yes and no. I think there are some people who voted for him when they thought he had no chance of winning but who will sit on their hands now that circumstances have changed. The Tories will be hard pressed to get these potential switchers to vote for them while May is leader. Another problem for the Tories is Brexit, obviously. Because they're now defined as the Brexit party, if Brexit is problematic they will leak votes.
When Brexit becomes problematic they will haemorrhage votes....
Why? Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard Brexit
How do you know that??
As that was the Tory platform, if not they were staunchly anti Corbyn anyway
In other words you're guessing
The strange thing was Brexit hardly figured in the GE campaign... partly because Labour chose not to contest
I am not guessing in the sense that every poll on Brexit after the EU referendum has shown a majority of Tory voters back hard Brexit
I am not sure which polls you mean. I'd be interest to see one that supported your view that Almost all the Tory voters voted for hard Brexit
Pollsters really shouldn't use soft / hard brexit, as nobody really knows what they mean. They should be asking exact questions such as brexit which includes....and then lists various things like not in single market etc.
That is true but to be fair to the pollsters we have just had a general election called ostensibly to give Theresa May a mandate for Brexit in which neither the Prime Minister nor anyone else said a word about it.
While the result was not great for May the Tory voteshare does matter actually. The fact the Tories got 42%, their highest voteshare since 1987, means that they have a solid block of anti Corbyn voters and provided they keep most of those next time they could still win. Never forget in 1992 Major got 41.9%, winning by keeping almost all the voters the Tories got in 1987
4 years of a shambolic Conservative government , the coming recession and a botched Brexit and the Conservatives will suffer a greater defeat than in 1997 even if Corbyn is still Labour leader .
It is like you saying that in 1992 the then current Tory vote endorsed Major's economic policy . Come 1997 they certainly did not .
They did when the alternative was Kinnock, they did not when the alternative was Blair
Even I voted for Blair in 1997 and at the next GE
IMHO, Blair rather than Kinnock was one difference between 1997 and 1992 but not as influential as 1. the economy (following the EMF debacle), 2. the expenses scandle, and 3. voters just wanting a change after 18 years of Tory rule.
In 1992 there was a recession and the Tories won, in 1997 the economy was growing and the Tories lost. Do not underestimate the anti Kinnock vote in 1992.
Labour dodged a bullet by not electing Owen Smith as leader last year
A couple of weeks ago I was cycling along Oriental Road in Woking. It is a mostly Muslim area with Britain's first purpose built Mosque on it.
Anyway, I was cycling along minding my own business when a car pulled along side me and the driver sounded his horn. I looked to my right an the young Asian man driving it yelled "CUNT" at the top of his voice at me before driving off. I nearly caught up with him as he got stopped behind parked cars.
This happened two days after the attack at Finsbury Park. I am 95% certain it was a racially motivated hate crime. I didn't bother to report it because I have a life and couldn't give a fuck what some twat shouts at me. But I wouldn't report it because I know gets chucked into stats like the one reported by the Independent.
Unless your race is "cuntish" that's not a hate crime.
It's barely a crime.
This is a hate crime. Don't trivialise such crimes, please.
A Hate Incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.
Not all hate incidents will amount to criminal offences, but those that do become hate crimes.
Now, here's what the Independent story says:
Police figures obtained through Freedom of Information requests show incidents surged by 23 per cent
So I was called a cunt. I think it was because I'm white (the slight doubt I have is that I was on my pushbike, and some people really don't like cyclists). Perhaps it wasn't a crime, but it certainly was an incident.
A couple of weeks ago I was cycling along Oriental Road in Woking. It is a mostly Muslim area with Britain's first purpose built Mosque on it.
Anyway, I was cycling along minding my own business when a car pulled along side me and the driver sounded his horn. I looked to my right an the young Asian man driving it yelled "CUNT" at the top of his voice at me before driving off. I nearly caught up with him as he got stopped behind parked cars.
This happened two days after the attack at Finsbury Park. I am 95% certain it was a racially motivated hate crime. I didn't bother to report it because I have a life and couldn't give a fuck what some twat shouts at me. But I wouldn't report it because I know gets chucked into stats like the one reported by the Independent.
Unless your race is "cuntish" that's not a hate crime.
What is a "hate crime" is almost entirely subjective.
No it isn't. If the person shouted "whitey" then that is a hate crime.
I'm all for regulations that deal with anti-fixing and anti-laundering, but IMO, gambling companies are taking the piss with their customer profiling, then yelling "fraud" when people place bets on a partners account etc. etc.
I've always stuck to t&c's personally, but they have become ridiculous in recent years.
If you can't set your odds properly, don't be a bookmaker.
A couple of weeks ago I was cycling along Oriental Road in Woking. It is a mostly Muslim area with Britain's first purpose built Mosque on it.
Anyway, I was cycling along minding my own business when a car pulled along side me and the driver sounded his horn. I looked to my right an the young Asian man driving it yelled "CUNT" at the top of his voice at me before driving off. I nearly caught up with him as he got stopped behind parked cars.
This happened two days after the attack at Finsbury Park. I am 95% certain it was a racially motivated hate crime. I didn't bother to report it because I have a life and couldn't give a fuck what some twat shouts at me. But I wouldn't report it because I know gets chucked into stats like the one reported by the Independent.
Unless your race is "cuntish" that's not a hate crime.
What is a "hate crime" is almost entirely subjective.
No it isn't. If the person shouted "whitey" then that is a hate crime.
Actually you are unfortunately wrong. The CPS defines a hate incident as follows:
"A Hate Incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender."
Basically it is entirely up to the individual or any witness to decide if the incident should be reported as a 'hate incident'.
The police have to treat it as such in terms of reporting it and it is the CPS who decide whther or not to proceed and define it as a crime.
Reporting hate 'crime' stats is dubious enough. Reporting hate 'incidents' is just bloody barmy because there is no limit to what can be reported and therefore enters the stats.
I think PB's history department will confirm Churchill became PM before Dunkirk.
£1 a week seems rather a lot for the New Statesman, doesn't it?.
It's a good magazine, much better than the left wing newspapers these days. Think the price is in line with other magazines. Though really they should charge a paywall. I take the Eurostar a lot and every time I buy the Economist or the spectator for the journey, but never the new statesman, because I know I can get it free online. Unprincipled of me sure, but it's human nature.
Well, they have a sort of paywall in the sense that the main articles aren't free to view until several days after the magazine comes out.
It is a good time to read the NS. They have been vehemently anti-Corbyn, believing, like the rest of us, that he would be a disaster. Now they are having to commission articles saying "well, maybe this can work..."
A couple of weeks ago I was cycling along Oriental Road in Woking. It is a mostly Muslim area with Britain's first purpose built Mosque on it.
Anyway, I was cycling along minding my own business when a car pulled along side me and the driver sounded his horn. I looked to my right an the young Asian man driving it yelled "CUNT" at the top of his voice at me before driving off. I nearly caught up with him as he got stopped behind parked cars.
This happened two days after the attack at Finsbury Park. I am 95% certain it was a racially motivated hate crime. I didn't bother to report it because I have a life and couldn't give a fuck what some twat shouts at me. But I wouldn't report it because I know gets chucked into stats like the one reported by the Independent.
Unless your race is "cuntish" that's not a hate crime.
It's barely a crime.
This is a hate crime. Don't trivialise such crimes, please.
You are right, but is worth bearing in mind that even these little incidents (i.e. the bike one) are part of a picture of a coarsening of everyday life and increasing division and intolerance.
A couple of weeks ago I was cycling along Oriental Road in Woking. It is a mostly Muslim area with Britain's first purpose built Mosque on it.
Anyway, I was cycling along minding my own business when a car pulled along side me and the driver sounded his horn. I looked to my right an the young Asian man driving it yelled "CUNT" at the top of his voice at me before driving off. I nearly caught up with him as he got stopped behind parked cars.
This happened two days after the attack at Finsbury Park. I am 95% certain it was a racially motivated hate crime. I didn't bother to report it because I have a life and couldn't give a fuck what some twat shouts at me. But I wouldn't report it because I know gets chucked into stats like the one reported by the Independent.
Unless your race is "cuntish" that's not a hate crime.
What is a "hate crime" is almost entirely subjective.
No it isn't. If the person shouted "whitey" then that is a hate crime.
Actually you are unfortunately wrong. The CPS defines a hate incident as follows:
"A Hate Incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender."
Basically it is entirely up to the individual or any witness to decide if the incident should be reported as a 'hate incident'.
The police have to treat it as such in terms of reporting it and it is the CPS who decide whther or not to proceed and define it as a crime.
Reporting hate 'crime' stats is dubious enough. Reporting hate 'incidents' is just bloody barmy because there is no limit to what can be reported and therefore enters the stats.
Even the Home Secretary's speech was considered a hate "incident".
It would have been a far better solution for the country if, instead of the deal with the DUP, the Blairite Labour MP's crossed the floor and joined the Tory Party.
They would probably be more comfortable there. The remaining parliamentary Labour Party would be more united. Theresa May would have the majority she needed to provide a strong and stable government and it would have saved the country £1 billion or more.
A couple of weeks ago I was cycling along Oriental Road in Woking. It is a mostly Muslim area with Britain's first purpose built Mosque on it.
Anyway, I was cycling along minding my own business when a car pulled along side me and the driver sounded his horn. I looked to my right an the young Asian man driving it yelled "CUNT" at the top of his voice at me before driving off. I nearly caught up with him as he got stopped behind parked cars.
This happened two days after the attack at Finsbury Park. I am 95% certain it was a racially motivated hate crime. I didn't bother to report it because I have a life and couldn't give a fuck what some twat shouts at me. But I wouldn't report it because I know gets chucked into stats like the one reported by the Independent.
Unless your race is "cuntish" that's not a hate crime.
What is a "hate crime" is almost entirely subjective.
No it isn't. If the person shouted "whitey" then that is a hate crime.
Actually you are unfortunately wrong. The CPS defines a hate incident as follows:
"A Hate Incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender."
Basically it is entirely up to the individual or any witness to decide if the incident should be reported as a 'hate incident'.
The police have to treat it as such in terms of reporting it and it is the CPS who decide whther or not to proceed and define it as a crime.
Reporting hate 'crime' stats is dubious enough. Reporting hate 'incidents' is just bloody barmy because there is no limit to what can be reported and therefore enters the stats.
Even the Home Secretary's speech was considered a hate "incident".
If it was reported to the police as such they are legally bund to record it as such.
"Arab refugees watching the riots from the relative safety of a falafel joint said the rioters were insane for destroying their tolerant adoptive city and were astonished by what they saw as the police's restraint. 'If people did this in Egypt they would be shot,' said Ibrahim Ali, a 29-year-old Egyptian who came here in 2011. 'The state provides everything: housing, unemployment benefits and education. Yet those people are not happy. I don't get it.' 'They are crazy. I can't believe my eyes,' said Mohammad Halabi, 32, a Syrian who arrived in Germany as a refugee some 18 months ago. 'They have such a beautiful country and they're destroying it.'"
It would have been a far better solution for the country if, instead of the deal with the DUP, the Blairite Labour MP's crossed the floor and joined the Tory Party.
They would probably be more comfortable there. The remaining parliamentary Labour Party would be more united. Theresa May would have the majority she needed to provide a strong and stable government and it would have saved the country £1 billion or more.
Yvette is not a Blairite by any warped stretch of the left's imagination. She is a standard, moderate, decent Labour MP who would do decent things if in power. If you want a label, then she is a Brownite. In what warped world a Brownite is an affront to Labour's history and values is beyond me. Frankly, Gordon Brown was more Labour than any collection of entryists like Milne, Andrew Fisher and the rest.
"Just a month to the day after the extraordinary general election many Tories, particularly those still loyal to the woman who caused their electoral disaster, continue to point to the overall 13.6m CON votes that were chalked up as though that had some great meaning."
It does have great meaning, it means that despite the campaign run by Labour and the poor campaign run by May and the Conservatives, the anti Corbyn voters still turned out and comfortable defeated his agenda by a considerable margin. Look to Scotland, Corbyn's campaign helped rather than hindered the Scottish Conservative cause against the SNP...
A combination of being white and a cyclist I think. Quite vile for people to go around justifying the man's actions. Especially people on this board who should know better.
"A couple of weeks ago I was cycling along Oriental Road in Woking. It is a mostly Muslim area with Britain's first purpose built Mosque on it.
Anyway, I was cycling along minding my own business when a car pulled along side me and the driver sounded his horn. I looked to my right an the young Asian man driving it yelled "CUNT" at the top of his voice at me before driving off. I nearly caught up with him as he got stopped behind parked cars.
This happened two days after the attack at Finsbury Park. I am 95% certain it was a racially motivated hate crime. "
Lots of people hate cyclists too. Perhaps you were riding in the middle of the road or something and he didn't like it.
Comments
http://survation.com/latest-polls-indicate-majority-support-soft-brexit/
He may but the cost of his policies are coming under increasing scrutiny and debate unlike at the GE. Indeed I can hardly believe I have said that because allowing Corbyn off without any debate on his so called costed manifesto beggars belief.
It will not happen next time - in fact I would expect it to be at the centre of the whole campaign
The Tories and the Tory press did not focus on Jezza's spending programme because there was nothing much to go at there. If their 'so-called' (as you put it) costing had been riddled with holes you can be sure the Tories and r/w press would have banged on about it endlessly. As it was, it was the Tories who pledged £8bn for the NHS without explaining where it was coming from.
Labour were open, they plan to spend and tax more. Could it be that neoliberalism has had its day in this country?
The 8 billion was in the previous budget. Labour's proposals have been roundly condemned by the IFS and Theresa May's mistake was not to allow Hammond to take the tax and borrowing proposals apart.
It is beginning to happen. Labour did not even cost the 40 billion needed to cancel the public sector pay freeze or the tens of billions needed for social care.
We've had this discussion before about the "£40bn" to remove the public sector pay freeze... It would only cost £40bn over the term of the parliament if inflation averaged above 3.5% and even then it would not be additional spending in real terms, it's just a a reflection of inflation
In any event, the Tories will be quietly adopting that particular policy by the autumn
Maybe but if they do it will be properly costed and not mickey mouse money
Why some Britons are so keen to ignore this clear and consistent position, I do not know. A few on the Tory right like JRM seem of the same opinion, but the others simply do not seem to be listening.
Labour were open, they plan to spend and tax more. Could it be that neoliberalism has had its day in this country?
The 8 billion was in the previous budget. Labour's proposals have been roundly condemned by the IFS and Theresa May's mistake was not to allow Hammond to take the tax and borrowing proposals apart.
It is beginning to happen. Labour did not even cost the 40 billion needed to cancel the public sector pay freeze or the tens of billions needed for social care.
We've had this discussion before about the "£40bn" to remove the public sector pay freeze... It would only cost £40bn over the term of the parliament if inflation averaged above 3.5% and even then it would not be additional spending in real terms, it's just a a reflection of inflation
In any event, the Tories will be quietly adopting that particular policy by the autumn
Maybe but if they do it will be properly costed and not mickey mouse money
I think what you are saying is only the Tories can run the economy because only the Tories can run the economy. By the time of the next election I've a feeling that argument won't wash with the majority.
It is beginning to happen. Labour did not even cost the 40 billion needed to cancel the public sector pay freeze or the tens of billions needed for social care.
We've had this discussion before about the "£40bn" to remove the public sector pay freeze... It would only cost £40bn over the term of the parliament if inflation averaged above 3.5% and even then it would not be additional spending in real terms, it's just a a reflection of inflation
In any event, the Tories will be quietly adopting that particular policy by the autumn
Maybe but if they do it will be properly costed and not mickey mouse money
I think what you are saying is only the Tories can run the economy because only the Tories can run the economy. By the time of the next election I've a feeling that argument won't wash with the majority.
We will see
If the EU said we could stop FoM there wouldn't even have been a day's discussion over whether to stay in the EEA or not. Of course, immigration undeniably played a large part in the leave vote, but so did £350mil for the NHS, and no one is talking about the importance of that in delivering Brexit. We are limiting our options unnecessarily.
"I considered publishing a special issue of the magazine in which, in a series of specially commissioned signed essays, we would indict the guilty men of Brexit. As I’ve said before, I am no ardent Brussels-phile but the referendum campaign had appalled us. David Cameron’s carelessness and insouciance in calling and leading such a wretched campaign and then walking away from the consequences of his actions disgusted us."
"We despised the narcissism and game-playing of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, newspaper columnists masquerading as statesmen. The xenophobia of the right-wing press and Nigel Farage had been loathsome. The Remain campaign had been little better, from the fear-mongering of the Treasury to the lacklustre performance of Jeremy Corbyn"
A drink for the scribe.....
.
Anyway, I was cycling along minding my own business when a car pulled along side me and the driver sounded his horn. I looked to my right an the young Asian man driving it yelled "CUNT" at the top of his voice at me before driving off. I nearly caught up with him as he got stopped behind parked cars.
This happened two days after the attack at Finsbury Park. I am 95% certain it was a racially motivated hate crime. I didn't bother to report it because I have a life and couldn't give a fuck what some twat shouts at me. But I wouldn't report it because I know gets chucked into stats like the one reported by the Independent.
Or at least, full EEA under a transition arrangement, allowing a true debate for the next election where parties can state whether they want to make it permanent or go for true hard Brexit. I think this would be the healthiest option for the country.
£1 a week seems rather a lot for the New Statesman, doesn't it?.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3977612/donald-trump-jr-shares-shocking-mock-up-video-of-us-president-blowing-up-a-cnn-plane-in-top-gun-style-footage/
It's barely a crime.
This is a hate crime. Don't trivialise such crimes, please.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40440741
My general point still stands they should be asking specifics elements of potential brexit, not soft / hard, which means whatever people want them to be. What the media says is hard / soft changes weekly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/07/new-dunkirk-film-wont-feature-churchill-doesnt-get-bogged-politics/
A Hate Incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.
Not all hate incidents will amount to criminal offences, but those that do become hate crimes.
Now, here's what the Independent story says:
Police figures obtained through Freedom of Information requests show incidents surged by 23 per cent
So I was called a cunt. I think it was because I'm white (the slight doubt I have is that I was on my pushbike, and some people really don't like cyclists). Perhaps it wasn't a crime, but it certainly was an incident.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/08/exclusive-teenager-takes-bet365-court-1m-won-horse-races/
I'm all for regulations that deal with anti-fixing and anti-laundering, but IMO, gambling companies are taking the piss with their customer profiling, then yelling "fraud" when people place bets on a partners account etc. etc.
I've always stuck to t&c's personally, but they have become ridiculous in recent years.
If you can't set your odds properly, don't be a bookmaker.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/7524948-3x2-940x627.jpg
Have you invited any migrants to come and live with you?
"The PM is fundamentally a decent woman who is extremely cautious, slow to develop relationships and even slower to trust others.
Can you blame her, Michael?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3976972/dysfunctional-corrosive-arrogant-catastrophic-former-tory-party-chairmans-damning-verdict-on-the-team-behind-theresa-may/
"A Hate Incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender."
Basically it is entirely up to the individual or any witness to decide if the incident should be reported as a 'hate incident'.
The police have to treat it as such in terms of reporting it and it is the CPS who decide whther or not to proceed and define it as a crime.
Reporting hate 'crime' stats is dubious enough. Reporting hate 'incidents' is just bloody barmy because there is no limit to what can be reported and therefore enters the stats.
It is a good time to read the NS. They have been vehemently anti-Corbyn, believing, like the rest of us, that he would be a disaster. Now they are having to commission articles saying "well, maybe this can work..."
https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/883778097652400128
Didn't we do that one about six weeks before the GE?
Let Theresa May stay at No 10 for the summer, top Tories tell MPs
Party chiefs warn against plot to install David Davis as leader
They would probably be more comfortable there. The remaining parliamentary Labour Party would be more united. Theresa May would have the majority she needed to provide a strong and stable government and it would have saved the country £1 billion or more.
'If people did this in Egypt they would be shot,' said Ibrahim Ali, a 29-year-old Egyptian who came here in 2011. 'The state provides everything: housing, unemployment benefits and education. Yet those people are not happy. I don't get it.'
'They are crazy. I can't believe my eyes,' said Mohammad Halabi, 32, a Syrian who arrived in Germany as a refugee some 18 months ago. 'They have such a beautiful country and they're destroying it.'"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4677108/Second-night-violence-Hamburg-G20-leaders-meet.html
It does have great meaning, it means that despite the campaign run by Labour and the poor campaign run by May and the Conservatives, the anti Corbyn voters still turned out and comfortable defeated his agenda by a considerable margin. Look to Scotland, Corbyn's campaign helped rather than hindered the Scottish Conservative cause against the SNP...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4677108/Second-night-violence-Hamburg-G20-leaders-meet.html
http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/07/08/donald-trump-really-said-angela-merkel/
Anyway, I was cycling along minding my own business when a car pulled along side me and the driver sounded his horn. I looked to my right an the young Asian man driving it yelled "CUNT" at the top of his voice at me before driving off. I nearly caught up with him as he got stopped behind parked cars.
This happened two days after the attack at Finsbury Park. I am 95% certain it was a racially motivated hate crime. "
Lots of people hate cyclists too. Perhaps you were riding in the middle of the road or something and he didn't like it.