Mr. Jonathan, Blair had a golden inheritance and a great opportunity, and squandered it. The politically correct bullshit began under his watch, the politicisation of police under (another) Blair was not edifying, deficits were run in a boom, migration floodgates opened which has and continues to damage social cohesion, half the rebate thrown away and, of course, the military adventurism was not great.
Mostly, he was a charming salesman who was incompetent and cared about headlines not governing.
That said, steps forward happened on civil partnership, and he did continue the good work of Major on Northern Ireland peace.
Edited extra bit: there was prolonged peace and prosperity under Antoninus Pius, but now hardly anybody even remembers his name. Whereas that murderous lunatic Commodus is far better-known.
Of course people remember him, he was named after a toilet.
Wondering when we will next get a top class prime minister. Three second raters on the trot is unprecedented since ww2.
It's certain to be four. I can only think of one possible candidate from each of the two main parties who doesn't fit your description and Anna Soubrey has no chance
Something wrong with my eyes. I read Mr J’s post as ‘three second raters and the trot’!
At least we can all agree they've not been boring.
The overriding factor for me is the electorate's disenchantment with politicians and the subsequent results at the ballot box. This place increasingly puzzles me, alleged well informed political anoraks so obviously out of touch with public opinion.
I agree - we have ever more news/social media commentary and they seem furhter from much of the public mood than ever before. One particular aspect is the media 'bubble' apsect which ensures that their distorted views are magnified as they seem largely to talk to each other whilst ignoring from on high Jo Public. This is evident everywhere - not least on here.
There must have been a lot of money lost on here on their seat projections on the snap election.However we never seem to read about it as with many punters we only hear the success.
Can any government survive with this level of incompetence?
The one thing worse for an incoming unelected PM than a snap election, is a snap election forced by Parliament.
If the UK navigates a successful Brexit that allows us to thrive outside EU, the biggest loser is the EU.
A pre-requisite of a successful UK outside the EU is a successful EU. Some lunatics on the right may wish it to be otherwise, but even this government - by far the worst in living memory - understands the opposite is true.
Two questions:
What has this govt done (in its few weeks) that is so awful?
Drifted. At a time when that is an indulgence the nation can't afford.
Whether or not it is the worst in living memory will be determined in the next couple of years.
I didn't vote for May but to me the definition of good govt is one that does very little, stays out of people's lives.
I suspect that when you say drift you really mean it hasn't spent borrowed money
In the context of Brexit, that is simply preposterous. As are your 'suspicions'.
What "should" they be doing re Brexit?
You're argument seems to be that they should be doing nothing. Hence preposterous.
At least we can all agree they've not been boring.
The overriding factor for me is the electorate's disenchantment with politicians and the subsequent results at the ballot box. This place increasingly puzzles me, alleged well informed political anoraks so obviously out of touch with public opinion.
I agree - we have ever more news/social media commentary and they seem furhter from much of the public mood than ever before. One particular aspect is the media 'bubble' apsect which ensures that their distorted views are magnified as they seem largely to talk to each other whilst ignoring from on high Jo Public. This is evident everywhere - not least on here.
There must have been a lot of money lost on here on their seat projections on the snap election.However we never seem to read about it as with many punters we only hear the success.
I stood to lose a fair amount I confess. Placed bets on seats that only fall in a Tory landslide. I did have some coverage with a NOM bet and I topped that up a bit after the dementia tax chaos. This saved me from a total wipeout, but it was still pretty bad.
The afternoon thread is scheduled, so if anything major happens, I'm not ignoring it, I'm just having drinks and lunch with an Old Oxonian who read PPE in a venue that bans mobiles.
Mr. Jonathan, I'd rather have Cameron than Blair (your post implies Blair was top class).
Undoubtedly.
Agreed 1997 to 2007 the best 10 years domestically of government in my my living memory.
In 2007 the PM was shouting "British Jobs For British Workers", uncontrolled immigration had begun, student tuition fees had been introduced, home ownership was falling, a bank had crashed and government finances were about to spin out of control.
It was the decade which followed where the consequences of these issues would increasingly be felt.
Mr. Jonathan, I'd rather have Cameron than Blair (your post implies Blair was top class).
Undoubtedly.
Agreed 1997 to 2007 the best 10 years domestically of government in my my living memory.
Ridiculous comments like this are why history cannot be viewed like that. Atlee's government led to huge cuts to the rations, malnutrition and other horrors. But the medium and longer term impact of his reforming ministry was invaluable.
97-07, which you think wonderful, has led to a decade following it that has almost seen the break up of this country, has seen us so disenfranchised with the status quo that we're leaving the EU and a broken economy that doesn't help those who need help the most, whilst massively helping the middle classes Brown tried to buy. It has also created a culture of news dominated politics and personal entitlement that runs so contrary to the British social settlement that governing has become nigh on impossible.
Blair's decade will, I'm convinced, be looked upon as one of the worst decades of domestic rule since the 1820s.
Mr. Jonathan, I'd rather have Cameron than Blair (your post implies Blair was top class).
Undoubtedly.
Agreed 1997 to 2007 the best 10 years domestically of government in my my living memory.
In 2007 the PM was shouting "British Jobs For British Workers", uncontrolled immigration had begun, student tuition fees had been introduced, home ownership was falling, a bank had crashed and government finances were about to spin out of control.
It was the decade which followed where the consequences of these issues would increasingly be felt.
The afternoon thread is scheduled, so if anything major happens, I'm not ignoring it, I'm just having drinks and lunch with an Old Oxonian who read PPE in a venue that bans mobiles.
"who read PPE in a venue that bans mobiles" - Which college is that ?
Mr. Jonathan, I'd rather have Cameron than Blair (your post implies Blair was top class).
Undoubtedly.
Agreed 1997 to 2007 the best 10 years domestically of government in my my living memory.
Ridiculous comments like this are why history cannot be viewed like that. Atlee's government led to huge cuts to the rations, malnutrition and other horrors. But the medium and longer term impact of his reforming ministry was invaluable.
97-07, which you think wonderful, has led to a decade following it that has almost seen the break up of this country, has seen us so disenfranchised with the status quo that we're leaving the EU and a broken economy that doesn't help those who need help the most, whilst massively helping the middle classes Brown tried to buy. It has also created a culture of news dominated politics and personal entitlement that runs so contrary to the British social settlement that governing has become nigh on impossible.
Blair's decade will, I'm convinced, be looked upon as one of the worst decades of domestic rule since the 1820s.
If you can post a lie like that, repeat it day after day, disown it the day after the vote and still attain high office, it's clear wishful thinking is an acceptable mainstream substitute for rational analysis and truth
Mr. Jonathan, I'd rather have Cameron than Blair (your post implies Blair was top class).
Undoubtedly.
Agreed 1997 to 2007 the best 10 years domestically of government in my my living memory.
Ridiculous comments like this are why history cannot be viewed like that. Atlee's government led to huge cuts to the rations, malnutrition and other horrors. But the medium and longer term impact of his reforming ministry was invaluable.
97-07, which you think wonderful, has led to a decade following it that has almost seen the break up of this country, has seen us so disenfranchised with the status quo that we're leaving the EU and a broken economy that doesn't help those who need help the most, whilst massively helping the middle classes Brown tried to buy. It has also created a culture of news dominated politics and personal entitlement that runs so contrary to the British social settlement that governing has become nigh on impossible.
Blair's decade will, I'm convinced, be looked upon as one of the worst decades of domestic rule since the 1820s.
I'd swap last decade for this dismal never-ending shit shower.
The afternoon thread is scheduled, so if anything major happens, I'm not ignoring it, I'm just having drinks and lunch with an Old Oxonian who read PPE in a venue that bans mobiles.
"who read PPE in a venue that bans mobiles" - Which college is that ?
Oil Refinery College?
More likely to be wearing PPE than studying it, to be fair.
If you can post a lie like that, repeat it day after day, disown it the day after the vote and still attain high office, it's clear wishful thinking is an acceptable mainstream substitute for rational analysis and truth
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
The afternoon thread is scheduled, so if anything major happens, I'm not ignoring it, I'm just having drinks and lunch with an Old Oxonian who read PPE in a venue that bans mobiles.
None of the better universities tolerate telephones in the libraries.
Can any government survive with this level of incompetence?
The one thing worse for an incoming unelected PM than a snap election, is a snap election forced by Parliament.
A pre-requisite of a successful UK outside the EU is a successful EU. Some lunatics on the right may wish it to be otherwise, but even this government - by far the worst in living memory - understands the opposite is true.
Two questions:
What has this govt done (in its few weeks) that is so awful?
Drifted. At a time when that is an indulgence the nation can't afford.
Whether or not it is the worst in living memory will be determined in the next couple of years.
I didn't vote for May but to me the definition of good govt is one that does very little, stays out of people's lives.
I agree that a good govt is one that (mostly) stays out of peoples lives. However to do that properly (which I think we should) could involve unwinding centuries of laws. Currently we keep adding a bit here and a bit there to overcome issues that arise because of flaws in the existing situation.Take civil partnership and civil marriage for instance, we tinkered to overcome issues that should never have existed if marriage was outside of the state remit. I would like to see marriage and religion removed from the state altogether. If people want to marry that is up to them and has nothing to do with the state. Same with religion - personal issue. My view is that neither have anything to do with the state. However the unravelling of the laws would be huge (children, divorce, inheritance, tax, etc, etc)
The afternoon thread is scheduled, so if anything major happens, I'm not ignoring it, I'm just having drinks and lunch with an Old Oxonian who read PPE in a venue that bans mobiles.
Surely the Standard Editorial room lets you use mobiles?
Can any government survive with this level of incompetence?
The one thing worse for an incoming unelected PM than a snap election, is a snap election forced by Parliament.
Well the EU has survived decades of ever more undemocratic and very costly incompetence, andg message to stop other EU members thinking about following the UK by leaving.
If the UK navigates a successful Brexit that allows us to thrive outside EU, the biggest loser is the EU.
A pre-requisite of a successful UK outside the EU is a successful EU. Some lunatics on the right may wish it to be otherwise, but even this government - by far the worst in living memory - understands the opposite is true.
what nonsense
the worst government in living memory was Callaghan, followed by Gordon Brown
Nope - this one is leading us towards an exit from our most important market with no plan and o semblance of a plan. We will have to live with the consequences for decades.
this is just the usual partisan hyperbole thats making PB lose its sharpness
6 months ago you were saying the opposition was the worst ever and then came the election
it would help if people on this board could occasionally spend some time in the real world
the big news is Andy Murray is out in case you missed it
I'd certainly agree that the abysmal opposition has made this government even worse. I spend as much time in the real world as you do. Like most Brits I am no great fan of tennis ;-)
brits are only tennis fans for a fortnight each year :-)
Today they are really excited about tennis. They will be getting a semi this afternoon.
Mr. Jonathan, I'd rather have Cameron than Blair (your post implies Blair was top class).
Undoubtedly.
Agreed 1997 to 2007 the best 10 years domestically of government in my my living memory.
In 2007 the PM was shouting "British Jobs For British Workers", uncontrolled immigration had begun, student tuition fees had been introduced, home ownership was falling, a bank had crashed and government finances were about to spin out of control.
It was the decade which followed where the consequences of these issues would increasingly be felt.
I have two questions about leaving the EU 1. Who stands to get the most financial advantage out of leaving, after all most things are greed led 2. What benefits will the average person in the street get out of leaving
Mr. Jonathan, I'd rather have Cameron than Blair (your post implies Blair was top class).
Undoubtedly.
Agreed 1997 to 2007 the best 10 years domestically of government in my my living memory.
You were neither a single parent nor disabled then... both of whom were specifically targeted by Blair to stop idling and get into work... see his Rights and Responsibilities speech and subsequent policies for details.
Mr. Jonathan, Blair had a golden inheritance and a great opportunity, and squandered it. The politically correct bullshit began under his watch, the politicisation of police under (another) Blair was not edifying, deficits were run in a boom, migration floodgates opened which has and continues to damage social cohesion, half the rebate thrown away and, of course, the military adventurism was not great.
Mostly, he was a charming salesman who was incompetent and cared about headlines not governing.
.. snip ..
Good summary. He might have been better without his henchmen and coterie (Brown, Mandelson, Prescott, Campbell etc) and without the couch.
The afternoon thread is scheduled, so if anything major happens, I'm not ignoring it, I'm just having drinks and lunch with an Old Oxonian who read PPE in a venue that bans mobiles.
"who read PPE in a venue that bans mobiles" - Which college is that ?
Oil Refinery College?
More likely to be wearing PPE than studying it, to be fair.
Mr. Jonathan, I'd rather have Cameron than Blair (your post implies Blair was top class).
Undoubtedly.
Agreed 1997 to 2007 the best 10 years domestically of government in my my living memory.
In 2007 the PM was shouting "British Jobs For British Workers", uncontrolled immigration had begun, student tuition fees had been introduced, home ownership was falling, a bank had crashed and government finances were about to spin out of control.
It was the decade which followed where the consequences of these issues would increasingly be felt.
I meant the Blair years first class PM.
Blair had the party decade, it was followed by the throwing up decade. At some point there will have to be a decade of clearing up the mess.
The afternoon thread is scheduled, so if anything major happens, I'm not ignoring it, I'm just having drinks and lunch with an Old Oxonian who read PPE in a venue that bans mobiles.
Surely the Standard Editorial room lets you use mobiles?
Mr. Jonathan, I'd rather have Cameron than Blair (your post implies Blair was top class).
Undoubtedly.
Agreed 1997 to 2007 the best 10 years domestically of government in my my living memory.
Ridiculous comments like this are why history cannot be viewed like that. Atlee's government led to huge cuts to the rations, malnutrition and other horrors. But the medium and longer term impact of his reforming ministry was invaluable.
97-07, which you think wonderful, has led to a decade following it that has almost seen the break up of this country, has seen us so disenfranchised with the status quo that we're leaving the EU and a broken economy that doesn't help those who need help the most, whilst massively helping the middle classes Brown tried to buy. It has also created a culture of news dominated politics and personal entitlement that runs so contrary to the British social settlement that governing has become nigh on impossible.
Blair's decade will, I'm convinced, be looked upon as one of the worst decades of domestic rule since the 1820s.
I have two questions about leaving the EU 1. Who stands to get the most financial advantage out of leaving, after all most things are greed led 2. What benefits will the average person in the street get out of leaving
1. Lawyers. 2. Duty free booze & fags.
Yes but at the moment i can bring in 1000 fags at £4 a packet but will only be able to bring in 200 at £2.50 so not really a benefit.
Can any government survive with this level of incompetence?
The one thing worse for an incoming unelected PM than a snap election, is a snap election forced by Parliament.
If the UK navigates a successful Brexit that allows us to thrive outside EU, the biggest loser is the EU.
A pre-requisite of a successful UK outside the EU is a successful EU. Some lunatics on the right may wish it to be otherwise, but even this government - by far the worst in living memory - understands the opposite is true.
Two questions:
What has this govt done (in its few weeks) that is so awful?
Drifted. At a time when that is an indulgence the nation can't afford.
Whether or not it is the worst in living memory will be determined in the next couple of years.
I didn't vote for May but to me the definition of good govt is one that does very little, stays out of people's lives.
I suspect that when you say drift you really mean it hasn't spent borrowed money
In the context of Brexit, that is simply preposterous. As are your 'suspicions'.
What "should" they be doing re Brexit?
You're argument seems to be that they should be doing nothing. Hence preposterous.
On the contrary, I want us to leave the EU ASAP but appreciate we are dealing with 27 intransigent countries, it won't be straightforward.
Well the EU has survived decades of ever more undemocratic and very costly incompetence, and its still there and for some reason many Remain supporters are just as happy to ignore that. When are we all going to realise that if its car crash Brexit for the UK, then it is also going to be a very costly car crash Brexit for the EU?! It maybe the responsibility of our Government to do everything it can to make Brexit as smooth as possible for UKplc, but the EU are now facing a far tougher task that seems to be ignored daily. The EU not only have to now deal with the loss of the UK as a net contributor on various levels, but they also have navigate a minefield where they are able to send a very strong message to stop other EU members thinking about following the UK by leaving.
If the UK navigates a successful Brexit that allows us to thrive outside EU, the biggest loser is the EU.
A pre-requisite of a successful UK outside the EU is a successful EU. Some lunatics on the right may wish it to be otherwise, but even this government - by far the worst in living memory - understands the opposite is true.
Two questions:
What has this govt done (in its few weeks) that is so awful?
If this is the worst govt in living memory which is the best?
This government has done absolutely nothing for a year except trigger Article 50 and so start the clock to our exit from the European Union with absolutely no clue about what happens next. It is an unprecedented misjudgement and one that could only have been made by complete incompetents.
And the best govt?
For me personally, I'd say that the Wilson 64-70, Thatcher, Major and Blair governments were the best. For the country as a whole, I'd go for the Liberal 1906 one and the Labour 1945 one.
Hang on, you said living memory - how old are you?
Mediaeval courts took the view that within living memory consisted of what the oldest members of society were told verbally by the oldest members of society when they were sentient children. This they took to be 2 x 80 years before the present. Would that take us back to the 1870s ?
I think the doctine that "beyond the memory of man" means before the accession of Richard I, 1189 is some development of this analysis.
Can any government survive with this level of incompetence?
The one thing worse for an incoming unelected PM than a snap election, is a snap election forced by Parliament.
Well If the UK navigates a successful Brexit that allows us to thrive outside EU, the biggest loser is the EU.
A pre-requisite of a successful UK outside the EU is a successful EU. Some lunatics on the right may wish it to be otherwise, but even this government - by far the worst in living memory - understands the opposite is true.
Two questions:
What has this govt done (in its few weeks) that is so awful?
If this is the worst govt in living memory which is the best?
This made by complete incompetents.
And the best govt?
For
Hang on, you said living memory - how old are you?
Living memory I took to mean people alive, not just me. I was born in 1964, but have undoubtedly benefited from what the 1906 and 1945 governments set in motion and then consolidated.
Nothing comes close to matching the impact of the 1945 government. The social reforms of Wilson are probably second.
That's a very left/centre-left view, however.
I think the economic reforms of the 1980s were (and still are) very important to our quality of life today. And the Atlee government went way too far on nationalisation.
The Conservative (national) government in the 1930s navigated the great depression with skill, not to mention the abdication crisis, and built lots of very decent houses. And re-armed when they had to do so.
I'd demote both Blair and Heath one division apiece - Heath possibly two, his "big win" being overshadowed by his "silly question". I'd probably promote Cameron - his Coalition was at worst second division, while his and George's shafting of their partners puts them in the bottom division without question. "We won a majority, now watch what we'll do with it". May may yet climb one division, but it's going to be uphill.
If you can post a lie like that, repeat it day after day, disown it the day after the vote and still attain high office, it's clear wishful thinking is an acceptable mainstream substitute for rational analysis and truth
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
On topic, to be fair to Palpatine, the error wasn't so much letting the Rebel Alliance know the location of the Death Star, it was - as he accused Luke of so doing, apparently without any self-awareness - his faith in his friends. In any case, it wasn't the Death Star itself that the Alliance saw as the primary goal; it was the Emperor himself, who laid his presence there as bait, rightly perceiving his key man dependency. The Empire had more than enough firepower both on Endor's moon and in space to deal with the insignificant rebellion; if blame must be assigned - and it must - then both the numpties on the ground (allegedly among the Empire's finest troops), and the idiotic order for the star destroyers not to attack, for which Palpatine can be rightly accused of hubris. Even so, had the Emperor not pushed Vader beyond his limit, or even if he had dispatched Luke more rapidly rather than revelling in the torture, he would have won a crushing and probably absolute victory. It should be remembered that as well as Palpatine, Vader and the Death Star all being simultaneously vulnerable in that battle, so was every leading member of the Alliance. For great prizes, sometimes great risks must be run.
Which is to say that actually, May's strategy, like Palpatine's, was perfectly sound but was buggered up by the idiotic actions of underlings and by nonsensical tactics.
In principle, there's no reason why a future PM shouldn't call a snap election when in a favourable position. While there are certainly risks to doing so, there are also considerable risks to letting the chance pass.
If you can post a lie like that, repeat it day after day, disown it the day after the vote and still attain high office, it's clear wishful thinking is an acceptable mainstream substitute for rational analysis and truth
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
Mr. Jonathan, I'd rather have Cameron than Blair (your post implies Blair was top class).
Undoubtedly.
Agreed 1997 to 2007 the best 10 years domestically of government in my my living memory.
In 2007 the PM was shouting "British Jobs For British Workers", uncontrolled immigration had begun, student tuition fees had been introduced, home ownership was falling, a bank had crashed and government finances were about to spin out of control.
It was the decade which followed where the consequences of these issues would increasingly be felt.
I meant the Blair years first class PM.
A good actor I will give you that.
Very true he made you think even when you disagreed with him.
Mr. Jonathan, I'd rather have Cameron than Blair (your post implies Blair was top class).
Undoubtedly.
Agreed 1997 to 2007 the best 10 years domestically of government in my my living memory.
Ridiculous comments like this are why history cannot be viewed like that. Atlee's government led to huge cuts to the rations, malnutrition and other horrors. But the medium and longer term impact of his reforming ministry was invaluable.
97-07, which you think wonderful, has led to a decade following it that has almost seen the break up of this country, has seen us so disenfranchised with the status quo that we're leaving the EU and a broken economy that doesn't help those who need help the most, whilst massively helping the middle classes Brown tried to buy. It has also created a culture of news dominated politics and personal entitlement that runs so contrary to the British social settlement that governing has become nigh on impossible.
Blair's decade will, I'm convinced, be looked upon as one of the worst decades of domestic rule since the 1820s.
The intelligent will see the link: unsustainable borrowing to fund splurging on public services, a lop-sided devolution settlement, and continued EU integration - with no democratic say - under Blair spawned the deficit crisis, SNP/English nationalism, and far harder euroscepticism.
If Blair had reined in Brown, granted English votes for English laws, and renegotiated Lisbon, and offered a referendum, we could be in a very different place now.
Mr. Jonathan, I'd rather have Cameron than Blair (your post implies Blair was top class).
Undoubtedly.
Agreed 1997 to 2007 the best 10 years domestically of government in my my living memory.
In 2007 the PM was shouting "British Jobs For British Workers", uncontrolled immigration had begun, student tuition fees had been introduced, home ownership was falling, a bank had crashed and government finances were about to spin out of control.
It was the decade which followed where the consequences of these issues would increasingly be felt.
I meant the Blair years first class PM.
A good actor I will give you that.
Very true he made you think even when you disagreed with him.
He didn't fool me but yes plenty of others lapped it up,his lies and all.
The unceremonious sacking of the second most powerful figure in her own party was in hindsight her biggest mistake. It wasn't that he led a private army of followers it's that he knew how to manipulate opinion from his position as editor of London's most popular paper.
He was Iago to Theresa's Othello.
I look forward to the book "The Fall of the House of May and my part in it" by George Osborne.
Wondering when we will next get a top class prime minister. Three second raters on the trot is unprecedented since ww2.
We might not for a very long time.
Why?
Because people's past gets raked over with a fine toothcomb, and a single gaffe/off the cuff remark can ruin your reputation for life, not to mention intrusions into your personal life.
Oh, and everyone will think you're on the take, or corrupt.
Hang on, you said living memory - how old are you?
Mediaeval courts took the view that within living memory consisted of what the oldest members of society were told verbally by the oldest members of society when they were sentient children. This they took to be 2 x 80 years before the present. Would that take us back to the 1870s ?
I think the doctine that "beyond the memory of man" means before the accession of Richard I, 1189 is some development of this analysis.
Being told about something by your elders isn't the same as actually experiencing it. Living memory should be the age at which the oldest people can first remember events back to. The oldest person in the UK alive today was born in 1904, so if you assume children don't really remember things from before 5-7 years old, you could probably say 1910 is the current absolute limit for what constitutes living memory. More realistically, it would be more like 1920.
I don't understand why you are always writing that the coalition government was dramatic. No, it was a very stable government, who has resolved a lot of problems. Remember our Labour minister : 'I'm sorry, but there is no money anymore.....'. Tories are cutting. Labour is spending. If the Tories continue to shout like Mr Boris Johnson, the loser will be the UK, and not the EU. That will be a fact. Negociations, you are doing on a quiet way, not by shouting on a megaphone !
I'm a fan of the coalition, the drama refers to the initial speculation by many that it wouldn't last until Christmas.
Christmas? Those were the optimists - August GE nailed on was a frequent refrain - eventually drifting out to October, then "is November too late"?
Much like Mrs May will, the coalition proved more durable - though I doubt she'll last 5 years.
If only someone ("genius" (sic) to his dwindling band of admirers) hadn't set about doing over the junior partners in the coalition we'd have had Coalition II, no referendum and no BREXIT.....
chortle
Cameron and Osborne called the referendum and lost it, but in TSE world theyre blameless
Cameron Osborne were to blame for calling the referendum but then they didn't believe they'd win a majority at GE15. This is unlike the hapless TMay who believed GE17 was a certainty so it was OK to break her promise to wait until 2020.
Wondering when we will next get a top class prime minister. Three second raters on the trot is unprecedented since ww2.
We might not for a very long time.
Why?
Because people's past gets raked over with a fine toothcomb, and a single gaffe/off the cuff remark can ruin your reputation for life, not to mention intrusions into your personal life.
Oh, and everyone will think you're on the take, or corrupt.
Who would give up a career for that?
Also, the characteristics and qualities that make a great PM aren't precisely the same as those needed to work your way up and secure the job in the first place. Normally expressed as Americans questioning why out of 250 million potential candidates they so often get presented with a choice between two idiots.
Mr. Jonathan, any ranking system that places Blair above Churchill is worthless.
Mr. Herdson, I'd argue the problem was government outsourcing. Why did Palpatine have the shields for the Death Star based on the forest moon of Endor, rather than the station itself?
I'd demote both Blair and Heath one division apiece - Heath possibly two, his "big win" being overshadowed by his "silly question". I'd probably promote Cameron - his Coalition was at worst second division, while his and George's shafting of their partners puts them in the bottom division without question. "We won a majority, now watch what we'll do with it". May may yet climb one division, but it's going to be uphill.
The bottom division is reserved for those who had resign after a major failure. Cameron is there for sure. Sorry.
Heath achieved his primary political objective that dominated politics for 40 years. It ended badly, but he achieved what he set out to do
Blair's place is secure because of three big majorities alone.
Mr. Jonathan, any ranking system that places Blair above Churchill is worthless.
Mr. Herdson, I'd argue the problem was government outsourcing. Why did Palpatine have the shields for the Death Star based on the forest moon of Endor, rather than the station itself?
I'd demote both Blair and Heath one division apiece - Heath possibly two, his "big win" being overshadowed by his "silly question". I'd probably promote Cameron - his Coalition was at worst second division, while his and George's shafting of their partners puts them in the bottom division without question. "We won a majority, now watch what we'll do with it". May may yet climb one division, but it's going to be uphill.
Heath achieved his primary political objective that dominated politics for 40 years. It ended badly, but he achieved what he set out to do
Which is why I'd put Heath at the very bottom of the list.
Mr. Jonathan, any ranking system that places Blair above Churchill is worthless.
Mr. Herdson, I'd argue the problem was government outsourcing. Why did Palpatine have the shields for the Death Star based on the forest moon of Endor, rather than the station itself?
Churchill as a peacetime PM was distinctly mediocre. If the criterion is "good PM" rather than "good war leader", it's not unreasonable.
Mr. Jonathan, any ranking system that places Blair above Churchill is worthless.
Mr. Herdson, I'd argue the problem was government outsourcing. Why did Palpatine have the shields for the Death Star based on the forest moon of Endor, rather than the station itself?
To make the Death Star looking even more vulnerable to the Rebels, it didn't have the flaw of the first one.
Mr. Jonathan, any ranking system that places Blair above Churchill is worthless.
Mr. Herdson, I'd argue the problem was government outsourcing. Why did Palpatine have the shields for the Death Star based on the forest moon of Endor, rather than the station itself?
The unceremonious sacking of the second most powerful figure in her own party was in hindsight her biggest mistake. It wasn't that he led a private army of followers it's that he knew how to manipulate opinion from his position as editor of London's most popular paper.
He was Iago to Theresa's Othello.
I look forward to the book "The Fall of the House of May and my part in it" by George Osborne.
Nothing Osborne has done since his sacking (and don't forget his behaviour before, which led to it) has led me to think that dismissing him was anything other than the right decision.
Sky just reported a very acrimonious meeting with the Police Officer leading the criminal investigation and the new council leader. The residents through their trauma are just rejecting anybody who may actually be able to help them. One resident said 'we just want someone arrested' and basically shouted down the police officer and the council leader.
The problem that has developed is the impossibilty of saying or doing anything to placate this fury and in the end there is a real possiblity that the residents will start to lose public support.
It is a disaster and tragedy with many aspects and it is impossible to understand how a community can come together in months, years or even a lifetime. They deserve our thoughts and prayers but we also need to hope that their palpable anger will dissipate in time and a healing process can begin.
The building will need to come down but that is going to be an utterly horrible process
I'd demote both Blair and Heath one division apiece - Heath possibly two, his "big win" being overshadowed by his "silly question". I'd probably promote Cameron - his Coalition was at worst second division, while his and George's shafting of their partners puts them in the bottom division without question. "We won a majority, now watch what we'll do with it". May may yet climb one division, but it's going to be uphill.
Heath achieved his primary political objective that dominated politics for 40 years. It ended badly, but he achieved what he set out to do
Which is why I'd put Heath at the very bottom of the list.
That man caused us no end of trouble for decades.
Almost any PM at that time would have done the same. We were desperate, and it was the right thing to do.
If you can post a lie like that, repeat it day after day, disown it the day after the vote and still attain high office, it's clear wishful thinking is an acceptable mainstream substitute for rational analysis and truth
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
Before the Referendum Scott has such rich material to work with - an immediate recession, a stock market crash, the car factories to shut down, millions to lose their jobs, the City to move on mass to Frankfurt/Paris/Dublin, Scotland to become independent, the ten plagues of Egypt, a world war, the four horsemen of apocalypse and the end of western civilisation.
A few months later he was reduced to 'fishfingers to rise by 5p next year'.
The unceremonious sacking of the second most powerful figure in her own party was in hindsight her biggest mistake. It wasn't that he led a private army of followers it's that he knew how to manipulate opinion from his position as editor of London's most popular paper.
He was Iago to Theresa's Othello.
I look forward to the book "The Fall of the House of May and my part in it" by George Osborne.
Nothing Osborne has done since his sacking (and don't forget his behaviour before, which led to it) has led me to think that dismissing him was anything other than the right decision.
Cameron has a class Osborne will never match.
I agree, I didn't like Cameron as PM but he understood that the referendum had become all about his credibility and since then he's kept his dignity.
Mr. Rog, given what happened to the last one, defensive capabilities should've been the top priority.
Mr. B2, the achievements of Churchill as PM are orders of magnitude greater than those of Blair. Deliberately excluding them to make Blair seem better is just daft.
Mr. Eagles, but that confuses the perception and reality of weakness! Fine to make it look weak, stupid to actually make it so.
I don't understand why you are always writing that the coalition government was dramatic. No, it was a very stable government, who has resolved a lot of problems. Remember our Labour minister : 'I'm sorry, but there is no money anymore.....'. Tories are cutting. Labour is spending. If the Tories continue to shout like Mr Boris Johnson, the loser will be the UK, and not the EU. That will be a fact. Negociations, you are doing on a quiet way, not by shouting on a megaphone !
I'm a fan of the coalition, the drama refers to the initial speculation by many that it wouldn't last until Christmas.
Christmas? Those were the optimists - August GE nailed on was a frequent refrain - eventually drifting out to October, then "is November too late"?
Much like Mrs May will, the coalition proved more durable - though I doubt she'll last 5 years.
If only someone ("genius" (sic) to his dwindling band of admirers) hadn't set about doing over the junior partners in the coalition we'd have had Coalition II, no referendum and no BREXIT.....
chortle
Cameron and Osborne called the referendum and lost it, but in TSE world theyre blameless
Cameron Osborne were to blame for calling the referendum but then they didn't believe they'd win a majority at GE15. This is unlike the hapless TMay who believed GE17 was a certainty so it was OK to break her promise to wait until 2020.
Lesson: never underestimate the electorate.
And don't think they'll connive in sorting out YOUR problems. They may just make them worse....
Mr. Jonathan, any ranking system that places Blair above Churchill is worthless.
Mr. Herdson, I'd argue the problem was government outsourcing. Why did Palpatine have the shields for the Death Star based on the forest moon of Endor, rather than the station itself?
To make the Death Star looking even more vulnerable to the Rebels, it didn't have the flaw of the first one.
I thought the second Death Star was still under construction when it was attacked by the rebel scum?
The unceremonious sacking of the second most powerful figure in her own party was in hindsight her biggest mistake. It wasn't that he led a private army of followers it's that he knew how to manipulate opinion from his position as editor of London's most popular paper.
He was Iago to Theresa's Othello.
I look forward to the book "The Fall of the House of May and my part in it" by George Osborne.
Nothing Osborne has done since his sacking (and don't forget his behaviour before, which led to it) has led me to think that dismissing him was anything other than the right decision.
Cameron has a class Osborne will never match.
I was a great supporter of Osborne but his behaviour since becoming editor of the Standard has been utterly childish and pathetic and he has lost me completely. He should be honest and leave the party and join the Lib Dems. It is very sad really
the Government is doomed, and shuffling the pieces will not fix that.
A party political system is trying to deliver on a referendum result that was not fought on party lines, holds no campaign accountable, and will ultimately disappoint almost everyone.
When the head of the Leave campaign says the current plan to leave is moronic, there can be no good outcome.
My radical solution is another vote.
Not another referendum, or another party political General Election. A vote to elect a Brexit Government.
Candidates can stand on one of 3 Brexit platforms
1. WTO 2. Norway 3. Revoke Article 50
Nail their colours to the mast before the vote. Be held accountable during and after the vote
If the WTO crew get most seats, they can make Bill Cash or John Redwood PM and get on with it
Mr. Rog, given what happened to the last one, defensive capabilities should've been the top priority.
Mr. B2, the achievements of Churchill as PM are orders of magnitude greater than those of Blair. Deliberately excluding them to make Blair seem better is just daft.
Mr. Eagles, but that confuses the perception and reality of weakness! Fine to make it look weak, stupid to actually make it so.
I wouldn't understate Churchill's wartime achievements, but they stand apart from a unique time period. Fact remains, he wasn't great as a peacetime PM (nor particularly so as a pre-war politician) and comparing the various PMs during post-1945 peacetime is a more relevant exercise, insofar as the object is to put our recent experiences into historical context.
I'd demote both Blair and Heath one division apiece - Heath possibly two, his "big win" being overshadowed by his "silly question". I'd probably promote Cameron - his Coalition was at worst second division, while his and George's shafting of their partners puts them in the bottom division without question. "We won a majority, now watch what we'll do with it". May may yet climb one division, but it's going to be uphill.
Heath achieved his primary political objective that dominated politics for 40 years. It ended badly, but he achieved what he set out to do
Which is why I'd put Heath at the very bottom of the list.
That man caused us no end of trouble for decades.
Almost any PM at that time would have done the same. We were desperate, and it was the right thing to do.
We weren't desperate. And it wasn't the right thing to do.
The right thing would have been to stay in EFTA, and developer a more collaborative relationship from there.
I'd demote both Blair and Heath one division apiece - Heath possibly two, his "big win" being overshadowed by his "silly question". I'd probably promote Cameron - his Coalition was at worst second division, while his and George's shafting of their partners puts them in the bottom division without question. "We won a majority, now watch what we'll do with it". May may yet climb one division, but it's going to be uphill.
Blair's place is secure because of three big majorities alone.
While electoral success is clearly a major factor "what they did with their mandate" is also important. Attlee and Thatcher left changed countries behind them - what did Blair leave us with?
the Government is doomed, and shuffling the pieces will not fix that.
A party political system is trying to deliver on a referendum result that was not fought on party lines, holds no campaign accountable, and will ultimately disappoint almost everyone.
When the head of the Leave campaign says the current plan to leave is moronic, there can be no good outcome.
My radical solution is another vote.
Not another referendum, or another party political General Election. A vote to elect a Brexit Government.
Candidates can stand on one of 3 Brexit platforms
1. WTO 2. Norway 3. Revoke Article 50
Nail their colours to the mast before the vote. Be held accountable during and after the vote
If the WTO crew get most seats, they can make Bill Cash or John Redwood PM and get on with it
Before the Referendum Scott has such rich material to work with - an immediate recession, a stock market crash, the car factories to shut down, millions to lose their jobs, the City to move on mass to Frankfurt/Paris/Dublin, Scotland to become independent, the ten plagues of Egypt, a world war, the four horsemen of apocalypse and the end of western civilisation.
The allusion to "focussing" is interesting. Is spelling it that way now a thing? I thought the doubling of a final consonant meant you stressed the preceding syllable, thus "forget" gives "forgetting", "abet" gives "abetting", but "target" gives "targeting", "riot" gives "rioting", and "focus" gives "focusing".
When I read "focussing" spelt thus what I hear is "foCUSSing".
Mr. Jonathan, bit harsh on Churchill to make that the cut-off. Could do the same with Constantine the Great and you'd be left with a paranoid wife- and son-killing swine. [Not that bad things should be removed from the record, but nor should good].
Coalition <- National stability at a tough time. Major <- Economy ran well despite the appearance of shambolism. Started the PFI nonsense. Blair term 1 <- Generally sensible with finances. Cam Maj <- Good outwith the EU Ref error. Blair term 2 <- Increasing Brown influence May 16-17 <- Economy has run ok despite May, Tory Brown. Blair post 05 <- Blair lame duck. Brown
If you can post a lie like that, repeat it day after day, disown it the day after the vote and still attain high office, it's clear wishful thinking is an acceptable mainstream substitute for rational analysis and truth
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
the Government is doomed, and shuffling the pieces will not fix that.
A party political system is trying to deliver on a referendum result that was not fought on party lines, holds no campaign accountable, and will ultimately disappoint almost everyone.
When the head of the Leave campaign says the current plan to leave is moronic, there can be no good outcome.
My radical solution is another vote.
Not another referendum, or another party political General Election. A vote to elect a Brexit Government.
Candidates can stand on one of 3 Brexit platforms
1. WTO 2. Norway 3. Revoke Article 50
Nail their colours to the mast before the vote. Be held accountable during and after the vote
If the WTO crew get most seats, they can make Bill Cash or John Redwood PM and get on with it
Good idea but who is going to implement the vote. All MP's are fighting like rats in a sack over a decision that needs unity of purpose across the parties.
Theresa May is brave in the first place to want to see it through as I cannot think of anyone who would really want to be in her place over the next two years. And before anyone says Corbyn it would destroy him too
The unceremonious sacking of the second most powerful figure in her own party was in hindsight her biggest mistake. It wasn't that he led a private army of followers it's that he knew how to manipulate opinion from his position as editor of London's most popular paper.
He was Iago to Theresa's Othello.
I look forward to the book "The Fall of the House of May and my part in it" by George Osborne.
Nothing Osborne has done since his sacking (and don't forget his behaviour before, which led to it) has led me to think that dismissing him was anything other than the right decision.
Cameron has a class Osborne will never match.
I was a great supporter of Osborne but his behaviour since becoming editor of the Standard has been utterly childish and pathetic and he has lost me completely. He should be honest and leave the party and join the Lib Dems. It is very sad really
His son already has. Or was at least campaigning for them at the GE.
The unceremonious sacking of the second most powerful figure in her own party was in hindsight her biggest mistake. It wasn't that he led a private army of followers it's that he knew how to manipulate opinion from his position as editor of London's most popular paper.
He was Iago to Theresa's Othello.
I look forward to the book "The Fall of the House of May and my part in it" by George Osborne.
Nothing Osborne has done since his sacking (and don't forget his behaviour before, which led to it) has led me to think that dismissing him was anything other than the right decision.
Cameron has a class Osborne will never match.
I was a great supporter of Osborne but his behaviour since becoming editor of the Standard has been utterly childish and pathetic and he has lost me completely. He should be honest and leave the party and join the Lib Dems. It is very sad really
If Osborne had behaved with more class and humility since, like Portillo or Balls have, and shown he was the bigger man, his reputation might have rehabilitated and he'd be welcomed back with open arms.
Instead he's made "vengeance" his modus operandi, which says an awful lot about him.
May's debacle has of course totally vindicated Gordon Brown's decision not to hold an election in 2007. He wasnt being "chicken". he was being wise. The fact is that every prime minister since we became a democracy who held a "snap" election before four years had elapsed despite having a working majority has lost his or her majority. It happened in 1923 when Baldwin called an election after just one year of a parliament. It happened in 1974 when Heath called one after three and a half years. This parliament will need to run for at least four years before another election unless the Tories lose 7 seats in by elections, or unless the government is defeated in a vote of confidence or budget. There might come a time with a new leader and good polls that the Tories might want to be defeated in the Commons and an election precipitated because despite the new received wisdom since the election that Corbyn is good for Labour, I still contend that he is a big liability.
If you can post a lie like that, repeat it day after day, disown it the day after the vote and still attain high office, it's clear wishful thinking is an acceptable mainstream substitute for rational analysis and truth
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
You must admit it was THE big lie of the referendum campaign.
Given that we haven't left yet - though I doubt the NHS will get much more money when we have done - surely the immediate recession after the vote to leave was the biggest lie?
The complete hysteria over imminent Brexit chaos is becoming so absurd that I''m beginning to think that it will work out well for the Tories. If, as is highly likely, we get some kind of deal, no matter how poor, and thus avoid patients dying of cancer because they can't get treatment, planes falling out of the sky, pharmaceutical supplies drying up, and no tourists coming to the wind-swept wastelands of London, then it's going to look like a triumph of competent government.
The unceremonious sacking of the second most powerful figure in her own party was in hindsight her biggest mistake. It wasn't that he led a private army of followers it's that he knew how to manipulate opinion from his position as editor of London's most popular paper.
He was Iago to Theresa's Othello.
I look forward to the book "The Fall of the House of May and my part in it" by George Osborne.
Nothing Osborne has done since his sacking (and don't forget his behaviour before, which led to it) has led me to think that dismissing him was anything other than the right decision.
Cameron has a class Osborne will never match.
I was a great supporter of Osborne but his behaviour since becoming editor of the Standard has been utterly childish and pathetic and he has lost me completely. He should be honest and leave the party and join the Lib Dems. It is very sad really
His son already has. Or was at least campaigning for them at the GE.
Forget his public sacking, there surely can be no greater humiliation for him.
The unceremonious sacking of the second most powerful figure in her own party was in hindsight her biggest mistake. It wasn't that he led a private army of followers it's that he knew how to manipulate opinion from his position as editor of London's most popular paper.
He was Iago to Theresa's Othello.
I look forward to the book "The Fall of the House of May and my part in it" by George Osborne.
Nothing Osborne has done since his sacking (and don't forget his behaviour before, which led to it) has led me to think that dismissing him was anything other than the right decision.
Cameron has a class Osborne will never match.
A very old fashioned view of the anti-hero. Vulgar is the new classy. Think Trump Think Corbyn Think Netanyahu. Think Steve Hilton Think McDonnell Think Johnson Think Gove.....
If only the Tories could get back it's reputation as the 'Nasty Party' it wouldn't now be struggling
Good idea but who is going to implement the vote. All MP's are fighting like rats in a sack over a decision that needs unity of purpose across the parties.
Theresa May is brave in the first place to want to see it through as I cannot think of anyone who would really want to be in her place over the next two years. And before anyone says Corbyn it would destroy him too
That's the point
It's to elect a Government of Brexit unity. Whichever group ends up in charge elects a leader to be PM and deliver the verdict
It could be Andrea Leadsom, Vince Cable or Chuka Umuna
The unceremonious sacking of the second most powerful figure in her own party was in hindsight her biggest mistake. It wasn't that he led a private army of followers it's that he knew how to manipulate opinion from his position as editor of London's most popular paper.
He was Iago to Theresa's Othello.
I look forward to the book "The Fall of the House of May and my part in it" by George Osborne.
Nothing Osborne has done since his sacking (and don't forget his behaviour before, which led to it) has led me to think that dismissing him was anything other than the right decision.
Cameron has a class Osborne will never match.
I agree, I didn't like Cameron as PM but he understood that the referendum had become all about his credibility and since then he's kept his dignity.
Osborne on the other hand.......
I thought Cameron's tweet on the DUP deal was very fair "under the circs" (i.e. I wouldn't have got us into this mess, but we are where we are) "Support the deal" - loyal to a leader he doubtless now has a low opinion of.
Osborne on the other hand has been childishly delighting in every set back for the government and country- which is foolish, because any valid criticism will now be dismissed as vindictive personal animus.
If you can post a lie like that, repeat it day after day, disown it the day after the vote and still attain high office, it's clear wishful thinking is an acceptable mainstream substitute for rational analysis and truth
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
You must admit it was THE big lie of the referendum campaign.
It's just a bit boring.
I know you'll be tempted to say "Oh, look! A Leaver trying to escape responsibility!" etc. etc. but we've been here so so many times, and debated to death endlessly, that it's just a waste of everyone's time to engage on it anymore.
the Government is doomed, and shuffling the pieces will not fix that.
A party political system is trying to deliver on a referendum result that was not fought on party lines, holds no campaign accountable, and will ultimately disappoint almost everyone.
When the head of the Leave campaign says the current plan to leave is moronic, there can be no good outcome.
My radical solution is another vote.
Not another referendum, or another party political General Election. A vote to elect a Brexit Government.
Candidates can stand on one of 3 Brexit platforms
1. WTO 2. Norway 3. Revoke Article 50
Nail their colours to the mast before the vote. Be held accountable during and after the vote
If the WTO crew get most seats, they can make Bill Cash or John Redwood PM and get on with it
If you can post a lie like that, repeat it day after day, disown it the day after the vote and still attain high office, it's clear wishful thinking is an acceptable mainstream substitute for rational analysis and truth
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
You must admit it was THE big lie of the referendum campaign.
It wasn't a lie though was it.
"Lets give £350m to the NHS" is a suggestion not a guarantee. It was made by a group of people that weren't in a position to deliver, but plenty of us thought it was a bloody good idea.
Wondering when we will next get a top class prime minister. Three second raters on the trot is unprecedented since ww2.
It's certain to be four. I can only think of one possible candidate from each of the two main parties who doesn't fit your description and Anna Soubrey has no chance
Something wrong with my eyes. I read Mr J’s post as ‘three second raters and the trot’!
That's next time. Three second raters and the Trot on the trot
The unceremonious sacking of the second most powerful figure in her own party was in hindsight her biggest mistake. It wasn't that he led a private army of followers it's that he knew how to manipulate opinion from his position as editor of London's most popular paper.
He was Iago to Theresa's Othello.
I look forward to the book "The Fall of the House of May and my part in it" by George Osborne.
Nothing Osborne has done since his sacking (and don't forget his behaviour before, which led to it) has led me to think that dismissing him was anything other than the right decision.
Cameron has a class Osborne will never match.
I was a great supporter of Osborne but his behaviour since becoming editor of the Standard has been utterly childish and pathetic and he has lost me completely. He should be honest and leave the party and join the Lib Dems. It is very sad really
If Osborne had behaved with more class and humility since, like Portillo or Balls have, and shown he was the bigger man, his reputation might have rehabilitated and he'd be welcomed back with open arms.
Instead he's made "vengeance" his modus operandi, which says an awful lot about him.
'Vengeance' and/or 'the truth' ?
Conservatives like Osborne and TSE have been proved right about May. Osborne's not responsible for the failure of the GE campaign, or the decision to hold it. Instead of shunning them, perhaps other Conservatives should be listening to them.
If you can post a lie like that, repeat it day after day, disown it the day after the vote and still attain high office, it's clear wishful thinking is an acceptable mainstream substitute for rational analysis and truth
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
You must admit it was THE big lie of the referendum campaign.
It's just a bit boring.
I know you'll be tempted to say "Oh, look! A Leaver trying to escape responsibility!" etc. etc. but we've been here so so many times, and debated to death endlessly, that it's just a waste of everyone's time to engage on it anymore.
You could make that point about almost any subject raised in here.
The NHS commitment remains relevant insofar as it is still a live issue how much financial benefit the NHS eventually receives, if Brexit ever proceeds to a conclusion. For if we do reach that point, you can bet that health funding will be prominent in the political debate.
The horses we should give up discussing are those that are completely dead as contemporary issues.
Mr. Pulpstar, I think I'd largely agree with that.
The Coalition was constrained by a combination of dire finances and the necessary cross-party agreement, which also helped (aided by Cameron's own disposition) a return to Cabinet government over a sofa dictatorship and musical chairs for Cabinet posts.
Not a fan of Clegg's EU-philia, but he did take the right decision on entering government and mostly did it well.
On praising the Lib Dems: I was mildly surprised by yesterday's court decision that this wasn't already the case, but glad to see that gay people now get equal pension rights as straight people. Sir Steve Webb (damned shame he doesn't have a Cabinet post, heading up DWP would probably be very good) made the astute observation that now we need to make things equal for widowers (on an equal footing with widows) in straight marriage, as far as pensions go.
Shame Lamb isn't in government either. Or Alexander and Laws.
Yet we have a bloody far leftist leading Labour and the Conservatives facing a choice between the worst campaigner since Valerian and a range of second raters.
If you can post a lie like that, repeat it day after day, disown it the day after the vote and still attain high office, it's clear wishful thinking is an acceptable mainstream substitute for rational analysis and truth
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
You must admit it was THE big lie of the referendum campaign.
It wasn't a lie though was it.
"Lets give £350m to the NHS" is a suggestion not a guarantee. It was made by a group of people that weren't in a position to deliver, but plenty of us thought it was a bloody good idea.
(Not me incidentally, I'd privatise the NHS)
If you did privatise the NHS, it would cost more, so you'd have to give it the extra £350 million a week as well.
Comments
I'll get my coat.....
It was the decade which followed where the consequences of these issues would increasingly be felt.
Attlee
Thatcher
Blair
First Division
Wilson
Macmillan
Heath
Second Division
Major
Churchill
Third Division - loser special league
Callaghan
Brown
Home
Catastrophe Special Diadora league all stars
Eden
Cameron
May
97-07, which you think wonderful, has led to a decade following it that has almost seen the break up of this country, has seen us so disenfranchised with the status quo that we're leaving the EU and a broken economy that doesn't help those who need help the most, whilst massively helping the middle classes Brown tried to buy. It has also created a culture of news dominated politics and personal entitlement that runs so contrary to the British social settlement that governing has become nigh on impossible.
Blair's decade will, I'm convinced, be looked upon as one of the worst decades of domestic rule since the 1820s.
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104
If you can post a lie like that, repeat it day after day, disown it the day after the vote and still attain high office, it's clear wishful thinking is an acceptable mainstream substitute for rational analysis and truth
More likely to be wearing PPE than studying it, to be fair.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
2. Duty free booze & fags.
Mediaeval courts took the view that within living memory consisted of what the oldest members of society were told verbally by the oldest members of society when they were sentient children. This they took to be 2 x 80 years before the present. Would that take us back to the 1870s ?
I think the doctine that "beyond the memory of man" means before the accession of Richard I, 1189 is some development of this analysis.
I think the economic reforms of the 1980s were (and still are) very important to our quality of life today. And the Atlee government went way too far on nationalisation.
The Conservative (national) government in the 1930s navigated the great depression with skill, not to mention the abdication crisis, and built lots of very decent houses. And re-armed when they had to do so.
Stanley Baldwin is underrated.
Which is to say that actually, May's strategy, like Palpatine's, was perfectly sound but was buggered up by the idiotic actions of underlings and by nonsensical tactics.
In principle, there's no reason why a future PM shouldn't call a snap election when in a favourable position. While there are certainly risks to doing so, there are also considerable risks to letting the chance pass.
If Blair had reined in Brown, granted English votes for English laws, and renegotiated Lisbon, and offered a referendum, we could be in a very different place now.
He was Iago to Theresa's Othello.
I look forward to the book "The Fall of the House of May and my part in it" by George Osborne.
If Cameron and Osborne had adopted my sensible plan for a small fleet of Death Stars, they wouldn't be in this mess.
Mr. D, in France, toilets used to be called something like vespasiennes, because Vespasian charged a small fee for using public conveniences.
Note: sorry, I meant to post this about 40 minutes ago but got distracted working
Why?
Because people's past gets raked over with a fine toothcomb, and a single gaffe/off the cuff remark can ruin your reputation for life, not to mention intrusions into your personal life.
Oh, and everyone will think you're on the take, or corrupt.
Who would give up a career for that?
Mr. Herdson, I'd argue the problem was government outsourcing. Why did Palpatine have the shields for the Death Star based on the forest moon of Endor, rather than the station itself?
Heath achieved his primary political objective that dominated politics for 40 years. It ended badly, but he achieved what he set out to do
Blair's place is secure because of three big majorities alone.
That man caused us no end of trouble for decades.
Cameron has a class Osborne will never match.
The problem that has developed is the impossibilty of saying or doing anything to placate this fury and in the end there is a real possiblity that the residents will start to lose public support.
It is a disaster and tragedy with many aspects and it is impossible to understand how a community can come together in months, years or even a lifetime. They deserve our thoughts and prayers but we also need to hope that their palpable anger will dissipate in time and a healing process can begin.
The building will need to come down but that is going to be an utterly horrible process
A few months later he was reduced to 'fishfingers to rise by 5p next year'.
Now he's down to the Boris poster.
Osborne on the other hand.......
Mr. B2, the achievements of Churchill as PM are orders of magnitude greater than those of Blair. Deliberately excluding them to make Blair seem better is just daft.
Mr. Eagles, but that confuses the perception and reality of weakness! Fine to make it look weak, stupid to actually make it so.
A party political system is trying to deliver on a referendum result that was not fought on party lines, holds no campaign accountable, and will ultimately disappoint almost everyone.
When the head of the Leave campaign says the current plan to leave is moronic, there can be no good outcome.
My radical solution is another vote.
Not another referendum, or another party political General Election. A vote to elect a Brexit Government.
Candidates can stand on one of 3 Brexit platforms
1. WTO
2. Norway
3. Revoke Article 50
Nail their colours to the mast before the vote. Be held accountable during and after the vote
If the WTO crew get most seats, they can make Bill Cash or John Redwood PM and get on with it
The right thing would have been to stay in EFTA, and developer a more collaborative relationship from there.
When I read "focussing" spelt thus what I hear is "foCUSSing".
Coalition <- National stability at a tough time.
Major <- Economy ran well despite the appearance of shambolism. Started the PFI nonsense.
Blair term 1 <- Generally sensible with finances.
Cam Maj <- Good outwith the EU Ref error.
Blair term 2 <- Increasing Brown influence
May 16-17 <- Economy has run ok despite May, Tory Brown.
Blair post 05 <- Blair lame duck.
Brown
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/885400908670042113
Theresa May is brave in the first place to want to see it through as I cannot think of anyone who would really want to be in her place over the next two years. And before anyone says Corbyn it would destroy him too
Instead he's made "vengeance" his modus operandi, which says an awful lot about him.
The fact is that every prime minister since we became a democracy who held a "snap" election before four years had elapsed despite having a working majority has lost his or her majority. It happened in 1923 when Baldwin called an election after just one year of a parliament. It happened in 1974 when Heath called one after three and a half years.
This parliament will need to run for at least four years before another election unless the Tories lose 7 seats in by elections, or unless the government is defeated in a vote of confidence or budget. There might come a time with a new leader and good polls that the Tories might want to be defeated in the Commons and an election precipitated because despite the new received wisdom since the election that Corbyn is good for Labour, I still contend that he is a big liability.
If only the Tories could get back it's reputation as the 'Nasty Party' it wouldn't now be struggling
It's to elect a Government of Brexit unity. Whichever group ends up in charge elects a leader to be PM and deliver the verdict
It could be Andrea Leadsom, Vince Cable or Chuka Umuna
Osborne on the other hand has been childishly delighting in every set back for the government and country- which is foolish, because any valid criticism will now be dismissed as vindictive personal animus.
I know you'll be tempted to say "Oh, look! A Leaver trying to escape responsibility!" etc. etc. but we've been here so so many times, and debated to death endlessly, that it's just a waste of everyone's time to engage on it anymore.
Is that a lie or ?
"Lets give £350m to the NHS" is a suggestion not a guarantee. It was made by a group of people that weren't in a position to deliver, but plenty of us thought it was a bloody good idea.
(Not me incidentally, I'd privatise the NHS)
Conservatives like Osborne and TSE have been proved right about May. Osborne's not responsible for the failure of the GE campaign, or the decision to hold it. Instead of shunning them, perhaps other Conservatives should be listening to them.
The NHS commitment remains relevant insofar as it is still a live issue how much financial benefit the NHS eventually receives, if Brexit ever proceeds to a conclusion. For if we do reach that point, you can bet that health funding will be prominent in the political debate.
The horses we should give up discussing are those that are completely dead as contemporary issues.
The Coalition was constrained by a combination of dire finances and the necessary cross-party agreement, which also helped (aided by Cameron's own disposition) a return to Cabinet government over a sofa dictatorship and musical chairs for Cabinet posts.
Not a fan of Clegg's EU-philia, but he did take the right decision on entering government and mostly did it well.
On praising the Lib Dems: I was mildly surprised by yesterday's court decision that this wasn't already the case, but glad to see that gay people now get equal pension rights as straight people. Sir Steve Webb (damned shame he doesn't have a Cabinet post, heading up DWP would probably be very good) made the astute observation that now we need to make things equal for widowers (on an equal footing with widows) in straight marriage, as far as pensions go.
Shame Lamb isn't in government either. Or Alexander and Laws.
Yet we have a bloody far leftist leading Labour and the Conservatives facing a choice between the worst campaigner since Valerian and a range of second raters.
*sighs*
Anyway, back to work...
https://twitter.com/lsebrexitvote/status/885051874906443776