Caught some of Rayner on Marr from yesterday. The Labour party are seriously presenting this woman as a potential SOS for Education? My word, this country is doomed. It would be akin to placing Baldrick in charge of the army.
Yeah it's not the accent that is the problem, but the void between her ears.
My fairly mainstream Conservative uncle on the Isle of Wight has posted this on FB.
Signs of a real move to make JRM the PM?
Rees-Mogg versus Corbyn? I would have laughed at both a year ago. Actually they are quite similar - personable, issues driven, no policy, unsuitable to be leaders.
From yesterday's discussion on university funding, a strong reason not to trash the sector is that it's a very big positive contributor to our balance of payments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40447950
There are good reasons for funding reform, but whatever we do should be carefully considered, rather than brought in by May in a desperate attempt to salvage her popularity... or Corbyn in a ferment of social justice enthusiasm.
I was just wondering why someone like Gina Millar doesn't sue the Labour Party for false representation. They pledged to abolish tuition fees which undoubtedly caused many youngsters to vote for them. Now that pledge is an aim, or ambition.
So their lying very probably cost the Cons their OM and that surely is actionable.
(IANAL, obvs)
They promised to abolish fees for new students - they are still sticking to that line I believe.
What they are now watering down is the promise to write-off the loanbook for previous students, in particular the £9000 per year generation. I think that policy was one of Corbyn's that he made up mid-interview.
Still can't fathom why the Tories are going for this drawn out, painful leadership contest.
Well, we're supposed to be asking you now..
What do you suggest?
New leader, snap election asap. Do or die.
Hanging on never works. You may fear Corbyn, but you will only gain a few months at the cost of your party by dragging this out.
Ok. We'd be roasted though.
As things stand, you're going to get roasted.
Pick the right leader (senior, safe, but charismatic - Hague), find some popular policies (cut tax, cut tuition fees, NHS funding), get the barnacles off the boat (hard/ideological brexit) and run the right campaign (its all about the economy, stupid!) you might do well.
From yesterday's discussion on university funding, a strong reason not to trash the sector is that it's a very big positive contributor to our balance of payments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40447950
There are good reasons for funding reform, but whatever we do should be carefully considered, rather than brought in by May in a desperate attempt to salvage her popularity... or Corbyn in a ferment of social justice enthusiasm.
I was just wondering why someone like Gina Millar doesn't sue the Labour Party for false representation. They pledged to abolish tuition fees which undoubtedly caused many youngsters to vote for them. Now that pledge is an aim, or ambition.
So their lying very probably cost the Cons their OM and that surely is actionable.
(IANAL, obvs)
They promised to abolish fees for new students - they are still sticking to that line I believe.
What they are now watering down is the promise to write-off the loanbook for previous students, in particular the £9000 per year generation. I think that policy was one of Corbyn's that he made up mid-interview.
Much of it won't be repaid anyway, so writing it off will be cheaper than it looks. The corollary is that there is currently what in an election campaign we would call a black hole in the national accounts where the repayments are supposed to come.
Still can't fathom why the Tories are going for this drawn out, painful leadership contest.
Well, we're supposed to be asking you now..
What do you suggest?
New leader, snap election asap. Do or die.
Hanging on never works. You may fear Corbyn, but you will only gain a few months at the cost of your party by dragging this out.
Ok. We'd be roasted though.
As things stand, you're going to get roasted.
Pick the right leader (senior, safe, but charismatic - Hague), find some popular policies (cut tax, cut tuition fees, NHS funding), get the barnacles off the boat (hard/ideological brexit) and run the right campaign (its all about the economy, stupid!) you might do well.
Still can't fathom why the Tories are going for this drawn out, painful leadership contest.
Well, we're supposed to be asking you now..
What do you suggest?
New leader, snap election asap. Do or die.
Hanging on never works. You may fear Corbyn, but you will only gain a few months at the cost of your party by dragging this out.
Ok. We'd be roasted though.
As things stand, you're going to get roasted.
Pick the right leader (senior, safe, but charismatic - Hague), find some popular policies (cut tax, cut tuition fees, NHS funding), get the barnacles off the boat (hard/ideological brexit) and run the right campaign (its all about the economy, stupid!) you might do well.
Better than this slow death.
My suggestion is that that the Tories hang on to May for another 12 months, then have a really nasty leadership election, ultimately won by the most swivel-eyed right winger they can find, then go to the country.
From yesterday's discussion on university funding, a strong reason not to trash the sector is that it's a very big positive contributor to our balance of payments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40447950
There are good reasons for funding reform, but whatever we do should be carefully considered, rather than brought in by May in a desperate attempt to salvage her popularity... or Corbyn in a ferment of social justice enthusiasm.
I was just wondering why someone like Gina Millar doesn't sue the Labour Party for false representation. They pledged to abolish tuition fees which undoubtedly caused many youngsters to vote for them. Now that pledge is an aim, or ambition.
So their lying very probably cost the Cons their OM and that surely is actionable.
(IANAL, obvs)
They promised to abolish fees for new students - they are still sticking to that line I believe.
What they are now watering down is the promise to write-off the loanbook for previous students, in particular the £9000 per year generation. I think that policy was one of Corbyn's that he made up mid-interview.
The crucial questions are these.
To abolish fees, the State has to pay the fees. Is Labour going to pay 9,250 per student? Is Labour going to pay for the 1.8 million students we have ?
If so, the cost is not what Labour say it is.
Labour can make the policy affordable by (i) reducing the number of students and (ii) refusing to pay 9k but say 6k.
In fact, they will have to do one or the other if they think (like Angela Rayner) it will cost 9 billion.
The demonising of Universities by Adonis suggests to me that Labour will go for (ii).
From yesterday's discussion on university funding, a strong reason not to trash the sector is that it's a very big positive contributor to our balance of payments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40447950
There are good reasons for funding reform, but whatever we do should be carefully considered, rather than brought in by May in a desperate attempt to salvage her popularity... or Corbyn in a ferment of social justice enthusiasm.
I was just wondering why someone like Gina Millar doesn't sue the Labour Party for false representation. They pledged to abolish tuition fees which undoubtedly caused many youngsters to vote for them. Now that pledge is an aim, or ambition.
So their lying very probably cost the Cons their OM and that surely is actionable.
(IANAL, obvs)
Writing off existing student debt is an ambition. Abolishing fees is a policy.
100 billion rising to 200 billion to wipe of student debt is beyond credible. The abolishion of student fees is coming under considerable examination not least by the Guardian and is another unaffordable promise. The GE and TM avoided any real examination of labour's policies or the IFS widescale condemnation of them.
One thing is certain at the next GE labour will come under much more scrutiny on their mickey mouse promises
From yesterday's discussion on university funding, a strong reason not to trash the sector is that it's a very big positive contributor to our balance of payments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40447950
There are good reasons for funding reform, but whatever we do should be carefully considered, rather than brought in by May in a desperate attempt to salvage her popularity... or Corbyn in a ferment of social justice enthusiasm.
I was just wondering why someone like Gina Millar doesn't sue the Labour Party for false representation. They pledged to abolish tuition fees which undoubtedly caused many youngsters to vote for them. Now that pledge is an aim, or ambition.
So their lying very probably cost the Cons their OM and that surely is actionable.
(IANAL, obvs)
They promised to abolish fees for new students - they are still sticking to that line I believe.
What they are now watering down is the promise to write-off the loanbook for previous students, in particular the £9000 per year generation. I think that policy was one of Corbyn's that he made up mid-interview.
The crucial questions are these.
To abolish fees, the State has to pay the fees. Is Labour going to pay 9,250 k per student? Is Labour going to pay for the 1.8 million students we have ?
If so, the cost is not what Labour say it is.
Labour can make the policy affordable by (i) reducing the number of students and (ii) refusing to pay 9k but say 6k.
In fact, they will have to do one or the other if they think (like Angela Rayner) it will cost 9 billion.
The demonising of Universities by Adonis suggests to me that Labour will go for (ii).
Under the current loans system many of the loans will not be paid off. Who pays then? In that case how can you quote the £9250 figure which is clearly not going to be paid back?
From yesterday's discussion on university funding, a strong reason not to trash the sector is that it's a very big positive contributor to our balance of payments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40447950
There are good reasons for funding reform, but whatever we do should be carefully considered, rather than brought in by May in a desperate attempt to salvage her popularity... or Corbyn in a ferment of social justice enthusiasm.
I was just wondering why someone like Gina Millar doesn't sue the Labour Party for false representation. They pledged to abolish tuition fees which undoubtedly caused many youngsters to vote for them. Now that pledge is an aim, or ambition.
So their lying very probably cost the Cons their OM and that surely is actionable.
(IANAL, obvs)
Writing off existing student debt is an ambition. Abolishing fees is a policy.
100 billion rising to 200 billion to wipe of student debt is beyond credible. The abolishion of student fees is coming under considerable examination not least by the Guardian and is another unaffordable promise. The GE and TM avoided any real examination of labour's policies or the IFS widescale condemnation of them.
One thing is certain at the next GE labour will come under much more scrutiny on their mickey mouse promises
So what is the current government's plan for the £33 bn, rising to £66 bn, that will never be repaid?
From yesterday's discussion on university funding, a strong reason not to trash the sector is that it's a very big positive contributor to our balance of payments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40447950
There are good reasons for funding reform, but whatever we do should be carefully considered, rather than brought in by May in a desperate attempt to salvage her popularity... or Corbyn in a ferment of social justice enthusiasm.
I was just wondering why someone like Gina Millar doesn't sue the Labour Party for false representation. They pledged to abolish tuition fees which undoubtedly caused many youngsters to vote for them. Now that pledge is an aim, or ambition.
So their lying very probably cost the Cons their OM and that surely is actionable.
(IANAL, obvs)
Writing off existing student debt is an ambition. Abolishing fees is a policy.
100 billion rising to 200 billion to wipe of student debt is beyond credible. The abolishion of student fees is coming under considerable examination not least by the Guardian and is another unaffordable promise. The GE and TM avoided any real examination of labour's policies or the IFS widescale condemnation of them.
One thing is certain at the next GE labour will come under much more scrutiny on their mickey mouse promises
We have not so far heard from the Universities themselves.
I would imagine that they are getting increasingly concerned.
If the policy is to pay less than 9250 per student, then this will lead to redundancies in the Universities.
From yesterday's discussion on university funding, a strong reason not to trash the sector is that it's a very big positive contributor to our balance of payments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40447950
There are good reasons for funding reform, but whatever we do should be carefully considered, rather than brought in by May in a desperate attempt to salvage her popularity... or Corbyn in a ferment of social justice enthusiasm.
I was just wondering why someone like Gina Millar doesn't sue the Labour Party for false representation. They pledged to abolish tuition fees which undoubtedly caused many youngsters to vote for them. Now that pledge is an aim, or ambition.
So their lying very probably cost the Cons their OM and that surely is actionable.
(IANAL, obvs)
Writing off existing student debt is an ambition. Abolishing fees is a policy.
100 billion rising to 200 billion to wipe of student debt is beyond credible. The abolishion of student fees is coming under considerable examination not least by the Guardian and is another unaffordable promise. The GE and TM avoided any real examination of labour's policies or the IFS widescale condemnation of them.
One thing is certain at the next GE labour will come under much more scrutiny on their mickey mouse promises
The IFS also condemned the Conservatives' numbers-free financial plans.
Still can't fathom why the Tories are going for this drawn out, painful leadership contest.
Well, we're supposed to be asking you now..
What do you suggest?
New leader, snap election asap. Do or die.
Hanging on never works. You may fear Corbyn, but you will only gain a few months at the cost of your party by dragging this out.
Ok. We'd be roasted though.
As things stand, you're going to get roasted.
Pick the right leader (senior, safe, but charismatic - Hague), find some popular policies (cut tax, cut tuition fees, NHS funding), get the barnacles off the boat (hard/ideological brexit) and run the right campaign (its all about the economy, stupid!) you might do well.
Better than this slow death.
Interesting. Thanks.
Tory govt's go off the rails when they ditch pragmatic management of the economy in favour of ideology.
From yesterday's discussion on university funding, a strong reason not to trash the sector is that it's a very big positive contributor to our balance of payments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40447950
There are good reasons for funding reform, but whatever we do should be carefully considered, rather than brought in by May in a desperate attempt to salvage her popularity... or Corbyn in a ferment of social justice enthusiasm.
I was just wondering why someone like Gina Millar doesn't sue the Labour Party for false representation. They pledged to abolish tuition fees which undoubtedly caused many youngsters to vote for them. Now that pledge is an aim, or ambition.
So their lying very probably cost the Cons their OM and that surely is actionable.
(IANAL, obvs)
Writing off existing student debt is an ambition. Abolishing fees is a policy.
100 billion rising to 200 billion to wipe of student debt is beyond credible. The abolishion of student fees is coming under considerable examination not least by the Guardian and is another unaffordable promise. The GE and TM avoided any real examination of labour's policies or the IFS widescale condemnation of them.
One thing is certain at the next GE labour will come under much more scrutiny on their mickey mouse promises
We have not so far heard from the Universities themselves.
I would imagine that they are getting increasingly concerned.
If the policy is to pay less than 9250 per student, then this will lead to redundancies in the Universities.
University staff vote overwhelmingly Labour.
If all this results in some Universities going private how will that help education for the disadvantaged
From yesterday's discussion on university funding, a strong reason not to trash the sector is that it's a very big positive contributor to our balance of payments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40447950
There are good reasons for funding reform, but whatever we do should be carefully considered, rather than brought in by May in a desperate attempt to salvage her popularity... or Corbyn in a ferment of social justice enthusiasm.
I was just wondering why someone like Gina Millar doesn't sue the Labour Party for false representation. They pledged to abolish tuition fees which undoubtedly caused many youngsters to vote for them. Now that pledge is an aim, or ambition.
So their lying very probably cost the Cons their OM and that surely is actionable.
(IANAL, obvs)
They promised to abolish fees for new students - they are still sticking to that line I believe.
What they are now watering down is the promise to write-off the loanbook for previous students, in particular the £9000 per year generation. I think that policy was one of Corbyn's that he made up mid-interview.
The crucial questions are these.
To abolish fees, the State has to pay the fees. Is Labour going to pay 9,250 k per student? Is Labour going to pay for the 1.8 million students we have ?
If so, the cost is not what Labour say it is.
Labour can make the policy affordable by (i) reducing the number of students and (ii) refusing to pay 9k but say 6k.
In fact, they will have to do one or the other if they think (like Angela Rayner) it will cost 9 billion.
The demonising of Universities by Adonis suggests to me that Labour will go for (ii).
Under the current loans system many of the loans will not be paid off. Who pays then? In that case how can you quote the £9250 figure which is clearly not going to be paid back?
The liability is transferred to future taxpayers. ( I am not saying I agree with it, just stating what happens),
At the moment, the Universities receive 9250 per student regardless.
They will be concerned if the plan is to make free tuition affordable for the State by paying less than 9250 per student.
In fact, some of the universities will go bankrupt.
Still can't fathom why the Tories are going for this drawn out, painful leadership contest.
Well, we're supposed to be asking you now..
What do you suggest?
New leader, snap election asap. Do or die.
Hanging on never works. You may fear Corbyn, but you will only gain a few months at the cost of your party by dragging this out.
Ok. We'd be roasted though.
As things stand, you're going to get roasted.
Pick the right leader (senior, safe, but charismatic - Hague), find some popular policies (cut tax, cut tuition fees, NHS funding), get the barnacles off the boat (hard/ideological brexit) and run the right campaign (its all about the economy, stupid!) you might do well.
Better than this slow death.
We have now clearly moved from the complacency of the Tories to the complacency of Labour when Corbyn, who won 60 fewer seats than May, is now apparently going to 'roast' the Tories at the next general election. If Corbyn is facing Boris and Cable at the next general election in say 2019, Boris more charismatic than May (and likely to dump things like the dementia tax and public sector pay cap) and Cable more heavyweight than Farron and better able to exploit Corbyn's support for hard Brexit anything could happen
From yesterday's discussion on university funding, a strong reason not to trash the sector is that it's a very big positive contributor to our balance of payments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40447950
There are good reasons for funding reform, but whatever we do should be carefully considered, rather than brought in by May in a desperate attempt to salvage her popularity... or Corbyn in a ferment of social justice enthusiasm.
I was just wondering why someone like Gina Millar doesn't sue the Labour Party for false representation. They pledged to abolish tuition fees which undoubtedly caused many youngsters to vote for them. Now that pledge is an aim, or ambition.
So their lying very probably cost the Cons their OM and that surely is actionable.
(IANAL, obvs)
Writing off existing student debt is an ambition. Abolishing fees is a policy.
100 billion rising to 200 billion to wipe of student debt is beyond credible. The abolishion of student fees is coming under considerable examination not least by the Guardian and is another unaffordable promise. The GE and TM avoided any real examination of labour's policies or the IFS widescale condemnation of them.
One thing is certain at the next GE labour will come under much more scrutiny on their mickey mouse promises
The IFS also condemned the Conservatives' numbers-free financial plans.
The conservatives costs were announced in the budget so no change for the manifesto. No matter they were not labour's mickey mouse economics
JRM is an oddity, but he is honest. He knows he's a toff and doesn't pretend otherwise. Self-deprecation usually goes down well.
That is far less annoying than some of the luvvies - "I'm very rich but my heart bleeds for the poor. Not that stops me being joining every tax avoidance scheme going." and "Somebody must do something to house the immigrants, but none of my six houses is suitable."
Lily Allen, you could always join the Sally Army soup kitchens. Just a suggestion.
If JRM went into a GE as Tory leader, he'd lose a few votes but the class warriors wouldn't vote tory anyway.
An admission .. I've never voted Tory in my life, but I'm less likely not to vote Tory if he's honest.
From yesterday's discussion on university funding, a strong reason not to trash the sector is that it's a very big positive contributor to our balance of payments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40447950
There are good reasons for funding reform, but whatever we do should be carefully considered, rather than brought in by May in a desperate attempt to salvage her popularity... or Corbyn in a ferment of social justice enthusiasm.
I was just wondering why someone like Gina Millar doesn't sue the Labour Party for false representation. They pledged to abolish tuition fees which undoubtedly caused many youngsters to vote for them. Now that pledge is an aim, or ambition.
So their lying very probably cost the Cons their OM and that surely is actionable.
(IANAL, obvs)
Writing off existing student debt is an ambition. Abolishing fees is a policy.
100 billion rising to 200 billion to wipe of student debt is beyond credible. The abolishion of student fees is coming under considerable examination not least by the Guardian and is another unaffordable promise. The GE and TM avoided any real examination of labour's policies or the IFS widescale condemnation of them.
One thing is certain at the next GE labour will come under much more scrutiny on their mickey mouse promises
We have not so far heard from the Universities themselves.
I would imagine that they are getting increasingly concerned.
If the policy is to pay less than 9250 per student, then this will lead to redundancies in the Universities.
University staff vote overwhelmingly Labour.
If all this results in some Universities going private how will that help education for the disadvantaged
It depends at what level Labour set the fees. But, if they set the fees at the level so that the policy costs 9 billion (Rayner's figure), then that is a rough halving of the fees.
My guess is then all the Russell group will go private.
If Labour trim it to 8k, then maybe the Universities will just grumble (and there will be substantial redundancies).
From yesterday's discussion on university funding, a strong reason not to trash the sector is that it's a very big positive contributor to our balance of payments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40447950
There are good reasons for funding reform, but whatever we do should be carefully considered, rather than brought in by May in a desperate attempt to salvage her popularity... or Corbyn in a ferment of social justice enthusiasm.
I was just wondering why someone like Gina Millar doesn't sue the Labour Party for false representation. They pledged to abolish tuition fees which undoubtedly caused many youngsters to vote for them. Now that pledge is an aim, or ambition.
So their lying very probably cost the Cons their OM and that surely is actionable.
(IANAL, obvs)
Writing off existing student debt is an ambition. Abolishing fees is a policy.
100 billion rising to 200 billion to wipe of student debt is beyond credible. The abolishion of student fees is coming under considerable examination not least by the Guardian and is another unaffordable promise. The GE and TM avoided any real examination of labour's policies or the IFS widescale condemnation of them.
One thing is certain at the next GE labour will come under much more scrutiny on their mickey mouse promises
The IFS also condemned the Conservatives' numbers-free financial plans.
The conservatives costs were announced in the budget so no change for the manifesto. No matter they were not labour's mickey mouse economics
Your departure from the IFS critique makes me wonder if you do not have an axe to grind.
F1: not a tip, but I'm surprised by the odds to win at Silverstone. Hamilton's 1.9. He's one exactly a third of races to date. Vettel is 3.25. He's won a third of races to date. Bottas, having won twice (one fewer than the others) is 4.5.
Hamilton's odds look rather short.
Incidentally, anyone betting should check the weather forecast (even if, as per Austria, it can sometimes lead you astray...).
Still can't fathom why the Tories are going for this drawn out, painful leadership contest.
Well, we're supposed to be asking you now..
What do you suggest?
New leader, snap election asap. Do or die.
Hanging on never works. You may fear Corbyn, but you will only gain a few months at the cost of your party by dragging this out.
Ok. We'd be roasted though.
As things stand, you're going to get roasted.
Pick the right leader (senior, safe, but charismatic - Hague), find some popular policies (cut tax, cut tuition fees, NHS funding), get the barnacles off the boat (hard/ideological brexit) and run the right campaign (its all about the economy, stupid!) you might do well.
Better than this slow death.
Interesting. Thanks.
Tory govt's go off the rails when they ditch pragmatic management of the economy in favour of ideology.
Hard Brexit is a textbook example of that.
The best example was membership of the ERM as insisted upon by headbangers like Clarke, Heseltine and Major.
Here's a suggestion for Ms Rayner ... "Our ambition is to make everyone in the country filthy rich by printing large quantities of extra money. The reason it hasn't been done before is that it was (a) a filthy capitalist plot to preserve an underclass to mock, and (b) It was a plot by the older generation to keep the youngster, who deserve much better, in permanent penury. "
"Oh, and free entry to very expensive music festivals."
If she can be a minister, I'll apply too. I could it for an hour or so a week.
My fairly mainstream Conservative uncle on the Isle of Wight has posted this on FB.
Signs of a real move to make JRM the PM?
Rees-Mogg versus Corbyn? I would have laughed at both a year ago. Actually they are quite similar - personable, issues driven, no policy, unsuitable to be leaders.
We are in those days.
Like everyone in the UK I haven't spent much time considering JRM for PM, or anything else for that matter. But he is a very bright guy, a constitutionalist, unencumbered by a need for self-enrichment, is probably more "down with the kids" (I know, I know, nanny canvassing) than many Cons MPs, and who knows.
Negatives? Obduracy (can be good/bad we're seeing how it can backfire with Tezza, obvs). One particular faith-driven might cause problems.
I mean that we're having this discussion in itself is the most telling element.
JRM is like Boris, but with less piffle. He is a posho, but like Boris is comfortable in his skin in a way that Dave Cameron occasionally got wrong. He is intelligent articulate and charming.
His politics are a century out of date, and it is that that would lose dozens of seats. Still better than May, though.
If Labour plans to write off student debt (as previously predicted by me) how about the Conservatives writing off the national debt ?
Think of the advantages:
1) No more debt interest to pay thus allowing more spending on health, housing and multiple other things.
2) The government then has to live within its means and therefore will have to concentrate on boosting wealth creation and cut down of the vanity projects and unfunded promises.
I was musing about the need for some kind of National Government on here a few weeks back, so I'm pleased to discover that Theresa reads PB and is open to some its more sensible recommendations. Perhaps Theresa isn't as obstinate as we were told.
So have I got this right - May's relaunch involves asking all of the other parties to tell her what the government ought to be doing?
Can I refer her to the Labour manifesto, and suggest she gets on with it.
Or better still, asks us to get on with it.
The trouble is she can do very little with her current parliamentary position other than simply occupy office. It's a disaster.
Corbyn as PM would be an even bigger disaster.
Never mind the Labour Party, she should (have) ask(ed) the rest of her own party what they want.
Too busy calling each other fuckers and wankers.
Bloody Tory party. Never ever bloody learn.
The Tories rival the English for destructive self loathing and infighting. Also, they suffer from not having really had any idea what they want to do with power since 1990, aside from some notion of financial probity. Privatisation of BR and oddball tinkering with what you call a state school spring to mind but where's the overarching vision? What do they want britain to be? Its a real paucity of hope and vision. 'We want to govern' isn't enough. People tend to like vision. And sone enjoy watching that vision fail, but the still vote for it because at least it's something to watch. They need a Keith Joseph.
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
From yesterday's discussion on university funding, a strong reason not to trash the sector is that it's a very big positive contributor to our balance of payments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40447950
There are good reasons for funding reform, but whatever we do should be carefully considered, rather than brought in by May in a desperate attempt to salvage her popularity... or Corbyn in a ferment of social justice enthusiasm.
I was just wondering why someone like Gina Millar doesn't sue the Labour Party for false representation. They pledged to abolish tuition fees which undoubtedly caused many youngsters to vote for them. Now that pledge is an aim, or ambition.
So their lying very probably cost the Cons their OM and that surely is actionable.
(IANAL, obvs)
Writing off existing student debt is an ambition. Abolishing fees is a policy.
100 billion rising to 200 billion to wipe of student debt is beyond credible. The abolishion of student fees is coming under considerable examination not least by the Guardian and is another unaffordable promise. The GE and TM avoided any real examination of labour's policies or the IFS widescale condemnation of them.
One thing is certain at the next GE labour will come under much more scrutiny on their mickey mouse promises
So what is the current government's plan for the £33 bn, rising to £66 bn, that will never be repaid?
Also debt is debt, whether private or public. Student fee repayments increase the liabilities of graduates at the same time as they are needing to have families, purchase housing and develop businesses. These chains of debt weigh heavily on people starting out on careers.
A writing off, or writing down of the debt (if we can have a pay cap, why not an interest cap?) would put money in the pockets of the people that we want to keep in this country, and incentivise.
If you offer the electorate something different, they will start to be attracted to it (witness 20 point lead to 8 point deficit). It doesn't really matter what you offer, just that it's change. People are rarely satisfied with how life is, it can always be better in the mind. And you can always tax the rich and be popular as long as you do a good job in convincing 85% they aren't, and never will be, rich.
Still can't fathom why the Tories are going for this drawn out, painful leadership contest.
Well, we're supposed to be asking you now..
What do you suggest?
New leader, snap election asap. Do or die.
Hanging on never works. You may fear Corbyn, but you will only gain a few months at the cost of your party by dragging this out.
Ok. We'd be roasted though.
As things stand, you're going to get roasted.
Pick the right leader (senior, safe, but charismatic - Hague), find some popular policies (cut tax, cut tuition fees, NHS funding), get the barnacles off the boat (hard/ideological brexit) and run the right campaign (its all about the economy, stupid!) you might do well.
Better than this slow death.
Interesting. Thanks.
Tory govt's go off the rails when they ditch pragmatic management of the economy in favour of ideology.
Hard Brexit is a textbook example of that.
So-called "hard" Brexit is a pragmatic reaction to knowing the current level of immigration is unsustainable and needs to be managed. The ideological belief is the one that believes any reduction to migration levels is tantamount to racism, no matter how high house prices get, how much green belt needs to be built on and no matter how much community bonds are frayed.
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
One wonders how countries like Canada, Japan and Australia manage given the only viable options for national survival are the EU and the EU in all but name.
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
One wonders how countries like Canada, Japan and Australia manage given the only viable options for national survival are the EU and the EU in all but name.
I was musing about the need for some kind of National Government on here a few weeks back, so I'm pleased to discover that Theresa reads PB and is open to some its more sensible recommendations. Perhaps Theresa isn't as obstinate as we were told.
Peeling off the Labour moderates. Wedge the Corbynites off into hard left opposition and big tent the rest. Last throw of the dice to stop a Corbyn premiership incoming.
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
Unconvinced a Tory MP could win the leadership on that platform. And if TM suddenly converted to your view - I think she would be challenged and would probably lose to some Brexiteer.
IMO a transitional deal which limits the disruption is best outcome. Then have a GE and try to get a mandate for a new relationship with Europe.
Student fee repayments increase the liabilities of graduates at the same time as they are needing to have families, purchase housing and develop businesses.
Well, they don't, though. All fee repayments do is increase the tax stopped from their pay from much less than their parents paid to slightly less than their parents paid. And their parents paid those higher tax rates whether they had been to university or not.
It's hard to avoid the feeling that recent graduates' inability to grasp this proves that graduates are getting stupider.
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
One wonders how countries like Canada, Japan and Australia manage given the only viable options for national survival are the EU and the EU in all but name.
Surely we aspire to something more than national survival.
The difference between the UK and every country on earth is that we are the only one currently seeking to remove ourselves from a market of which we have been an integral part for over 40 years and which accounts for well over 40% of all our exports.
From yesterday's discussion on university funding, a strong reason not to trash the sector is that it's a very big positive contributor to our balance of payments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40447950
There are good reasons for funding reform, but whatever we do should be carefully considered, rather than brought in by May in a desperate attempt to salvage her popularity... or Corbyn in a ferment of social justice enthusiasm.
I was just wondering why someone like Gina Millar doesn't sue the Labour Party for false representation. They pledged to abolish tuition fees which undoubtedly caused many youngsters to vote for them. Now that pledge is an aim, or ambition.
So their lying very probably cost the Cons their OM and that surely is actionable.
(IANAL, obvs)
Writing off existing student debt is an ambition. Abolishing fees is a policy.
100 billion rising to 200 billion to wipe of student debt is beyond credible. The abolishion of student fees is coming under considerable examination not least by the Guardian and is another unaffordable promise. The GE and TM avoided any real examination of labour's policies or the IFS widescale condemnation of them.
One thing is certain at the next GE labour will come under much more scrutiny on their mickey mouse promises
We have not so far heard from the Universities themselves.
I would imagine that they are getting increasingly concerned.
If the policy is to pay less than 9250 per student, then this will lead to redundancies in the Universities.
University staff vote overwhelmingly Labour.
If all this results in some Universities going private how will that help education for the disadvantaged
It depends at what level Labour set the fees. But, if they set the fees at the level so that the policy costs 9 billion (Rayner's figure), then that is a rough halving of the fees.
My guess is then all the Russell group will go private.
If Labour trim it to 8k, then maybe the Universities will just grumble (and there will be substantial redundancies).
Trimming it to 8k would piss off everyone involved, all of whom vote Labour. This makes it either a very bad idea or a very good one, I'm not sure which.
So despite spending a huge wodge on Foreign aid were seen as no better than anyone else
spot the budget saving
Without it we might have the popularity of Iran...
without it we could pay for free higher education
we might even try training some doctors for a change
Given what it does - increase UK influence and contribute to reducing unrest and trouble before they flare up - we could go further down the same route and free up even more cash if we slash Armed Forces expenditure by reducing them to a Homeland Defence role only.
I was musing about the need for some kind of National Government on here a few weeks back, so I'm pleased to discover that Theresa reads PB and is open to some its more sensible recommendations. Perhaps Theresa isn't as obstinate as we were told.
Mrs May has totally burned her bridges with citizens of nowhere, saboteurs and enemies of the people.
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
One wonders how countries like Canada, Japan and Australia manage given the only viable options for national survival are the EU and the EU in all but name.
Canada is in NAFTA
I'm sure this has been wondered before but why can't Japan join the EU and why is she so foolish as not to want to?
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
That is pointless. It means remaining in all but name, but without a say.
EEA-EFTA gives new trading options, plus the EFTA court (not ECJ) and agriculture/fisheries/regional policy back, as well as immigration emergency brake.
However, it wouldn't save much by way of net contributions.
I remember a few months ago when Labour and Remainers were demanding a cross-party committee on Brexit to make sure all views are represented. Now Theresa May has shown she is open to ideas from other parties, this supposedly demonstrates she is clueless and out of ideas.
It reminds me of many on the left complaining the elderly were unduly protected from austerity and inheritance was ruining social mobility. Then the Conservatives decide to scrap winter fuel payments and pay for social care out of the inheritance of the better off. The left reacts by claiming the Tories are throwing granny under the bus.
The Conservatives need to accept there is no mollifying these people. They will attack us no matter what we do. They will change their narrative without the slightest bit of shame that it directly contradicts what they said immediately before. And the media will not pick them up on it.
They tell us now that replacing May with another leader will regain credibility and allow us to see off Corbyn. But of course the moment it happens they would claim it is evidence of Tory chaos, and that the new leader is worse than May. They say now that a new election wouldn't be needed so we could do it safe from Corbyn. As soon as it happens they would decry the lack of legitimacy and demand a general election. They say we should go for the EEA option rather than a "hard" Brexit". Once we did it, they would point out it has all the downsides of the EU, none of the upsides, and we had broken promises on reducing immigration and escaping EU law.
We must ignore them and simply soldier on to deliver for the British public. That means building more houses, increasing apprenticeships, limiting immigration and making a success of Brexit.
Student fee repayments increase the liabilities of graduates at the same time as they are needing to have families, purchase housing and develop businesses.
Well, they don't, though. All fee repayments do is increase the tax stopped from their pay from much less than their parents paid to slightly less than their parents paid. And their parents paid those higher tax rates whether they had been to university or not.
It's hard to avoid the feeling that recent graduates' inability to grasp this proves that graduates are getting stupider.
The other thing is, if people have less money to spend then things will inevitably become cheaper (obviously not true of imports). This is what really worries me about the culture of the bank of mum and dad. At some point, the bubble will burst.
There's talk on here this morning about Labour not committing to abolishing the debt of those paying the £9k a year fees. It would be very unfair on that chunk of the population to have to keep paying whilst those before and after them haven't had to pay nearly as much.
But what about those who have got on the property ladder during the bubble? Should we bail them out when the bubble bursts?
Still can't fathom why the Tories are going for this drawn out, painful leadership contest.
Well, we're supposed to be asking you now..
What do you suggest?
New leader, snap election asap. Do or die.
Hanging on never works. You may fear Corbyn, but you will only gain a few months at the cost of your party by dragging this out.
Ok. We'd be roasted though.
As things stand, you're going to get roasted.
Pick the right leader (senior, safe, but charismatic - Hague), find some popular policies (cut tax, cut tuition fees, NHS funding), get the barnacles off the boat (hard/ideological brexit) and run the right campaign (its all about the economy, stupid!) you might do well.
Better than this slow death.
Interesting. Thanks.
Tory govt's go off the rails when they ditch pragmatic management of the economy in favour of ideology.
Hard Brexit is a textbook example of that.
So-called "hard" Brexit is a pragmatic reaction to knowing the current level of immigration is unsustainable and needs to be managed. The ideological belief is the one that believes any reduction to migration levels is tantamount to racism, no matter how high house prices get, how much green belt needs to be built on and no matter how much community bonds are frayed.
Not really. Nothing was done about non-EU immigration by the last government, where Theresa May was responsible. And we know from EUref and pronouncements before and since that is not about racism, anti-racism or political correctness but to keep costs down for businesses. Theresa May (among others) is working for hard Brexit, I doubt it is because she thinks she was a lousy Home Secretary.
Trimming it to 8k would piss off everyone involved, all of whom vote Labour. This makes it either a very bad idea or a very good one, I'm not sure which.
Tuition fees have proved a graveyard for many politicians.
It is an area where it is easy to promise in opposition & hard to deliver in Government because of the monumental & increasing costs.
I suspect, in 5 years time, Corbyn will be next to Clegg in the tuition fees' boneyard.
Student fee repayments increase the liabilities of graduates at the same time as they are needing to have families, purchase housing and develop businesses.
Well, they don't, though. All fee repayments do is increase the tax stopped from their pay from much less than their parents paid to slightly less than their parents paid. And their parents paid those higher tax rates whether they had been to university or not.
It's hard to avoid the feeling that recent graduates' inability to grasp this proves that graduates are getting stupider.
Tax paid as a percentage of GNP is broadly unchanged over recent decades, but the way it is paid has shifted.
Todays generation pay less income tax but more VAT, get no MIRAs, less relief on pensions etc. New graduates get the worst of both.
Tories stand no chance of getting the young to vote for them with current policies, and rightly so.
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
One wonders how countries like Canada, Japan and Australia manage given the only viable options for national survival are the EU and the EU in all but name.
Canada is in NAFTA
Yes. An expansive free trade agreement that does not require freedom of movement or limit abilities to sign trade deals with other nations. That is exactly what we should now seek with the EU.
I was musing about the need for some kind of National Government on here a few weeks back, so I'm pleased to discover that Theresa reads PB and is open to some its more sensible recommendations. Perhaps Theresa isn't as obstinate as we were told.
Mrs May has totally burned her bridges with citizens of nowhere, saboteurs and enemies of the people.
And given that the existing DR system is hostile to cross-party collaboration or compromise, it's either ignorant or mendacious of her to even suggest it without linking it to removal of the stitched-up disproportional system.
Which she (and the Conservatives) never will, because power comes before principles (hostility to the extra choice and competition of a system where representation is more proportional to support comes from fear that Conservatism will never survive in the free market of politics without artificial support)
Still can't fathom why the Tories are going for this drawn out, painful leadership contest.
Well, we're supposed to be asking you now..
What do you suggest?
New leader, snap election asap. Do or die.
Hanging on never works. You may fear Corbyn, but you will only gain a few months at the cost of your party by dragging this out.
Ok. We'd be roasted though.
As things stand, you're going to get roasted.
Pick the right leader (senior, safe, but charismatic - Hague), find some popular policies (cut tax, cut tuition fees, NHS funding), get the barnacles off the boat (hard/ideological brexit) and run the right campaign (its all about the economy, stupid!) you might do well.
Better than this slow death.
We have now clearly moved from the complacency of the Tories to the complacency of Labour when Corbyn, who won 60 fewer seats than May, is now apparently going to 'roast' the Tories at the next general election. If Corbyn is facing Boris and Cable at the next general election in say 2019, Boris more charismatic than May (and likely to dump things like the dementia tax and public sector pay cap) and Cable more heavyweight than Farron and better able to exploit Corbyn's support for hard Brexit anything could happen
Boris will not win back the Remain votes that the Tories lost at the last election. He is too polarising, has told too many lies and is too tied to Brexit. But your general thrust is correct. Labour's current hubris bears no relationship to the political reality. A decent leader fighting a less controlling campaign with some popular policies and a vaguely positive tone would have a very good chance against a Labour party that has deliberately rejected the centre ground, marginalised its moderates and whose next manifesto will be even further to the left than the last one.
So have I got this right - May's relaunch involves asking all of the other parties to tell her what the government ought to be doing?
Can I refer her to the Labour manifesto, and suggest she gets on with it.
Or better still, asks us to get on with it.
The trouble is she can do very little with her current parliamentary position other than simply occupy office. It's a disaster.
Corbyn as PM would be an even bigger disaster.
Never mind the Labour Party, she should (have) ask(ed) the rest of her own party what they want.
Too busy calling each other fuckers and wankers.
Bloody Tory party. Never ever bloody learn.
The Tories rival the English for destructive self loathing and infighting. Also, they suffer from not having really had any idea what they want to do with power since 1990, aside from some notion of financial probity. Privatisation of BR and oddball tinkering with what you call a state school spring to mind but where's the overarching vision? What do they want britain to be? Its a real paucity of hope and vision. 'We want to govern' isn't enough. People tend to like vision. And sone enjoy watching that vision fail, but the still vote for it because at least it's something to watch. They need a Keith Joseph.
Some interesting points. I'm clear what the Tories (should) be about: a society that maximises freedom and opportunity for individuals, families and communities from the bottom up, not top down, to improve the quality of life for all, and isn't ashamed of Britain, its history, traditions or what it stands for.
The Tories have to be more than just emergency economic cleaners.
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
This is my worry. The country's interests are being "represented" by what appears to be a cabal of incompetent idiots. Boris does not fill me with any confidence, I have absolutely no idea what Liam Fox is doing and David Davis seems to be full of bombast and bluster which collapses when it meets reality. Capping it all is Theresa May who seems focused on surviving rather than governing.
In a year they have done nothing to advance and secure the UK's position. They have twaddled and postured and played political games with the electorate and each other whilst the clock ticks down to March 2019. I have the horrible feeling that they will get us to WTO Brexit simply because they arse about for the next two years.
What makes the whole thing beyond parody is that Japan and the EU have just agreed an FTA and the Australians and EU are about to sign an FTA and we are going to Brexit and then negotiate UK/Japan and UK/Australia FTAs. We are going to recreate the very things we are throwing away and call it a victory.
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
Unconvinced a Tory MP could win the leadership on that platform. And if TM suddenly converted to your view - I think she would be challenged and would probably lose to some Brexiteer.
IMO a transitional deal which limits the disruption is best outcome. Then have a GE and try to get a mandate for a new relationship with Europe.
Then that doesn't deal with the problem I am talking about. The arguments will go on and on, to the Conservatives' disadvantage. The EU is not interested in "transitional arrangements" to nowhere, ie a period while we decide what to do and get ourselves sorted out.
Take the proposal on EU citizen rights. The UK government proposal is workable. In fact it is the only serious piece of work they have done on Brexit so far. It is not however the generous settlement they claim it to be. The EU have said it is unacceptable; we can rightly say sod you, the whole point is for us to be sovereign. We could easily ding dong on just that one, supposedly the most straightforward, issue until we Brexit in 18 months time. We won't have discussed trade arrangements, dealing with nuclear material, common civil air spaces etc etc. Nor will we have all those wonderful third country trade arrangements to pivot to. We will have just lost the ones we already had.
If we want to put the matter to bed and move on, we have to go off the shelf. Apart from the full EU membership that was rejected, there is only EEA. I don't personally think it is a good outcome, but it is at least a real one.
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
One wonders how countries like Canada, Japan and Australia manage given the only viable options for national survival are the EU and the EU in all but name.
Surely we aspire to something more than national survival.
The difference between the UK and every country on earth is that we are the only one currently seeking to remove ourselves from a market of which we have been an integral part for over 40 years and which accounts for well over 40% of all our exports.
We should also aspire to more than being a second tier member of an economically struggling EU, controlled by its laws but never listened to.
At the end of the day, we had this debate, Remainers lost and the British people voted to Leave. We should embrace the global opportunities it offers and grow beyond petty sniping.
So despite spending a huge wodge on Foreign aid were seen as no better than anyone else
spot the budget saving
Without it we might have the popularity of Iran...
without it we could pay for free higher education
we might even try training some doctors for a change
Given what it does - increase UK influence and contribute to reducing unrest and trouble before they flare up - we could go further down the same route and free up even more cash if we slash Armed Forces expenditure by reducing them to a Homeland Defence role only.
If that's the road we want to take.
Britain seems to be the only country which pays both the 2% on Defence and the 0.7% on Overseas Aid.
It doesn't seem to make us popular.
Perhaps they should be reduced to the same levels as Germany.
JRM is like Boris, but with less piffle. He is a posho, but like Boris is comfortable in his skin in a way that Dave Cameron occasionally got wrong. He is intelligent articulate and charming.
His politics are a century out of date, and it is that that would lose dozens of seats. Still better than May, though.
I would not even consider voting Tory if JRM was the leader. I want to go forwards to the future, not backwards to the past.
So have I got this right - May's relaunch involves asking all of the other parties to tell her what the government ought to be doing?
Can I refer her to the Labour manifesto, and suggest she gets on with it.
Or better still, asks us to get on with it.
The trouble is she can do very little with her current parliamentary position other than simply occupy office. It's a disaster.
Corbyn as PM would be an even bigger disaster.
Never mind the Labour Party, she should (have) ask(ed) the rest of her own party what they want.
Too busy calling each other fuckers and wankers.
Bloody Tory party. Never ever bloody learn.
The Tories rival the English for destructive self loathing and infighting. Also, they suffer from not having really had any idea what they want to do with power since 1990, aside from some notion of financial probity. Privatisation of BR and oddball tinkering with what you call a state school spring to mind but where's the overarching vision? What do they want britain to be? Its a real paucity of hope and vision. 'We want to govern' isn't enough. People tend to like vision. And sone enjoy watching that vision fail, but the still vote for it because at least it's something to watch. They need a Keith Joseph.
Some interesting points. I'm clear what the Tories (should) be about: a society that maximises freedom and opportunity for individuals, families and communities from the bottom up, not top down, to improve the quality of life for all, and isn't ashamed of Britain, its history, traditions or what it stands for.
The Tories have to be more than just emergency economic cleaners.
Quite. And, in a sense, the detail of the vision is irrelevant. As long as it encapsulates some of that traditional toryism you mention it can be anywhere in the spectrum from sort centre left to the right flank of UKIP and it will be popular because it's 1 change and 2 vision. I'm going to steady the ship < I'm going to change your life Every time.
So despite spending a huge wodge on Foreign aid were seen as no better than anyone else
spot the budget saving
Without it we might have the popularity of Iran...
without it we could pay for free higher education
we might even try training some doctors for a change
Given what it does - increase UK influence and contribute to reducing unrest and trouble before they flare up - we could go further down the same route and free up even more cash if we slash Armed Forces expenditure by reducing them to a Homeland Defence role only.
If that's the road we want to take.
Britain seems to be the only country which pays both the 2% on Defence and the 0.7% on Overseas Aid.
It doesn't seem to make us popular.
Perhaps they should be reduced to the same levels as Germany.
If that is the road we want to take, then we should take it with eyes wide open. It would mean we have far less international influence, but a little more money to spend at home. Trade-offs. I'm not sure the Conservative Party would like to be remembered as the Party that turned us into a minor power (for good or ill, we are, at the moment, a G8 economy, a P5 member, with one of only three or four true expeditionary Armed Forces capable of worldwide intervention, and despite the pronouncements of many these days, we remain a real world power (not a superpower, of course, but a true world power).
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
That is pointless. It means remaining in all but name, but without a say.
EEA-EFTA gives new trading options, plus the EFTA court (not ECJ) and agriculture/fisheries/regional policy back, as well as immigration emergency brake.
However, it wouldn't save much by way of net contributions.
In purely business terms the net contributions are well worth the money given that the alternative will cost the UK economy a whole lot more each year. Obviously, there is a symbolic aspect to them - but real leaders unafraid of the odd bad headline in the right wing press would find a way to work through this.
There is clearly a compromise position available to the UK which would win enough support from both Remainers and Leavers - as well as the EU27 - to be a viable, long-term solution to the mess we have created for ourselves. God knows how we get to it politically (it would, for example, have to bypass the absolutely anti-EU Labour leadership), but if we don't future generations will not forgive us.
So despite spending a huge wodge on Foreign aid were seen as no better than anyone else
spot the budget saving
Without it we might have the popularity of Iran...
without it we could pay for free higher education
we might even try training some doctors for a change
Given what it does - increase UK influence and contribute to reducing unrest and trouble before they flare up - we could go further down the same route and free up even more cash if we slash Armed Forces expenditure by reducing them to a Homeland Defence role only.
If that's the road we want to take.
Britain seems to be the only country which pays both the 2% on Defence and the 0.7% on Overseas Aid.
It doesn't seem to make us popular.
Perhaps they should be reduced to the same levels as Germany.
They should be honest and call it 2.7% of GDP on interfering. Defence ain't about defence and aid ain't about the unfortunate.
I was musing about the need for some kind of National Government on here a few weeks back, so I'm pleased to discover that Theresa reads PB and is open to some its more sensible recommendations. Perhaps Theresa isn't as obstinate as we were told.
Peeling off the Labour moderates. Wedge the Corbynites off into hard left opposition and big tent the rest. Last throw of the dice to stop a Corbyn premiership incoming.
Corbyn premiership seems pretty far off, there's no way Corbyn is going to get all his MPs voting alongside him on the majority of issues so Theresa can afford to lose a few of the Soubry, Morgan awkward squad.
Does feel like this approach by May is just a trap to show everything Corbyn does is in self interest rather than the national one.
JRM is like Boris, but with less piffle. He is a posho, but like Boris is comfortable in his skin in a way that Dave Cameron occasionally got wrong. He is intelligent articulate and charming.
His politics are a century out of date, and it is that that would lose dozens of seats. Still better than May, though.
I would not even consider voting Tory if JRM was the leader. I want to go forwards to the future, not backwards to the past.
Boris wants to be prime minister. Jacob Rees-Mogg, so far as I can see, harbours no such ambition and any leadership proposals are a joke by others.
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
This is my worry. The country's interests are being "represented" by what appears to be a cabal of incompetent idiots. Boris does not fill me with any confidence, I have absolutely no idea what Liam Fox is doing and David Davis seems to be full of bombast and bluster which collapses when it meets reality. Capping it all is Theresa May who seems focused on surviving rather than governing.
In a year they have done nothing to advance and secure the UK's position. They have twaddled and postured and played political games with the electorate and each other whilst the clock ticks down to March 2019. I have the horrible feeling that they will get us to WTO Brexit simply because they arse about for the next two years.
What makes the whole thing beyond parody is that Japan and the EU have just agreed an FTA and the Australians and EU are about to sign an FTA and we are going to Brexit and then negotiate UK/Japan and UK/Australia FTAs. We are going to recreate the very things we are throwing away and call it a victory.
The Tories have squandered a year, and look like squandering another one, leaving default WTO terms. That may well be the only form of Brexit that exists as I am not at allconvinced that EFTA or the EEA arrangements are either viable or available.
What is particularly incompetent is that despite it being very likely, there is no practical planning for WTO Brexit, just British Bulldog Brexit Bullshit.
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
One wonders how countries like Canada, Japan and Australia manage given the only viable options for national survival are the EU and the EU in all but name.
Canada is in NAFTA
I'm sure this has been wondered before but why can't Japan join the EU and why is she so foolish as not to want to?
I was musing about the need for some kind of National Government on here a few weeks back, so I'm pleased to discover that Theresa reads PB and is open to some its more sensible recommendations. Perhaps Theresa isn't as obstinate as we were told.
Peeling off the Labour moderates. Wedge the Corbynites off into hard left opposition and big tent the rest. Last throw of the dice to stop a Corbyn premiership incoming.
Corbyn premiership seems pretty far off, there's no way Corbyn is going to get all his MPs voting alongside him on the majority of issues so Theresa can afford to lose a few of the Soubry, Morgan awkward squad.
Does feel like this approach by May is just a trap to show everything Corbyn does is in self interest rather than the national one.
If only Corbyn had fallen into any of those previous traps that the Tessy Tories were setting for him..
I was musing about the need for some kind of National Government on here a few weeks back, so I'm pleased to discover that Theresa reads PB and is open to some its more sensible recommendations. Perhaps Theresa isn't as obstinate as we were told.
Peeling off the Labour moderates. Wedge the Corbynites off into hard left opposition and big tent the rest. Last throw of the dice to stop a Corbyn premiership incoming.
Corbyn premiership seems pretty far off, there's no way Corbyn is going to get all his MPs voting alongside him on the majority of issues so Theresa can afford to lose a few of the Soubry, Morgan awkward squad.
Does feel like this approach by May is just a trap to show everything Corbyn does is in self interest rather than the national one.
If only Corbyn had fallen into any of those previous traps that the Tessy Tories were setting for him..
Yes I don't think he will, but the problem is maybe Umunna and co might, driving a further wedge through the reds.
There is another option. Leave the EU, the SM and the CU and like virtually every other country in the World realise that it is perfectly possible to trade under WTO rules and that it doesn't make all that much difference.
Where is the evidence on the effectiveness of the SM? Did intra-EU trade suddenly jump when it was introduced - no. Are all the countries with growing EU trade in the SM - er, no, many of the most successful exporters to the EU trade under WTO.
If we just announced now that there would be a hard Brexit, business and government could prepare and there would be very few issues. It is the obsession with the SM, quite without real evidence, that it actually damaging UK interests.
Unconvinced a Tory MP could win the leadership on that platform. And if TM suddenly converted to your view - I think she would be challenged and would probably lose to some Brexiteer.
IMO a transitional deal which limits the disruption is best outcome. Then have a GE and try to get a mandate for a new relationship with Europe.
Then that doesn't deal with the problem I am talking about. The arguments will go on and on, to the Conservatives' disadvantage. The EU is not interested in "transitional arrangements" to nowhere, ie a period while we decide what to do and get ourselves sorted out.
Take the proposal on EU citizen rights. The UK government proposal is workable. In fact it is the only serious piece of work they have done on Brexit so far. It is not however the generous settlement they claim it to be. The EU have said it is unacceptable; we can rightly say sod you, the whole point is for us to be sovereign. We could easily ding dong on just that one, supposedly the most straightforward, issue until we Brexit in 18 months time. We won't have discussed trade arrangements, dealing with nuclear material, common civil air spaces etc etc. Nor will we have all those wonderful third country trade arrangements to pivot to. We will have just lost the ones we already had.
If we want to put the matter to bed and move on, we have to go off the shelf. Apart from the full EU membership that was rejected, there is only EEA. I don't personally think it is a good outcome, but it is at least a real one.
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
That is pointless. It means remaining in all but name, but without a say.
EEA-EFTA gives new trading options, plus the EFTA court (not ECJ) and agriculture/fisheries/regional policy back, as well as immigration emergency brake.
However, it wouldn't save much by way of net contributions.
In purely business terms the net contributions are well worth the money given that the alternative will cost the UK economy a whole lot more each year. Obviously, there is a symbolic aspect to them - but real leaders unafraid of the odd bad headline in the right wing press would find a way to work through this.
There is clearly a compromise position available to the UK which would win enough support from both Remainers and Leavers - as well as the EU27 - to be a viable, long-term solution to the mess we have created for ourselves. God knows how we get to it politically (it would, for example, have to bypass the absolutely anti-EU Labour leadership), but if we don't future generations will not forgive us.
I think the route to the EEA is via hard WTO Brexit, massive hangover, then dawning sheepishness and humble pie. At best it will be a lost decade, at worst permanent damage to key sectors of the economy.
Still can't fathom why the Tories are going for this drawn out, painful leadership contest.
Well, we're supposed to be asking you now..
What do you suggest?
New leader, snap election asap. Do or die.
Hanging on never works. You may fear Corbyn, but you will only gain a few months at the cost of your party by dragging this out.
Ok. We'd be roasted though.
As things stand, you're going to get roasted.
Pick the right leader (senior, safe, but charismatic - Hague), find some popular policies (cut tax, cut tuition fees, NHS funding), get the barnacles off the boat (hard/ideological brexit) and run the right campaign (its all about the economy, stupid!) you might do well.
Better than this slow death.
We have now clearly moved from the complacency of the Tories to the complacency of Labour when Corbyn, who won 60 fewer seats than May, is now apparently going to 'roast' the Tories at the next general election. If Corbyn is facing Boris and Cable at the next general election in say 2019, Boris more charismatic than May (and likely to dump things like the dementia tax and public sector pay cap) and Cable more heavyweight than Farron and better able to exploit Corbyn's support for hard Brexit anything could happen
Boris will not win back the Remain votes that the Tories lost at the last election. He is too polarising, has told too many lies and is too tied to Brexit. But your general thrust is correct. Labour's current hubris bears no relationship to the political reality. A decent leader fighting a less controlling campaign with some popular policies and a vaguely positive tone would have a very good chance against a Labour party that has deliberately rejected the centre ground, marginalised its moderates and whose next manifesto will be even further to the left than the last one.
Agreed, a charismatic moderate leading Labour with a pro single market stance (maybe trying to extract a few temporary concessions on free movement from the EU) would have a strong chance at the next general election. Corbyn did better than expected but his left-wing platform still failed to win and if he attacks say Boris on Brexit Boris could correctly reply his Brexit stance is indistinguishable from his own. Provided Boris holds the 42% he then wins, even if some 2015 Remain Tories vote LD
JRM is like Boris, but with less piffle. He is a posho, but like Boris is comfortable in his skin in a way that Dave Cameron occasionally got wrong. He is intelligent articulate and charming.
His politics are a century out of date, and it is that that would lose dozens of seats. Still better than May, though.
I would not even consider voting Tory if JRM was the leader. I want to go forwards to the future, not backwards to the past.
Why should we care what you think?
You haven't said anything vaguely Conservative or centre-right for years, and your posts are mostly full of childish smiley faces and thumbs-up.
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
That is pointless. It means remaining in all but name, but without a say.
EEA-EFTA gives new trading options, plus the EFTA court (not ECJ) and agriculture/fisheries/regional policy back, as well as immigration emergency brake.
However, it wouldn't save much by way of net contributions.
In purely business terms the net contributions are well worth the money given that the alternative will cost the UK economy a whole lot more each year. Obviously, there is a symbolic aspect to them - but real leaders unafraid of the odd bad headline in the right wing press would find a way to work through this.
There is clearly a compromise position available to the UK which would win enough support from both Remainers and Leavers - as well as the EU27 - to be a viable, long-term solution to the mess we have created for ourselves. God knows how we get to it politically (it would, for example, have to bypass the absolutely anti-EU Labour leadership), but if we don't future generations will not forgive us.
I think the route to the EEA is via hard WTO Brexit, massive hangover, then dawning sheepishness and humble pie. At best it will be a lost decade, at worst permanent damage to key sectors of the economy.
If we hard Brexit then that is game over for our Single Market membership. We won't return to the EEA, it will be far too much of a massive headache and there will be no goodwill left to want us back on their part. A decade would be too short a period to reverse that.
Besides the vast majority of the world lives perfectly contentedly outside the Single Market.
There is another option. Leave the EU, the SM and the CU and like virtually every other country in the World realise that it is perfectly possible to trade under WTO rules and that it doesn't make all that much difference.
You are gambling the country's future on a supposition. If you are wrong it will cost us.
Where is the evidence on the effectiveness of the SM? Did intra-EU trade suddenly jump when it was introduced - no. Are all the countries with growing EU trade in the SM - er, no, many of the most successful exporters to the EU trade under WTO.
The EU/SM is working for us and we prospered whilst in it. We might have prospered because of it or in spite of it - who knows, but our current position worked for us.
You (and the Brexiteers) are proposing we move to a position that we have no idea if it will work in our favour and I have to ask - if WTO terms are so good why do countries invest so much time and effort setting up FTAs?
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
That is pointless. It means remaining in all but name, but without a say.
EEA-EFTA gives new trading options, plus the EFTA court (not ECJ) and agriculture/fisheries/regional policy back, as well as immigration emergency brake.
However, it wouldn't save much by way of net contributions.
In purely business terms the net contributions are well worth the money given that the alternative will cost the UK economy a whole lot more each year. Obviously, there is a symbolic aspect to them - but real leaders unafraid of the odd bad headline in the right wing press would find a way to work through this.
There is clearly a compromise position available to the UK which would win enough support from both Remainers and Leavers - as well as the EU27 - to be a viable, long-term solution to the mess we have created for ourselves. God knows how we get to it politically (it would, for example, have to bypass the absolutely anti-EU Labour leadership), but if we don't future generations will not forgive us.
You beat Corbyn by having an OK campaign and being the only adult in the room. May had the latter but not the former and still won. Davis and Hammond would almost certainly beat Corbyn but Boris would be a far bigger risk given his EU ref antics and I could see him getting beaten. The press and social media would give him a much rougher ride than the other candidates.
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
This is my worry. The country's interests are being "represented" by what appears to be a cabal of incompetent idiots. Boris does not fill me with any confidence, I have absolutely no idea what Liam Fox is doing and David Davis seems to be full of bombast and bluster which collapses when it meets reality. Capping it all is Theresa May who seems focused on surviving rather than governing.
In a year they have done nothing to advance and secure the UK's position. They have twaddled and postured and played political games with the electorate and each other whilst the clock ticks down to March 2019. I have the horrible feeling that they will get us to WTO Brexit simply because they arse about for the next two years.
What makes the whole thing beyond parody is that Japan and the EU have just agreed an FTA and the Australians and EU are about to sign an FTA and we are going to Brexit and then negotiate UK/Japan and UK/Australia FTAs. We are going to recreate the very things we are throwing away and call it a victory.
The Tories have squandered a year, and look like squandering another one, leaving default WTO terms. That may well be the only form of Brexit that exists as I am not at allconvinced that EFTA or the EEA arrangements are either viable or available.
What is particularly incompetent is that despite it being very likely, there is no practical planning for WTO Brexit, just British Bulldog Brexit Bullshit.
I think EEA/EFTA is going to have to be the way forward. Call it interim, call it transitional, whatever works but it both satisfies those who want out, and satisfies those who want in.
Who wouldn't be happy? A small minority.
@Charles acutely noted that marketed as a free trade association (for it is that), it might receive less opposition.
My own view of its likely acceptance is that it is still a big ask. But of all the bonkers, pledge u-turning, policy-ditching, rudderless ship shenanigans we have had of late, this will be small fry.
JRM is like Boris, but with less piffle. He is a posho, but like Boris is comfortable in his skin in a way that Dave Cameron occasionally got wrong. He is intelligent articulate and charming.
His politics are a century out of date, and it is that that would lose dozens of seats. Still better than May, though.
I would not even consider voting Tory if JRM was the leader. I want to go forwards to the future, not backwards to the past.
Boris wants to be prime minister. Jacob Rees-Mogg, so far as I can see, harbours no such ambition and any leadership proposals are a joke by others.
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
One wonders how countries like Canada, Japan and Australia manage given the only viable options for national survival are the EU and the EU in all but name.
Surely we aspire to something more than national survival.
The difference between the UK and every country on earth is that we are the only one currently seeking to remove ourselves from a market of which we have been an integral part for over 40 years and which accounts for well over 40% of all our exports.
We are not seeking to remove ourselves from that market. We are seeking to remove ourselves from political union.
Mrs C, economically things worked pretty well (although it's telling that the single market was completed in areas other than finance).
Politically, that is not the case. If the economic aspect had been available without the politics, I would've happily voted for that. But the EU demands ever more power and is constantly shifting it from nation-states to the centre. Failed referendum results are either ignored or re-run until acceptance is given to EU centralisation. Brown reneged upon a manifesto commitment to a referendum on Lisbon, and now the EU Army, derided as a myth by federalists, is coming ever closer.
You beat Corbyn by having an OK campaign and being the only adult in the room. May had the latter but not the former and still won. Davis and Hammond would almost certainly beat Corbyn but Boris would be a far bigger risk given his EU ref antics and I could see him getting beaten. The press and social media would give him a much rougher ride than the other candidates.
The reverse in my view. 9 times out of 10 the more charismatic candidate wins, Davis and Hammond have even less charisma than May, Boris has charisma in spades and is already moving towards voter opinion on things like public sector pay
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
That is pointless. It means remaining in all but name, but without a say.
EEA-EFTA gives new trading options, plus the EFTA court (not ECJ) and agriculture/fisheries/regional policy back, as well as immigration emergency brake.
However, it wouldn't save much by way of net contributions.
In
I think the route to the EEA is via hard WTO Brexit, massive hangover, then dawning sheepishness and humble pie. At best it will be a lost decade, at worst permanent damage to key sectors of the economy.
If we hard Brexit then that is game over for our Single Market membership. We won't return to the EEA, it will be far too much of a massive headache and there will be no goodwill left to want us back on their part. A decade would be too short a period to reverse that.
Besides the vast majority of the world lives perfectly contentedly outside the Single Market.
FWIW, I think the benefits of the single market are somewhat overrated, and largely confined to financial services and transcontinental energy/air/rail/telecoms networks, and bureaucratic convenience.
We have largely got the bits that work in favour of the EU (goods, and people, where we have a deficit) whilst never getting close to completing it in the areas that favour us (services)
JRM is like Boris, but with less piffle. He is a posho, but like Boris is comfortable in his skin in a way that Dave Cameron occasionally got wrong. He is intelligent articulate and charming.
His politics are a century out of date, and it is that that would lose dozens of seats. Still better than May, though.
I would not even consider voting Tory if JRM was the leader. I want to go forwards to the future, not backwards to the past.
Why should we care what you think?
You haven't said anything vaguely Conservative or centre-right for years, and your posts are mostly full of childish smiley faces and thumbs-up.
Because the Conservatives couldn't get a majority even against a cretin like Corbyn in their current guise.
For their own sake, if not the country's sake, the Conservatives need a leader who can tell the party we are as a matter of necessity going for Single Market with freedom of movement, ECJ and customs union. There are only two viable options for the UK and if you don't like the Single Market, the other one is full membership of the EU, which you and the country as a whole rejected.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
One wonders how countries like Canada, Japan and Australia manage given the only viable options for national survival are the EU and the EU in all but name.
Surely we aspire to something more than national survival.
The difference between the UK and every country on earth is that we are the only one currently seeking to remove ourselves from a market of which we have been an integral part for over 40 years and which accounts for well over 40% of all our exports.
We are not seeking to remove ourselves from that market. We are seeking to remove ourselves from political union.
That involves removing ourselves from the single market.
From yesterday's discussion on university funding, a strong reason not to trash the sector is that it's a very big positive contributor to our balance of payments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40447950
There are good reasons for funding reform, but whatever we do should be carefully considered, rather than brought in by May in a desperate attempt to salvage her popularity... or Corbyn in a ferment of social justice enthusiasm.
I was just wondering why someone like Gina Millar doesn't sue the Labour Party for false representation. They pledged to abolish tuition fees which undoubtedly caused many youngsters to vote for them. Now that pledge is an aim, or ambition.
So their lying very probably cost the Cons their OM and that surely is actionable.
(IANAL, obvs)
Writing off existing student debt is an ambition. Abolishing fees is a policy.
100 billion rising to 200 billion to wipe of student debt is beyond credible. The abolishion of student fees is coming under considerable examination not least by the Guardian and is another unaffordable promise. The GE and TM avoided any real examination of labour's policies or the IFS widescale condemnation of them.
One thing is certain at the next GE labour will come under much more scrutiny on their mickey mouse promises
The IFS also condemned the Conservatives' numbers-free financial plans.
The difference is between somebody selling you something with a few hidden charges in the small print and someone getting your bank password, emptying all your accounts and deciding they might as well hold a free music event in your house advertised on social media.
Still can't fathom why the Tories are going for this drawn out, painful leadership contest.
Well, we're supposed to be asking you now..
What do you suggest?
New leader, snap election asap. Do or die.
Hanging on never works. You may fear Corbyn, but you will only gain a few months at the cost of your party by dragging this out.
Ok. We'd be roasted though.
As things stand, you're going to get roasted.
Pick the right leader (senior, safe, but charismatic - Hague), find some popular policies (cut tax, cut tuition fees, NHS funding), get the barnacles off the boat (hard/ideological brexit) and run the right campaign (its all about the economy, stupid!) you might do well.
Better than this slow death.
Up until "Hague" you were doing well. How could that absolute donkey be taken seriously.
You beat Corbyn by having an OK campaign and being the only adult in the room. May had the latter but not the former and still won. Davis and Hammond would almost certainly beat Corbyn but Boris would be a far bigger risk given his EU ref antics and I could see him getting beaten. The press and social media would give him a much rougher ride than the other candidates.
The reverse in my view. 9 times out of 10 the more charismatic candidate wins, Davis and Hammond have even less charisma than May, Boris has charisma in spades and is already moving towards voter opinion on things like public sector pay
More lies from Boris for personal gain, who would have thought.
Anecdote alert: at a big wedding over the weekend, then a trade fair and dinner with the in-laws.
To a man and woman anyone who I talked politics with (40-50 in total) was infuriated with Remainers talking of trying to subvert the result. Similarly, all that went further suggested that we obviously can't be part in part out. These were largely AB1s, a handful of C1/2s too.Quite surprising given how many Remainers (and leavers to, tbh) here increasingly suggest there is no appetite for actual Brexit.
To the contrary, I'd suggest that apart from among fervent politicos, there is no appetite for anything but Brexit. The government line is correct. Nerves need to be held.
You beat Corbyn by having an OK campaign and being the only adult in the room. May had the latter but not the former and still won. Davis and Hammond would almost certainly beat Corbyn but Boris would be a far bigger risk given his EU ref antics and I could see him getting beaten. The press and social media would give him a much rougher ride than the other candidates.
The reverse in my view. 9 times out of 10 the more charismatic candidate wins, Davis and Hammond have even less charisma than May, Boris has charisma in spades and is already moving towards voter opinion on things like public sector pay
More lies from Boris for personal gain, who would have thought.
Anecdote alert: at a big wedding over the weekend, then a trade fair and dinner with the in-laws.
To a man and woman anyone who I talked politics with (40-50 in total) was infuriated with Remainers talking of trying to subvert the result. Similarly, all that went further suggested that we obviously can't be part in part out. These were largely AB1s, a handful of C1/2s too.Quite surprising given how many Remainers (and leavers to, tbh) here increasingly suggest there is no appetite for actual Brexit.
To the contrary, I'd suggest that apart from among fervent politicos, there is no appetite for anything but Brexit. The government line is correct. Nerves need to be held.
Mrs C, economically things worked pretty well (although it's telling that the single market was completed in areas other than finance).
Politically, that is not the case. If the economic aspect had been available without the politics, I would've happily voted for that. But the EU demands ever more power and is constantly shifting it from nation-states to the centre. Failed referendum results are either ignored or re-run until acceptance is given to EU centralisation. Brown reneged upon a manifesto commitment to a referendum on Lisbon, and now the EU Army, derided as a myth by federalists, is coming ever closer.
We've got to make a choice, ultimately.
Yes Mr Dancer - we do have to make a choice.
I find it remarkable that someone like me who spent years as a mild BOO-er has now shifted to the pro-EU side of the fence and it is Brexit that made me shift. Our handling of Brexit is just making me more and more convinced that the UK is no longer fit for purpose. It is time for Federal Europe. We need to shift our viewpoint to a more integrationist role were we, the Germans and the Nordic countries take control of the EU and liberalise it.
That seems to me to be a grander vision than retreating to a 1957 Mk2 Peak Blighty.
JRM is like Boris, but with less piffle. He is a posho, but like Boris is comfortable in his skin in a way that Dave Cameron occasionally got wrong. He is intelligent articulate and charming.
His politics are a century out of date, and it is that that would lose dozens of seats. Still better than May, though.
I would not even consider voting Tory if JRM was the leader. I want to go forwards to the future, not backwards to the past.
Why should we care what you think?
You haven't said anything vaguely Conservative or centre-right for years, and your posts are mostly full of childish smiley faces and thumbs-up.
A rather unpleasant response that would have been best edited or deleted once common decency had prevailed.
Student fee repayments increase the liabilities of graduates at the same time as they are needing to have families, purchase housing and develop businesses.
Well, they don't, though. All fee repayments do is increase the tax stopped from their pay from much less than their parents paid to slightly less than their parents paid. And their parents paid those higher tax rates whether they had been to university or not.
It's hard to avoid the feeling that recent graduates' inability to grasp this proves that graduates are getting stupider.
Tax paid as a percentage of GNP is broadly unchanged over recent decades, but the way it is paid has shifted.
Todays generation pay less income tax but more VAT, get no MIRAs, less relief on pensions etc. New graduates get the worst of both.
Tories stand no chance of getting the young to vote for them with current policies, and rightly so.
Today's generation pay less for cars, holidays, and technology. If they really want to live in the 1970s, they should vote La---
Anecdote alert: at a big wedding over the weekend, then a trade fair and dinner with the in-laws.
To a man and woman anyone who I talked politics with (40-50 in total) was infuriated with Remainers talking of trying to subvert the result. Similarly, all that went further suggested that we obviously can't be part in part out. These were largely AB1s, a handful of C1/2s too.Quite surprising given how many Remainers (and leavers to, tbh) here increasingly suggest there is no appetite for actual Brexit.
To the contrary, I'd suggest that apart from among fervent politicos, there is no appetite for anything but Brexit. The government line is correct. Nerves need to be held.
I never, ever have these kinds of conversation with people. I'd worry they would edge away from me nervously if I started them up.
Anecdote alert: at a big wedding over the weekend, then a trade fair, and dinner with the in-laws.
To a man and woman anyone who I talked politics with (40-50 in total) was infuriated with Remainers talking of trying to subvert the result. Similarly, all that went further suggested that we obviously can't be part in part out. These were largely AB1s, a handful of C1/2s too.Quite surprising given how many Remainers (and leavers to, tbh) here increasingly suggest there is no appetite for actual Brexit.
To the contrary, I'd suggest that apart from among fervent politicos, there is no appetite for anything but Brexit. The government line is correct. Nerves need to be held.
You beat Corbyn by having an OK campaign and being the only adult in the room. May had the latter but not the former and still won. Davis and Hammond would almost certainly beat Corbyn but Boris would be a far bigger risk given his EU ref antics and I could see him getting beaten. The press and social media would give him a much rougher ride than the other candidates.
The reverse in my view. 9 times out of 10 the more charismatic candidate wins, Davis and Hammond have even less charisma than May, Boris has charisma in spades and is already moving towards voter opinion on things like public sector pay
More lies from Boris for personal gain, who would have thought.
Comments
What they are now watering down is the promise to write-off the loanbook for previous students, in particular the £9000 per year generation. I think that policy was one of Corbyn's that he made up mid-interview.
Pick the right leader (senior, safe, but charismatic - Hague), find some popular policies (cut tax, cut tuition fees, NHS funding), get the barnacles off the boat (hard/ideological brexit) and run the right campaign (its all about the economy, stupid!) you might do well.
Better than this slow death.
To abolish fees, the State has to pay the fees. Is Labour going to pay 9,250 per student? Is Labour going to pay for the 1.8 million students we have ?
If so, the cost is not what Labour say it is.
Labour can make the policy affordable by (i) reducing the number of students and (ii) refusing to pay 9k but say 6k.
In fact, they will have to do one or the other if they think (like Angela Rayner) it will cost 9 billion.
The demonising of Universities by Adonis suggests to me that Labour will go for (ii).
One thing is certain at the next GE labour will come under much more scrutiny on their mickey mouse promises
I would imagine that they are getting increasingly concerned.
If the policy is to pay less than 9250 per student, then this will lead to redundancies in the Universities.
University staff vote overwhelmingly Labour.
Hard Brexit is a textbook example of that.
At the moment, the Universities receive 9250 per student regardless.
They will be concerned if the plan is to make free tuition affordable for the State by paying less than 9250 per student.
In fact, some of the universities will go bankrupt.
That is far less annoying than some of the luvvies - "I'm very rich but my heart bleeds for the poor. Not that stops me being joining every tax avoidance scheme going." and "Somebody must do something to house the immigrants, but none of my six houses is suitable."
Lily Allen, you could always join the Sally Army soup kitchens. Just a suggestion.
If JRM went into a GE as Tory leader, he'd lose a few votes but the class warriors wouldn't vote tory anyway.
An admission .. I've never voted Tory in my life, but I'm less likely not to vote Tory if he's honest.
My guess is then all the Russell group will go private.
If Labour trim it to 8k, then maybe the Universities will just grumble (and there will be substantial redundancies).
Hamilton's odds look rather short.
Incidentally, anyone betting should check the weather forecast (even if, as per Austria, it can sometimes lead you astray...).
"Oh, and free entry to very expensive music festivals."
If she can be a minister, I'll apply too. I could it for an hour or so a week.
?
His politics are a century out of date, and it is that that would lose dozens of seats. Still better than May, though.
Think of the advantages:
1) No more debt interest to pay thus allowing more spending on health, housing and multiple other things.
2) The government then has to live within its means and therefore will have to concentrate on boosting wealth creation and cut down of the vanity projects and unfunded promises.
Also, they suffer from not having really had any idea what they want to do with power since 1990, aside from some notion of financial probity. Privatisation of BR and oddball tinkering with what you call a state school spring to mind but where's the overarching vision? What do they want britain to be? Its a real paucity of hope and vision. 'We want to govern' isn't enough.
People tend to like vision. And sone enjoy watching that vision fail, but the still vote for it because at least it's something to watch.
They need a Keith Joseph.
Otherwise the nightmare for the party and the country will go on and on and on. It doesn't matter what you thought you voted for. There will be no comprehensive trade agreement with the EU in the near future. They have no interest in replicating a system they already have just because the UK, a country that they owe no favours to, demands it. There will be no system of trade deals with other countries to make up. The Single Market is the only possible way of putting the EU thing to bed. We go from being half in the EU to being half out, declare the job done. And move on.
A writing off, or writing down of the debt (if we can have a pay cap, why not an interest cap?) would put money in the pockets of the people that we want to keep in this country, and incentivise.
And if TM suddenly converted to your view - I think she would be challenged and would probably lose to some Brexiteer.
IMO a transitional deal which limits the disruption is best outcome.
Then have a GE and try to get a mandate for a new relationship with Europe.
It's hard to avoid the feeling that recent graduates' inability to grasp this proves that graduates are getting stupider.
The difference between the UK and every country on earth is that we are the only one currently seeking to remove ourselves from a market of which we have been an integral part for over 40 years and which accounts for well over 40% of all our exports.
If that's the road we want to take.
EEA-EFTA gives new trading options, plus the EFTA court (not ECJ) and agriculture/fisheries/regional policy back, as well as immigration emergency brake.
However, it wouldn't save much by way of net contributions.
It reminds me of many on the left complaining the elderly were unduly protected from austerity and inheritance was ruining social mobility. Then the Conservatives decide to scrap winter fuel payments and pay for social care out of the inheritance of the better off. The left reacts by claiming the Tories are throwing granny under the bus.
The Conservatives need to accept there is no mollifying these people. They will attack us no matter what we do. They will change their narrative without the slightest bit of shame that it directly contradicts what they said immediately before. And the media will not pick them up on it.
They tell us now that replacing May with another leader will regain credibility and allow us to see off Corbyn. But of course the moment it happens they would claim it is evidence of Tory chaos, and that the new leader is worse than May. They say now that a new election wouldn't be needed so we could do it safe from Corbyn. As soon as it happens they would decry the lack of legitimacy and demand a general election. They say we should go for the EEA option rather than a "hard" Brexit". Once we did it, they would point out it has all the downsides of the EU, none of the upsides, and we had broken promises on reducing immigration and escaping EU law.
We must ignore them and simply soldier on to deliver for the British public. That means building more houses, increasing apprenticeships, limiting immigration and making a success of Brexit.
There's talk on here this morning about Labour not committing to abolishing the debt of those paying the £9k a year fees. It would be very unfair on that chunk of the population to have to keep paying whilst those before and after them haven't had to pay nearly as much.
But what about those who have got on the property ladder during the bubble? Should we bail them out when the bubble bursts?
It is an area where it is easy to promise in opposition & hard to deliver in Government because of the monumental & increasing costs.
I suspect, in 5 years time, Corbyn will be next to Clegg in the tuition fees' boneyard.
Todays generation pay less income tax but more VAT, get no MIRAs, less relief on pensions etc. New graduates get the worst of both.
Tories stand no chance of getting the young to vote for them with current policies, and rightly so.
Which she (and the Conservatives) never will, because power comes before principles (hostility to the extra choice and competition of a system where representation is more proportional to support comes from fear that Conservatism will never survive in the free market of politics without artificial support)
The Tories have to be more than just emergency economic cleaners.
In a year they have done nothing to advance and secure the UK's position. They have twaddled and postured and played political games with the electorate and each other whilst the clock ticks down to March 2019. I have the horrible feeling that they will get us to WTO Brexit simply because they arse about for the next two years.
What makes the whole thing beyond parody is that Japan and the EU have just agreed an FTA and the Australians and EU are about to sign an FTA and we are going to Brexit and then negotiate UK/Japan and UK/Australia FTAs. We are going to recreate the very things we are throwing away and call it a victory.
Take the proposal on EU citizen rights. The UK government proposal is workable. In fact it is the only serious piece of work they have done on Brexit so far. It is not however the generous settlement they claim it to be. The EU have said it is unacceptable; we can rightly say sod you, the whole point is for us to be sovereign. We could easily ding dong on just that one, supposedly the most straightforward, issue until we Brexit in 18 months time. We won't have discussed trade arrangements, dealing with nuclear material, common civil air spaces etc etc. Nor will we have all those wonderful third country trade arrangements to pivot to. We will have just lost the ones we already had.
If we want to put the matter to bed and move on, we have to go off the shelf. Apart from the full EU membership that was rejected, there is only EEA. I don't personally think it is a good outcome, but it is at least a real one.
At the end of the day, we had this debate, Remainers lost and the British people voted to Leave. We should embrace the global opportunities it offers and grow beyond petty sniping.
It doesn't seem to make us popular.
Perhaps they should be reduced to the same levels as Germany.
I'm going to steady the ship < I'm going to change your life
Every time.
Trade-offs.
I'm not sure the Conservative Party would like to be remembered as the Party that turned us into a minor power (for good or ill, we are, at the moment, a G8 economy, a P5 member, with one of only three or four true expeditionary Armed Forces capable of worldwide intervention, and despite the pronouncements of many these days, we remain a real world power (not a superpower, of course, but a true world power).
There is clearly a compromise position available to the UK which would win enough support from both Remainers and Leavers - as well as the EU27 - to be a viable, long-term solution to the mess we have created for ourselves. God knows how we get to it politically (it would, for example, have to bypass the absolutely anti-EU Labour leadership), but if we don't future generations will not forgive us.
Defence ain't about defence and aid ain't about the unfortunate.
Does feel like this approach by May is just a trap to show everything Corbyn does is in self interest rather than the national one.
What is particularly incompetent is that despite it being very likely, there is no practical planning for WTO Brexit, just British Bulldog Brexit Bullshit.
Where is the evidence on the effectiveness of the SM? Did intra-EU trade suddenly jump when it was introduced - no. Are all the countries with growing EU trade in the SM - er, no, many of the most successful exporters to the EU trade under WTO.
If we just announced now that there would be a hard Brexit, business and government could prepare and there would be very few issues. It is the obsession with the SM, quite without real evidence, that it actually damaging UK interests.
You haven't said anything vaguely Conservative or centre-right for years, and your posts are mostly full of childish smiley faces and thumbs-up.
Besides the vast majority of the world lives perfectly contentedly outside the Single Market.
You (and the Brexiteers) are proposing we move to a position that we have no idea if it will work in our favour and I have to ask - if WTO terms are so good why do countries invest so much time and effort setting up FTAs?
Who wouldn't be happy? A small minority.
@Charles acutely noted that marketed as a free trade association (for it is that), it might receive less opposition.
My own view of its likely acceptance is that it is still a big ask. But of all the bonkers, pledge u-turning, policy-ditching, rudderless ship shenanigans we have had of late, this will be small fry.
Politically, that is not the case. If the economic aspect had been available without the politics, I would've happily voted for that. But the EU demands ever more power and is constantly shifting it from nation-states to the centre. Failed referendum results are either ignored or re-run until acceptance is given to EU centralisation. Brown reneged upon a manifesto commitment to a referendum on Lisbon, and now the EU Army, derided as a myth by federalists, is coming ever closer.
We've got to make a choice, ultimately.
Brexit Britain.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/immigration-brexit-yarls-wood-a7832456.html
We have largely got the bits that work in favour of the EU (goods, and people, where we have a deficit) whilst never getting close to completing it in the areas that favour us (services)
To a man and woman anyone who I talked politics with (40-50 in total) was infuriated with Remainers talking of trying to subvert the result. Similarly, all that went further suggested that we obviously can't be part in part out. These were largely AB1s, a handful of C1/2s too.Quite surprising given how many Remainers (and leavers to, tbh) here increasingly suggest there is no appetite for actual Brexit.
To the contrary, I'd suggest that apart from among fervent politicos, there is no appetite for anything but Brexit. The government line is correct. Nerves need to be held.
I find it remarkable that someone like me who spent years as a mild BOO-er has now shifted to the pro-EU side of the fence and it is Brexit that made me shift. Our handling of Brexit is just making me more and more convinced that the UK is no longer fit for purpose. It is time for Federal Europe. We need to shift our viewpoint to a more integrationist role were we, the Germans and the Nordic countries take control of the EU and liberalise it.
That seems to me to be a grander vision than retreating to a 1957 Mk2 Peak Blighty.
Oh.