However, the EU ref was not an error, and I'm delighted at the outcome (although not how HMG has handled it)
There's a myth that the issue would, somehow, have gone away had Cameron not called it. It wouldn't have, and the fissure between the UK and EU would have grown stronger as it integrated more and more over time.
There is an alternate argument that HMG should have led a fundamental renegotiation at the time the EU treaties were reopened in either 2018-2020, or post a GE2020 election win for the Tories (let's say, under Gove).
That probably would have failed, with similar results, but it might have been less disruptive and divisive in the short-term and would have required HMG to produce proper contingency plans for a Brexit, which I think Gove would have done, in the event of failure.
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 was looking post 45 only.
That's rather like saying that Mohammed Ali was a 'rather mediocre' boxer because you were only counting the fights in his last three years.
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.
Nope, a two tier system. Opt out of NI and take out health insurance or stay in NI and use the NHS. Nothing could be simpler.
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.
Stanley Baldwin is underrated.
Agreed - and largely because of Michael Foot's dishonest hatchet job "The Guilty Men". Baldwin was a pretty good PM.
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 commented a few days ago Grenfell Tower isn't our Hillsborough but our Aberfan. Of course there will be those who contrast the behaviour of the Grenfell Tower survivors with those of the Aberfan families but don't imagine there wasn't or wouldn't have been anger in that village in the months and years after that appalling disaster.
The Davies Enquiry took 76 days to work and produce its findings and that was despite the obfuscation of the then National Coal Board and I suspect the huge influence of the Coal Board in the region as a whole and the fear of lost jobs probably mitigated or contained anger to an extent we've not seen at Grenfell.
This site seems full of legal know-alls so my thought is whether, as we've seen elsewhere, the difficulty of pursuing corporate manslaughter charges against organisations and individuals is going to lead to further resentment in the months and years to come.
I believe the site of the former school in Aberfan is a garden with the names of the children who perished on headstones.
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.
I'm happy to discuss future NHS funding.
I think debating whether the £350m a week poster was a lie or not during the referendum campaign, exhaustively, is pointless.
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
Morning all. I think it goes rather deeper than this. It's not about unreasonability on the part of the residents nor lack of empathy from those that are acting to investigate etc, it's s fundamental breakdown of the coexistence of haves and have nots. The tragedy lays bare the differences in how we exist. And everything, as ever, ties back into the crash of 2008. 7 years of fiscal restraint, no pay increases for emergency workers, closure of sure starts, libraries etc. And we are told to look forward to at least 8 more years of this. It's writing off one third of the working life of many people, restraint for the whole childhood of those unlucky enough to have been born in 2010. And that's all sold as necessary for the common good, for the fiscal survival of the nation. The reality is the rich are still rich and have not suffered, the poor see the limited services they enjoy closing. Take out rich and poor, and call it them and us. Then the us burn to death in a tower block that, amongst hundreds of others, is not suitably protected against fire..... The reality of the economy is disintegrating in the face of unreasonable expectations of the us to lose out in order to protect the them, and the mechanics of how that glues the whole together and keeps it ticking is white noise. The ingredients for revolution are there. Short term it would be at the ballot box. If restraint goes on then it will be on the streets. People are done with restraint. Grenfell is a tragic, horrible microcosm of that playing out.
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.
Conservatives like Osborne and TSE are highly factional, sneer at those who disagree and make very clear it's their way or the highway.
If you can't see why that might not be the most effective way to win people over, then I can't help you.
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.
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
Yep, I think you've got that right.
Going back further, of course Thatcher's first and second terms were hors concours as the French say, the third term poorish. All of the governments after Macmillan until Thatcher were bad to awful. (Wilson's governments were good on social issues but utterly failed to address the most pressing issue of the day, which was the rising militancy and destructiveness of the unions, which is why we had got into such a mess by 1979). Douglas-Home was eminently forgettable. Macmillan was good.
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.
On that basis, you would be better to exclude him from the list altogether. A rating that excludes one of the finest examples of leadership in history simply because of an arbitrary division (even if a historically valid one) is pointless.
In any case, rating PMs solely on their ability to win elections (on which criterion Churchill should be lower still given 1945), is of itself of very limited value.
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
Morning all. I think it goes rather deeper than this. It's not about unreasonability on the part of the residents nor lack of empathy from those that are acting to investigate etc, it's s fundamental breakdown of the coexistence of haves and have nots. The tragedy lays bare the differences in how we exist. And everything, as ever, ties back into the crash of 2008. 7 years of fiscal restraint, no pay increases for emergency workers, closure of sure starts, libraries etc. And we are told to look forward to at least 8 more years of this. It's writing off one third of the working life of many people, restraint for the whole childhood of those unlucky enough to have been born in 2010. And that's all sold as necessary for the common good, for the fiscal survival of the nation. The reality is the rich are still rich and have not suffered, the poor see the limited services they enjoy closing. Take out rich and poor, and call it them and us. Then the us burn to death in a tower block that, amongst hundreds of others, is not suitably protected against fire..... The reality of the economy is disintegrating in the face of unreasonable expectations of the us to lose out in order to protect the them, and the mechanics of how that glues the whole together and keeps it ticking is white noise. The ingredients for revolution are there. Short term it would be at the ballot box. If restraint goes on then it will be on the streets. People are done with restraint. Grenfell is a tragic, horrible microcosm of that playing out.
Sky just reported a very acrimonious meeting with the Police Officer leading the criminal investigation and the new council leader. The residents through o 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
Morning all. I think it goes rather deeper than this. It's not about unreasonability on the part of the residents nor lack of empathy from those that are acting to investigate etc, it's s fundamental breakdown of the coexistence of haves and have nots. The tragedy lays bare the differences in how we exist. And everything, as ever, ties back into the crash of 2008. 7 years of fiscal restraint, no pay increases for emergency workers, closure of sure starts, libraries etc. And we are told to look forward to at least 8 more years of this. It's writing off one third of the working life of many people, restraint for the whole childhood of those unlucky enough to have been born in 2010. And that's all sold as necessary for the common good, for the fiscal survival of the nation. The reality is the rich are still rich and have not suffered, the poor see the limited services they enjoy closing. Take out rich and poor, and call it them and us. Then the us burn to death in a tower block that, amongst hundreds of others, is not suitably protected against fire..... The reality of the economy is disintegrating in the face of unreasonable expectations of the us to lose out in order to protect the them, and the mechanics of how that glues the whole together and keeps it ticking is white noise. The ingredients for revolution are there. Short term it would be at the ballot box. If restraint goes on then it will be on the streets. People are done with restraint. Grenfell is a tragic, horrible microcosm of that playing out.
Hey! What a good post and probably quite accurate
Possibly, although I do have a tendency to go off on one The wealthy need to consider giving up their pastry chef or we will be back for the butler and housemaid. Put it this way, I'm a JAM (benefits and partner in living wage employment) and as of now I'd countenance stringent changes that a few years ago I'd have considered bizarre, dangerous extremist politics. And I've not been on the JAM floor that long, couple of years. Those that have subsisted at this level for years are deeper into the zeal of drastic change.
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.
Nope, a two tier system. Opt out of NI and take out health insurance or stay in NI and use the NHS. Nothing could be simpler.
I thought NI paid for the state pension, not the NHS ?!
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.
politician breaks promise shock
May shouldnt actually be in office since Cameron promised he'd stay on post referendum
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.
Nope, a two tier system. Opt out of NI and take out health insurance or stay in NI and use the NHS. Nothing could be simpler.
I thought NI paid for the state pension, not the NHS ?!
I don't think anybody knows where any of it goes tbh. But I stick by my plan.
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].
I recently watched the film 'Churchill' and if it's to be believed he was an interfering buffoon who was barely tolerated by the military and usually ignored. As a film it was saved by one electrifying scene where he had an audience with King George which I'll see if I can find.
I am sure there are a range of views on the Remain side too.
Indeed. What many forget is that there are soft Remain and hard Remain choices that are just as problematic, and soft Remain probably isn't open to us anymore.
If the EU really wanted us to stay they'd make one more best and final offer.
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?
George read modern history not PPE.
The thing about PPE is that it teaches its graduates to be philosophical about why theyre crap at politcs and economics
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.
Nope, a two tier system. Opt out of NI and take out health insurance or stay in NI and use the NHS. Nothing could be simpler.
Simpler or not, it will be more expensive. Look at how much is spent overseas. The dirty little secret of the NHS is that it is cheap.
Yes. Another unintended consequence of Theresa's decision is that it's retrospectively improved Gordon's reputation. Hitherto he was the silly old bugger who didn't call a snap election when he should have done. This can no longer be hung around his neck. Theresa has made Gordon look punctilious and wise.
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?
George read modern history not PPE.
The thing about PPE is that it teaches its graduates to be philosophical about why theyre crap at politcs and economics
I don't recall PPE students being highly sought by top employers.
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.
Nope, a two tier system. Opt out of NI and take out health insurance or stay in NI and use the NHS. Nothing could be simpler.
Simpler or not, it will be more expensive. Look at how much is spent overseas. The dirty little secret of the NHS is that it is cheap.
Cheap to who? When I travel on the continent I don't see people dying in the street.
There will never be enough money to chuck at the NHS to some people
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 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.
Nope, a two tier system. Opt out of NI and take out health insurance or stay in NI and use the NHS. Nothing could be simpler.
I thought NI paid for the state pension, not the NHS ?!
It doesn't 'pay' for anything, in the sense of being hypothecated: it goes into the general fund and the cash for the NHS, pensions and benefits goes the other way. But it doesn't cover either:
National insurance brings in about £130bn a year.
By contrast, this year's spending estimate:
Pensions: £159bn Health: £146bn Social Security: £112bn
@Kevin_Maguire: Happy 1st Birthday in No 10, Theresa, and you mIght not make a 2nd. Baked you a cake but I've eaten it in line with your Brexit policy
Never got that stupid expression. What's the point in having a cake if you're not going to eat it?
The Italian equivalent of the same expression is "you can't have a full bottle and a drunken wife", which perhaps makes the point more clearly. The British one really needs "still" inserting before "have", or perhaps "keep" instead of "have".
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 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.
Nope, a two tier system. Opt out of NI and take out health insurance or stay in NI and use the NHS. Nothing could be simpler.
I thought NI paid for the state pension, not the NHS ?!
I don't think anybody knows where any of it goes tbh. But I stick by my plan.
I think there once was an NI fund to pay for pensions but nowadays state pension liabilities are unfunded and should be added to the 1.5 trillion government debt to show what is being handed on to future generations by the current live now (someone else can) pay later generation.
The building will need to come down but that is going to be an utterly horrible process
Morning all. I think it goes rather deeper than this. It's not about unreasonability on the part of the residents nor lack of empathy from those that are acting to investigate etc, it's s fundamental breakdown of the coexistence of haves and have nots. The tragedy lays bare the differences in how we exist. And everything, as ever, ties back into the crash of 2008. 7 years of fiscal restraint, no pay increases for emergency workers, closure of sure starts, libraries etc. And we are told to look forward to at least 8 more years of this. It's writing off one third of the working life of many people, restraint for the whole childhood of those unlucky enough to have been born in 2010. And that's all sold as necessary for the common good, for the fiscal survival of the nation. The reality is the rich are still rich and have not suffered, the poor see the limited services they enjoy closing. Take out rich and poor, and call it them and us. Then the us burn to death in a tower block that, amongst hundreds of others, is not suitably protected against fire..... The reality of the economy is disintegrating in the face of unreasonable expectations of the us to lose out in order to protect the them, and the mechanics of how that glues the whole together and keeps it ticking is white noise. The ingredients for revolution are there. Short term it would be at the ballot box. If restraint goes on then it will be on the streets. People are done with restraint. Grenfell is a tragic, horrible microcosm of that playing out.
How anyone can think that this Country is going through Austerity is beyond me. As a child of the 1970s we had nothing, our playground was wasteland of which there was vast swathes. (Just look at the playgrounds in parks today) Our textbooks at school had been used by previous generations. We had regular power cuts. There was no money for anything and we had no sense of entitlement. This Country has been through a revolution. Go to any City Centre and look at the huge amounts of money that have and continue to be spent in regenration. We have record employment and very low unemployment. The economy is booming. If you just read this site you would think we were in Greece's position and had 10 million unemployed.
Mr. Roger, if that's the recent release with Brian Cox my understanding is it's been roundly lambasted for being less historically accurate than Mr. Eagles.
If we're to summarise this mornings' posts, I'd suggest it was a really interesting discussion of the relative merits of recent ministries.
And Scott, who is stilled trapped in the massive great signposted bear trap of a political advert that helped to win the referendum because it got Remainers dismissing the costs of EU membership AND the very real problems of millions in this country simletaneously. Hilarious!
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].
I recently watched the film 'Churchill' and if it's to be believed he was an interfering buffoon who was barely tolerated by the military and usually ignored. As a film it was saved by one electrifying scene where he had an audience with King George which I'll see if I can find.
A lot of his military judgements weren't good (he was pretty much responsible for Gallipoli, after all). He was obsessed with invading the Balkans and argued incessantly against D-Day, for example.
I don't know how factually accurate the film is supposed to be, but it doesn't appear controversial to suggest that his principal contribution was refusal to compromise when so many Tories were advocating it through to 1940 and his ability to inspire and boost morale through his speeches.
@Kevin_Maguire: Happy 1st Birthday in No 10, Theresa, and you mIght not make a 2nd. Baked you a cake but I've eaten it in line with your Brexit policy
Never got that stupid expression. What's the point in having a cake if you're not going to eat it?
The knowledge that cake is available for the future or against starvation. Same reason to have nukes. You don't want to have nukes and use them.
Similarly insurance is a product that you pay for that you would rather not lose.
The cake expression is rather daft though, as cake goes stale quickly, keeping a cake is not usually wise. Also in an obese society, eating cake is unwise. We would be better neither having cake (because of storage costs) nor eating 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.
Nope, a two tier system. Opt out of NI and take out health insurance or stay in NI and use the NHS. Nothing could be simpler.
Simpler or not, it will be more expensive. Look at how much is spent overseas. The dirty little secret of the NHS is that it is cheap.
Cheap to who? When I travel on the continent I don't see people dying in the street.
There will never be enough money to chuck at the NHS to some people
When you travel on the continent where people are not dying in the street, check how much they spend on health. Here is an ONS report from last year, showing Britain is sixth out of the G7 countries -- and note the other governments are spending more than ours; it is not just private expenditure. http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-compare-internationally/
The NHS is cheap and the stats prove it. By all means privatise the NHS for better outcomes, or to save more lives, or shorten queues. Just don't expect to save money.
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].
I recently watched the film 'Churchill' and if it's to be believed he was an interfering buffoon who was barely tolerated by the military and usually ignored. As a film it was saved by one electrifying scene where he had an audience with King George which I'll see if I can find.
And now we see why you're nicknamed Rogerdamus. You watch a film and dismiss a leader; the rest of us talk about facts, stats and history.
I shed no tears for May who, as many politicians will, played the opportunist card well in and immediately after the EU Referendum, enjoyed her share of luck as all politicians need but overplayed her hand as most politicians ultimately do and either came to believe in her own invincibility (hubris) or allowed her natural caution to be overcome by the adoration of fawning courtiers.
She made her bed, we all have to lie in it. There will be a fascinating counterfactual one day based on May resigning on Friday June 8th but I suspect her husband talked her out of it.
Yet I don't wholly agree with OGH's argument. Incoming non-elected Prime Ministers are always vulnerable to the argument of not having a mandate to govern and lead - that argument was thrown at both May and Brown. Getting that election majority quashes all that and secures the position so you can see why leaders in that position would seek it.
In the 1950s, both Eden and MacMillan successfully won elections to strengthen their position having taken over when their predecessors stepped down and Major did the same in 1992.
Opposition leaders, even those who have been elected, need to earn their stripes by taking a seat off another party at a by-election. It strengthens and in a way legitimises them even though they have won their position through some form of electoral process.
Morning all. I think it goes rather deeper than this. It's not about unreasonability on the part of the residents nor lack of empathy from those that are acting to investigate etc, it's s fundamental breakdown of the coexistence of haves and have nots. The tragedy lays bare the differences in how we exist. And everything, as ever, ties back into the crash of 2008. 7 years of fiscal restraint, no pay increases for emergency workers, closure of sure starts, libraries etc. And we are told to look forward to at least 8 more years of this. It's writing off one third of the working life of many people, restraint for the whole childhood of those unlucky enough to have been born in 2010. And that's all sold as necessary for the common good, for the fiscal survival of the nation. The reality is the rich are still rich and have not suffered, the poor see the limited services they enjoy closing. Take out rich and poor, and call it them and us. Then the us burn to death in a tower block that, amongst hundreds of others, is not suitably protected against fire..... The reality of the economy is disintegrating in the face of unreasonable expectations of the us to lose out in order to protect the them, and the mechanics of how that glues the whole together and keeps it ticking is white noise. The ingredients for revolution are there. Short term it would be at the ballot box. If restraint goes on then it will be on the streets. People are done with restraint. Grenfell is a tragic, horrible microcosm of that playing out.
Hey! What a good post and probably quite accurate
Possibly, although I do have a tendency to go off on one The wealthy need to consider giving up their pastry chef or we will be back for the butler and housemaid. Put it this way, I'm a JAM (benefits and partner in living wage employment) and as of now I'd countenance stringent changes that a few years ago I'd have considered bizarre, dangerous extremist politics. And I've not been on the JAM floor that long, couple of years. Those that have subsisted at this level for years are deeper into the zeal of drastic change.
The distinction as I see it is between those that can live off capital and those who rely on work. Any one who has wealth of say £500k (or even less) properly managed has stability, security and a great life in general. (rich) Anyone who goes to work finds more and more insecurity in working conditions, jobs and salaries falling, and the welfare safety net completely disintegrating vs inflation (one example: my son's nursery fees just rose 10% in one year). Housing? No hope of that. (poor)
The obvious political solution to this problem is for the poor to organise to expropriate and redistribute the assets of the rich.
"When asked whether the position of the Tories was May’s fault, he said May had inherited a difficult situation and not calling an election could also have damaged her. I think it’s down to the fact the country was anyway in a difficult position because Brexit was going to go wrong,” he said."
Before long we'll have to accept that public sector workers don't pay tax. They receive money from the Treasury but none is returned, all contributions come from private industry.
Mr Evershed talks about unfunded state pensions, its one big ponzi scheme and we all know what happens to them. It looks likely that Mrs May will be holding the parcel when the music stops, it will start when property downturns.
Before long we'll have to accept that public sector workers don't pay tax. They receive money from the Treasury but none is returned, all contributions come from private industry.
Mr Evershed talks about unfunded state pensions, its one big ponzi scheme and we all know what happens to them. It looks likely that Mrs May will be holding the parcel when the music stops, it will start when property downturns.
How anyone can think that this Country is going through Austerity is beyond me. As a child of the 1970s we had nothing, our playground was wasteland of which there was vast swathes. (Just look at the playgrounds in parks today) Our textbooks at school had been used by previous generations. We had regular power cuts. There was no money for anything and we had no sense of entitlement. This Country has been through a revolution. Go to any City Centre and look at the huge amounts of money that have and continue to be spent in regenration. We have record employment and very low unemployment. The economy is booming. If you just read this site you would think we were in Greece's position and had 10 million unemployed.
That's probably because that's how it feels to a not insignificant number of people. And of course I used restraint rather than austerity precisely because of the old distinction. The economy is booming for the alright Jacks and the wealthiest of them are pocketing the wealth not allowing it to flow downwards. It's also a very different world to the 70s, nobody alive now is, or should be, judging the rights and wrongs of 2017 against the situation in 1974.
Before long we'll have to accept that public sector workers don't pay tax. They receive money from the Treasury but none is returned, all contributions come from private industry.
Mr Evershed talks about unfunded state pensions, its one big ponzi scheme and we all know what happens to them. It looks likely that Mrs May will be holding the parcel when the music stops, it will start when property downturns.
You do talk some twaddle mate!
I'm happy for you reply.
Tell me what the income tax take would be if everybody worked in the public sector.
How anyone can think that this Country is going through Austerity is beyond me. As a child of the 1970s we had nothing, our playground was wasteland of which there was vast swathes. (Just look at the playgrounds in parks today) Our textbooks at school had been used by previous generations. We had regular power cuts. There was no money for anything and we had no sense of entitlement. This Country has been through a revolution. Go to any City Centre and look at the huge amounts of money that have and continue to be spent in regenration. We have record employment and very low unemployment. The economy is booming. If you just read this site you would think we were in Greece's position and had 10 million unemployed.
That's probably because that's how it feels to a not insignificant number of people. And of course I used restraint rather than austerity precisely because of the old distinction. The economy is booming for the alright Jacks and the wealthiest of them are pocketing the wealth not allowing it to flow downwards. It's also a very different world to the 70s, nobody alive now is, or should be, judging the rights and wrongs of 2017 against the situation in 1974.
I think debating whether the £350m a week poster was a lie or not during the referendum campaign, exhaustively, is pointless.
And yet it's clearly not pointless.
It was a lie.
The guy that invented the lie says it crucial.
The Brexit headbangers still claim black is white
Bloody hell. There are so many valid arguments against Brexit that a thousand monkeys with typewriters would come up with several by lunchtime, but you still manage to home unerringly in on the only two which have no validity at all. There is no doubt the bus thing was massively instrumental in getting a leave result, but what we are looking at is the difference which would have been made by using the correct figure; it is not the difference made by the claim overall, because there is nothing illegitimate in saying "we give huge sum x to the EU every week, let's spend it on the NHS", if your x is valid. Nobody claims that x was under 100m, and the claim that the difference between the correct figure and 350m changed lots of votes - i.e. that there are significant numbers of people who would be swayed by 350m a week but would say naah, 250m a week is neither here nor there, let's stick with Brussels - is almost certainly nonsense. With numbers this large 250m a week does not have a markedly different "feel" to me than 350m a week, and I am not a thick prole (nor a leave voter) whereas on your case all leave voters are thick proles. So why do you expect them to discriminate so finely between the two figures?
Before long we'll have to accept that public sector workers don't pay tax. They receive money from the Treasury but none is returned, all contributions come from private industry.
Mr Evershed talks about unfunded state pensions, its one big ponzi scheme and we all know what happens to them. It looks likely that Mrs May will be holding the parcel when the music stops, it will start when property downturns.
You do talk some twaddle mate!
I'm happy for you reply.
Tell me what the income tax take would be if everybody worked in the public sector.
Firstly, I'd never advocate running the country where everyone worked in the public sector (aka communism) but it clearly could be done and would still generate government funds through taxation, but mostly through the profits of production (which the government would necessarily control in such a situation.) In such a situation, income tax take could be as high or low as the government decided.
How anyone can think that this Country is going through Austerity is beyond me. As a child of the 1970s we had nothing, our playground was wasteland of which there was vast swathes. (Just look at the playgrounds in parks today) Our textbooks at school had been used by previous generations. We had regular power cuts. There was no money for anything and we had no sense of entitlement. This Country has been through a revolution. Go to any City Centre and look at the huge amounts of money that have and continue to be spent in regenration. We have record employment and very low unemployment. The economy is booming. If you just read this site you would think we were in Greece's position and had 10 million unemployed.
It isn't about material wealth though. The unfolding crisis is about inequality, diminishing levels of job security, and access to housing. People will end up killing the golden goose of economic growth because they can see it doesn't work for them. I recently calculated that from my own personal perspective, I would be better off if it was 1997 and none of the economic growth that you refer to happened. Reason: If it was 1997 on my salary I could afford to live in a 3 bed semi in a nice area close to a good school. My job would have been much more secure. I would have had significantly better pension rights. I don't care that people would be walking around in reebok shellsuits, and there are no nice coffee shops. Economic growth = only benefits the rich, and exacerbates inequality.
I think debating whether the £350m a week poster was a lie or not during the referendum campaign, exhaustively, is pointless.
And yet it's clearly not pointless.
It was a lie.
The guy that invented the lie says it crucial.
The Brexit headbangers still claim black is white
Bloody hell. There are so many valid arguments against Brexit that a thousand monkeys with typewriters would come up with several by lunchtime, but you still manage to home unerringly in on the only two which have no validity at all. There is no doubt the bus thing was massively instrumental in getting a leave result, but what we are looking at is the difference which would have been made by using the correct figure; it is not the difference made by the claim overall, because there is nothing illegitimate in saying "we give huge sum x to the EU every week, let's spend it on the NHS", if your x is valid. Nobody claims that x was under 100m, and the claim that the difference between the correct figure and 350m changed lots of votes - i.e. that there are significant numbers of people who would be swayed by 350m a week but would say naah, 250m a week is neither here nor there, let's stick with Brussels - is almost certainly nonsense. With numbers this large 250m a week does not have a markedly different "feel" to me than 350m a week, and I am not a thick prole (nor a leave voter) whereas on your case all leave voters are thick proles. So why do you expect them to discriminate so finely between the two figures?
"There is no doubt the bus thing was massively instrumental in getting a leave result" Nigel Farage admits it was 'a mistake'. No extra money is going to the NHS. Expecting it to be forgiven and forgotten is expecting rather a lot.
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.
politician breaks promise shock
May shouldnt actually be in office since Cameron promised he'd stay on post referendum
Then he legged it
May mentioned in interview this morning that she didn't want to run away after GE result and emma barnett butted in by saying 'Like David Cameron' ;-)
I think debating whether the £350m a week poster was a lie or not during the referendum campaign, exhaustively, is pointless.
And yet it's clearly not pointless.
It was a lie.
The guy that invented the lie says it crucial.
The Brexit headbangers still claim black is white
Bloody hell. There are so many valid arguments against Brexit that a thousand monkeys with typewriters would come up with several by lunchtime, but you still manage to home unerringly in on the only two which have no validity at all. There is no doubt the bus thing was massively instrumental in getting a leave result, but what we are looking at is the difference which would have been made by using the correct figure; it is not the difference made by the claim overall, because there is nothing illegitimate in saying "we give huge sum x to the EU every week, let's spend it on the NHS", if your x is valid. Nobody claims that x was under 100m, and the claim that the difference between the correct figure and 350m changed lots of votes - i.e. that there are significant numbers of people who would be swayed by 350m a week but would say naah, 250m a week is neither here nor there, let's stick with Brussels - is almost certainly nonsense. With numbers this large 250m a week does not have a markedly different "feel" to me than 350m a week, and I am not a thick prole (nor a leave voter) whereas on your case all leave voters are thick proles. So why do you expect them to discriminate so finely between the two figures?
"There is no doubt the bus thing was massively instrumental in getting a leave result" Nigel Farage admits it was 'a mistake'. No extra money is going to the NHS. Expecting it to be forgiven and forgotten is expecting rather a lot.
bar here, I dont think Ive heard anyone mention the bus post campaign
Before long we'll have to accept that public sector workers don't pay tax. They receive money from the Treasury but none is returned, all contributions come from private industry.
Mr Evershed talks about unfunded state pensions, its one big ponzi scheme and we all know what happens to them. It looks likely that Mrs May will be holding the parcel when the music stops, it will start when property downturns.
You do talk some twaddle mate!
I'm happy for you reply.
Tell me what the income tax take would be if everybody worked in the public sector.
Firstly, I'd never advocate running the country where everyone worked in the public sector (aka communism) but it clearly could be done and would still generate government funds through taxation, but mostly through the profits of production (which the government would necessarily control in such a situation.) In such a situation, income tax take could be as high or low as the government decided.
Well you've dodged the question which makes my point. As has been pointed out state and public sector pensions are massively underfunded, it has to be accepted that cannot go on indefinitely.
And of course I'm happy for you to give me an example of where govt controlled production has led to prosperity.
These Henry The Eigth Clauses are very worrying for parliamentary democracy in todays' debate.Tories need to think on-they could be very useful for a Corbyn-led government.
Isn't it a lesson of history that it is better not to put too much executive power in the hands of one man/woman?Suez is a good example.Sir Anthony Eden was in the middle of a medically prescribed amphetamine addiction,known in my day as a speed freak,one unfortunate side effect being severe paranoia-see Hitler's medical records also.It is worth remembering that amphetamine is a drug of war and is the Daesh drug of choice.I would not rely on the judgement of a long-term speed freak.My experience is they are the most unreliable people on the planet.Poor old Wilson and Mrs T both developed dementia and Robert Harris' biography is proof of Blair's delusions of grandeur and belief he was God.Power drove Blair mad.It gets them all in the end.
How anyone can think that this Country is going through Austerity is beyond me. As a child of the 1970s we had nothing, our playground was wasteland of which there was vast swathes. (Just look at the playgrounds in parks today) Our textbooks at school had been used by previous generations. We had regular power cuts. There was no money for anything and we had no sense of entitlement. This Country has been through a revolution. Go to any City Centre and look at the huge amounts of money that have and continue to be spent in regenration. We have record employment and very low unemployment. The economy is booming. If you just read this site you would think we were in Greece's position and had 10 million unemployed.
You must have lived in a different 1970s to me and possibly in a very different part of the country. Suburban South London had well-ordered parks with park keepers who ensured the tennis courts were well maintained and useable.
The High Street where I live was full of small shops run by locals - yes, there were the national chains such as Sainsbury's, Woolworth's and Fine Fare but the local Wimpy was run by a lovely Italian family who cooked meals to order.
Yes, there were power cuts in late 73 and early 74 and I remember doing my homework by candle light but I blamed both the Government and the Unions in equal measure.
I don't recognise the "booming Britain" you see today - yes, there are a lot of people working and in work but a lot are economically inactive and the rules for being able to claim benefit I(and therefore appear on the unemployment statistics) are far more draconian now than in the 1970s so the "true" number of unemployed isn't clear.
Some areas are prospering but in others the overspend from the mid-2000s has left a legacy of closed shops and gaps in retail centres. There was an oversupply and the result now is empty retail space not helped by the trend toward Internet shopping.
And you have spectacularly missed the point. Again.
At the meeting where they decided to paint a giant lie on the side of a bus and promote it every day for a month, the number on the lie is not the issue
I think debating whether the £350m a week poster was a lie or not during the referendum campaign, exhaustively, is pointless.
And yet it's clearly not pointless.
It was a lie.
The guy that invented the lie says it crucial.
The Brexit headbangers still claim black is white
Bloody hell. There are so many valid arguments against Brexit that a thousand monkeys with typewriters would come up with several by lunchtime, but you still manage to home unerringly in on the only two which have no validity at all. There is no doubt the bus thing was massively instrumental in getting a leave result, but what we are looking at is the difference which would have been made by using the correct figure; it is not the difference made by the claim overall, because there is nothing illegitimate in saying "we give huge sum x to the EU every week, let's spend it on the NHS", if your x is valid. Nobody claims that x was under 100m, and the claim that the difference between the correct figure and 350m changed lots of votes - i.e. that there are significant numbers of people who would be swayed by 350m a week but would say naah, 250m a week is neither here nor there, let's stick with Brussels - is almost certainly nonsense. With numbers this large 250m a week does not have a markedly different "feel" to me than 350m a week, and I am not a thick prole (nor a leave voter) whereas on your case all leave voters are thick proles. So why do you expect them to discriminate so finely between the two figures?
"There is no doubt the bus thing was massively instrumental in getting a leave result" Nigel Farage admits it was 'a mistake'. No extra money is going to the NHS. Expecting it to be forgiven and forgotten is expecting rather a lot.
Of course. Brexit has happened and we are no longer sending any payments to Brussels, and the savings are just piling up in the Treasury. Well spotted.
I think debating whether the £350m a week poster was a lie or not during the referendum campaign, exhaustively, is pointless.
And yet it's clearly not pointless.
It was a lie.
The guy that invented the lie says it crucial.
The Brexit headbangers still claim black is white
Bloody hell. There are so many valid arguments against Brexit that a thousand monkeys with typewriters would come up with several by lunchtime, but you still manage to home unerringly in on the only two which have no validity at all. There is no doubt the bus thing was massively instrumental in getting a leave result, but what we are looking at is the difference which would have been made by using the correct figure; it is not the difference made by the claim overall, because there is nothing illegitimate in saying "we give huge sum x to the EU every week, let's spend it on the NHS", if your x is valid. Nobody claims that x was under 100m, and the claim that the difference between the correct figure and 350m changed lots of votes - i.e. that there are significant numbers of people who would be swayed by 350m a week but would say naah, 250m a week is neither here nor there, let's stick with Brussels - is almost certainly nonsense. With numbers this large 250m a week does not have a markedly different "feel" to me than 350m a week, and I am not a thick prole (nor a leave voter) whereas on your case all leave voters are thick proles. So why do you expect them to discriminate so finely between the two figures?
I agree. The £350 million a week for the NHS wasn't the biggest lie of the Leave campaign.
I think debating whether the £350m a week poster was a lie or not during the referendum campaign, exhaustively, is pointless.
And yet it's clearly not pointless.
It was a lie.
The guy that invented the lie says it crucial.
The Brexit headbangers still claim black is white
Bloody hell. There are so many valid arguments against Brexit that a thousand monkeys with typewriters would come up with several by lunchtime, but you still manage to home unerringly in on the only two which have no validity at all.
OK - what about this little gem? Feel free to add it to the Euratom debacle
I think debating whether the £350m a week poster was a lie or not during the referendum campaign, exhaustively, is pointless.
And yet it's clearly not pointless.
It was a lie.
The guy that invented the lie says it crucial.
The Brexit headbangers still claim black is white
Bloody hell. There are so many valid arguments against Brexit that a thousand monkeys with typewriters would come up with several by lunchtime, but you still manage to home unerringly in on the only two which have no validity at all. There is no doubt the bus thing was massively instrumental in getting a leave result, but what we are looking at is the difference which would have been made by using the correct figure; it is not the difference made by the claim overall, because there is nothing illegitimate in saying "we give huge sum x to the EU every week, let's spend it on the NHS", if your x is valid. Nobody claims that x was under 100m, and the claim that the difference between the correct figure and 350m changed lots of votes - i.e. that there are significant numbers of people who would be swayed by 350m a week but would say naah, 250m a week is neither here nor there, let's stick with Brussels - is almost certainly nonsense. With numbers this large 250m a week does not have a markedly different "feel" to me than 350m a week, and I am not a thick prole (nor a leave voter) whereas on your case all leave voters are thick proles. So why do you expect them to discriminate so finely between the two figures?
"There is no doubt the bus thing was massively instrumental in getting a leave result" Nigel Farage admits it was 'a mistake'. No extra money is going to the NHS. Expecting it to be forgiven and forgotten is expecting rather a lot.
bar here, I dont think Ive heard anyone mention the bus post campaign
I think it by-passed Ludlow. It couldn't navigate the tractors.
How anyone can think that this Country is going through Austerity is beyond me. As a child of the 1970s we had nothing, our playground was wasteland of which there was vast swathes. (Just look at the playgrounds in parks today) Our textbooks at school had been used by previous generations. We had regular power cuts. There was no money for anything and we had no sense of entitlement. This Country has been through a revolution. Go to any City Centre and look at the huge amounts of money that have and continue to be spent in regenration. We have record employment and very low unemployment. The economy is booming. If you just read this site you would think we were in Greece's position and had 10 million unemployed.
It isn't about material wealth though. The unfolding crisis is about inequality, diminishing levels of job security, and access to housing. People will end up killing the golden goose of economic growth because they can see it doesn't work for them. I recently calculated that from my own personal perspective, I would be better off if it was 1997 and none of the economic growth that you refer to happened. Reason: If it was 1997 on my salary I could afford to live in a 3 bed semi in a nice area close to a good school. My job would have been much more secure. I would have had significantly better pension rights. I don't care that people would be walking around in reebok shellsuits, and there are no nice coffee shops. Economic growth = only benefits the rich, and exacerbates inequality.
To say that economic growth only benefits the rich is nonsense. I agree that house prices have gone up to much, but whose fault is that? In terms of normal living costs, there have been huge falls in costs compared to 1997. Look at food, clothing, electrical products etc. Unfortunately as a nation we are obseesed with housing and dont seem to mind paying a hugh percentage of our income on it. I dont think you can blame politicians for that.
As I mentioned yesterday go to any Town Centre on a weekend. These places are packed with ordinairy people and restaurants and bars are jam packed. Is this just rich people who are out?
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].
I recently watched the film 'Churchill' and if it's to be believed he was an interfering buffoon who was barely tolerated by the military and usually ignored. As a film it was saved by one electrifying scene where he had an audience with King George which I'll see if I can find.
And now we see why you're nicknamed Rogerdamus. You watch a film and dismiss a leader; the rest of us talk about facts, stats and history.
If you read Beevor's work Mortimer you find much the same view of Churchill.......Roosevelt found him annoying, and he was prone to long periods of depression and alcoholism....
That said, his defiance against the backdrop of a Nazi invasion and his commitment to international structures after WW2 were his defining features..,..
I think Churchill would have despaired at the UK reducing it's international role due to Brexit and so becoming a peripheral little Island at the edge of Europe begging for trade deals with vile regimes.....
And you have spectacularly missed the point. Again.
At the meeting where they decided to paint a giant lie on the side of a bus and promote it every day for a month, the number on the lie is not the issue
And you have spectacularly missed the point. Again.
At the meeting where they decided to paint a giant lie on the side of a bus and promote it every day for a month, the number on the lie is not the issue
Please Miss please Miss Johnson painted a fib on the school bus and 'e din't orter did 'e Miss tell 'im not to Miss.
I think debating whether the £350m a week poster was a lie or not during the referendum campaign, exhaustively, is pointless.
And yet it's clearly not pointless.
It was a lie.
The guy that invented the lie says it crucial.
The Brexit headbangers still claim black is white
Bloody hell. There are so many valid arguments against Brexit that a thousand monkeys with typewriters would come up with several by lunchtime, but you still manage to home unerringly in on the only two which have no validity at all. There is no doubt the bus thing was massively instrumental in getting a leave result, but what we are looking at is the difference which would have been made by using the correct figure; it is not the difference made by the claim overall, because there is nothing illegitimate in saying "we give huge sum x to the EU every week, let's spend it on the NHS", if your x is valid. Nobody claims that x was under 100m, and the claim that the difference between the correct figure and 350m changed lots of votes - i.e. that there are significant numbers of people who would be swayed by 350m a week but would say naah, 250m a week is neither here nor there, let's stick with Brussels - is almost certainly nonsense. With numbers this large 250m a week does not have a markedly different "feel" to me than 350m a week, and I am not a thick prole (nor a leave voter) whereas on your case all leave voters are thick proles. So why do you expect them to discriminate so finely between the two figures?
"There is no doubt the bus thing was massively instrumental in getting a leave result" Nigel Farage admits it was 'a mistake'. No extra money is going to the NHS. Expecting it to be forgiven and forgotten is expecting rather a lot.
bar here, I dont think Ive heard anyone mention the bus post campaign
I think it by-passed Ludlow. It couldn't navigate the tractors.
shouldnt you be off demonstrating against the Donald ?
or have you become a Macaroon and support the state visit ?
"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.
Nope, a two tier system. Opt out of NI and take out health insurance or stay in NI and use the NHS. Nothing could be simpler.
Simpler or not, it will be more expensive. Look at how much is spent overseas. The dirty little secret of the NHS is that it is cheap.
Cheap to who? When I travel on the continent I don't see people dying in the street.
There will never be enough money to chuck at the NHS to some people
When you travel on the continent where people are not dying in the street, check how much they spend on health. Here is an ONS report from last year, showing Britain is sixth out of the G7 countries -- and note the other governments are spending more than ours; it is not just private expenditure. http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-compare-internationally/
The NHS is cheap and the stats prove it. By all means privatise the NHS for better outcomes, or to save more lives, or shorten queues. Just don't expect to save money.
I just know someone is already writing to ask why, then, the NHS is not replicated by other countries?
And, in truth, 'can't get there from here' is a large, and legitimate, part of the answer. Widening it out, 'can't get there from here' is a huge part of politics today - it is central to Brexit, where it is not only the rules for exit or the mere concept of not being in the EU makings difficult, but disentangling the accrued common investment of the last 40 years.
Indeed, it also holds apart the different legal traditions of the UK and Europe which, at a Westminster and Whitehall level at least, was a significant driver of Brexit.
So, to what extent should 'can't get there from here' be accepted as a force in deciding what change can be pursued?
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].
I recently watched the film 'Churchill' and if it's to be believed he was an interfering buffoon who was barely tolerated by the military and usually ignored. As a film it was saved by one electrifying scene where he had an audience with King George which I'll see if I can find.
A lot of his military judgements weren't good (he was pretty much responsible for Gallipoli, after all). He was obsessed with invading the Balkans and argued incessantly against D-Day, for example.
I don't know how factually accurate the film is supposed to be, but it doesn't appear controversial to suggest that his principal contribution was refusal to compromise when so many Tories were advocating it through to 1940 and his ability to inspire and boost morale through his speeches.
A lot of the generals' military judgments during the war weren't much good, either. That is the nature of war.
Churchill's overwhelming contribution was to prevent the Halifax faction engineering an armistice with Germany, and his convincing and inspiring the nation to fight.
Britain's main strategic contribution to defeating Germany was winning the Battle of Britain - probably the only point at which we could have lost the war. That victory is mainly down to the strategic preparation and tactical genius of Dowding and Park. Churchill was wise enough not seriously to interfere in their work until the battle was won.
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].
I recently watched the film 'Churchill' and if it's to be believed he was an interfering buffoon who was barely tolerated by the military and usually ignored. As a film it was saved by one electrifying scene where he had an audience with King George which I'll see if I can find.
A lot of his military judgements weren't good (he was pretty much responsible for Gallipoli, after all). He was obsessed with invading the Balkans and argued incessantly against D-Day, for example.
I don't know how factually accurate the film is supposed to be, but it doesn't appear controversial to suggest that his principal contribution was refusal to compromise when so many Tories were advocating it through to 1940 and his ability to inspire and boost morale through his speeches.
Gallipoli was a sound strategic plan that should probably only have been scrapped when the army refused to play ball sufficiently. But even then, it was probably worth the risk and the biggest error was not so much starting it as failing to retreat when the initial advances failed (which itself was a very close-run thing). Had the Straights been forced, then the battlefleet could have sailed unmolested through to Constantinople and opened up their 15" guns on the city. It could easily have been enough to force the Ottomans out of the war and released significant numbers of troops for the Western front, as well as several other benefits. Those were potentially enormous prizes and at a time when the Western front was locked down, seeking victories elsewhere was sensible. However, both planning and execution left a great deal to be desired, and Churchill deserves his share of blame for that.
How anyone can think that this Country is going through Austerity is beyond me. As a child of the 1970s we had nothing, our playground was wasteland of which there was vast swathes. (Just look at the playgrounds in parks today) Our textbooks at school had been used by previous generations. We had regular power cuts. There was no money for anything and we had no sense of entitlement. This Country has been through a revolution. Go to any City Centre and look at the huge amounts of money that have and continue to be spent in regenration. We have record employment and very low unemployment. The economy is booming. If you just read this site you would think we were in Greece's position and had 10 million unemployed.
You must have lived in a different 1970s to me and possibly in a very different part of the country. Suburban South London had well-ordered parks with park keepers who ensured the tennis courts were well maintained and useable.
The High Street where I live was full of small shops run by locals - yes, there were the national chains such as Sainsbury's, Woolworth's and Fine Fare but the local Wimpy was run by a lovely Italian family who cooked meals to order.
Yes, there were power cuts in late 73 and early 74 and I remember doing my homework by candle light but I blamed both the Government and the Unions in equal measure.
I don't recognise the "booming Britain" you see today - yes, there are a lot of people working and in work but a lot are economically inactive and the rules for being able to claim benefit I(and therefore appear on the unemployment statistics) are far more draconian now than in the 1970s so the "true" number of unemployed isn't clear.
Some areas are prospering but in others the overspend from the mid-2000s has left a legacy of closed shops and gaps in retail centres. There was an oversupply and the result now is empty retail space not helped by the trend toward Internet shopping.
Im from Hedge End near Southampton. The amount of new home building that is going on within 3 miles of here now is quite amazing. All these new homes instantly sell. There must be lots and lots of rich people round here then.
How anyone can think that this Country is going through Austerity is beyond me. As a child of the 1970s we had nothing, our playground was wasteland of which there was vast swathes. (Just look at the playgrounds in parks today) Our textbooks at school had been used by previous generations. We had regular power cuts. There was no money for anything and we had no sense of entitlement. This Country has been through a revolution. Go to any City Centre and look at the huge amounts of money that have and continue to be spent in regenration. We have record employment and very low unemployment. The economy is booming. If you just read this site you would think we were in Greece's position and had 10 million unemployed.
It isn't about material wealth though. The unfolding crisis is about inequality, diminishing levels of job security, and access to housing. People will end up killing the golden goose of economic growth because they can see it doesn't work for them. I recently calculated that from my own personal perspective, I would be better off if it was 1997 and none of the economic growth that you refer to happened. Reason: If it was 1997 on my salary I could afford to live in a 3 bed semi in a nice area close to a good school. My job would have been much more secure. I would have had significantly better pension rights. I don't care that people would be walking around in reebok shellsuits, and there are no nice coffee shops. Economic growth = only benefits the rich, and exacerbates inequality.
To say that economic growth only benefits the rich is nonsense. I agree that house prices have gone up to much, but whose fault is that? In terms of normal living costs, there have been huge falls in costs compared to 1997. Look at food, clothing, electrical products etc. Unfortunately as a nation we are obseesed with housing and dont seem to mind paying a hugh percentage of our income on it. I dont think you can blame politicians for that...
You absolutely can blame politicians for the dismal rate of housebuilding over the last two decades.
I think debating whether the £350m a week poster was a lie or not during the referendum campaign, exhaustively, is pointless.
And yet it's clearly not pointless.
It was a lie.
The guy that invented the lie says it crucial.
The Brexit headbangers still claim black is white
Bloody hell. There are so many valid arguments against Brexit that a thousand monkeys with typewriters would come up with several by lunchtime, but you still manage to home unerringly in on the only two which have no validity at all. There is no doubt the bus thing was massively instrumental in getting a leave result, but what we are looking at is the difference which would have been made by using the correct figure; it is not the difference made by the claim overall, because there is nothing illegitimate in saying "we give huge sum x to the EU every week, let's spend it on the NHS", if your x is valid. Nobody claims that x was under 100m, and the claim that the difference between the correct figure and 350m changed lots of votes - i.e. that there are significant numbers of people who would be swayed by 350m a week but would say naah, 250m a week is neither here nor there, let's stick with Brussels - is almost certainly nonsense. With numbers this large 250m a week does not have a markedly different "feel" to me than 350m a week, and I am not a thick prole (nor a leave voter) whereas on your case all leave voters are thick proles. So why do you expect them to discriminate so finely between the two figures?
I agree. The £350 million a week for the NHS wasn't the biggest lie of the Leave campaign.
The biggest lie was the one that the EU would be desperate to do a post Brexit deal on our terms.....
Brexit was only ever a right wing ideological take over of the Tories by people who cannot cope with liberalism or progress....to be so alienated from the EU...on the whole an urbane, progressive and liberal grouping, you just have to be an zealot nutjob......
How anyone can think that this Country is going through Austerity is beyond me. As a child of the 1970s we had nothing, our playground was wasteland of which there was vast swathes. (Just look at the playgrounds in parks today) Our textbooks at school had been used by previous generations. We had regular power cuts. There was no money for anything and we had no sense of entitlement. This Country has been through a revolution. Go to any City Centre and look at the huge amounts of money that have and continue to be spent in regenration. We have record employment and very low unemployment. The economy is booming. If you just read this site you would think we were in Greece's position and had 10 million unemployed.
It isn't about material wealth though. The unfolding crisis is about inequality, diminishing levels of job security, and access to housing. People will end up killing the golden goose of economic growth because they can see it doesn't work for them. I recently calculated that from my own personal perspective, I would be better off if it was 1997 and none of the economic growth that you refer to happened. Reason: If it was 1997 on my salary I could afford to live in a 3 bed semi in a nice area close to a good school. My job would have been much more secure. I would have had significantly better pension rights. I don't care that people would be walking around in reebok shellsuits, and there are no nice coffee shops. Economic growth = only benefits the rich, and exacerbates inequality.
To say that economic growth only benefits the rich is nonsense. I agree that house prices have gone up to much, but whose fault is that? In terms of normal living costs, there have been huge falls in costs compared to 1997. Look at food, clothing, electrical products etc. Unfortunately as a nation we are obseesed with housing and dont seem to mind paying a hugh percentage of our income on it. I dont think you can blame politicians for that.
As I mentioned yesterday go to any Town Centre on a weekend. These places are packed with ordinairy people and restaurants and bars are jam packed. Is this just rich people who are out?
The price of stuff in the shops is only one metric.
The distinction is cheap stuff vs stable employment and affordable housing.
Much of the cheap stuff is a consequence of technology and would have happened anyway.
The crisis is that people have no job security and no hope of accessing the housing market.
These Henry The Eigth Clauses are very worrying for parliamentary democracy in todays' debate.Tories need to think on-they could be very useful for a Corbyn-led government.
Isn't it a lesson of history that it is better not to put too much executive power in the hands of one man/woman?Suez is a good example.Sir Anthony Eden was in the middle of a medically prescribed amphetamine addiction,known in my day as a speed freak,one unfortunate side effect being severe paranoia-see Hitler's medical records also.It is worth remembering that amphetamine is a drug of war and is the Daesh drug of choice.I would not rely on the judgement of a long-term speed freak.My experience is they are the most unreliable people on the planet.Poor old Wilson and Mrs T both developed dementia and Robert Harris' biography is proof of Blair's delusions of grandeur and belief he was God.Power drove Blair mad.It gets them all in the end.
Im from Hedge End near Southampton. The amount of new home building that is going on within 3 miles of here now is quite amazing. All these new homes instantly sell. There must be lots and lots of rich people round here then.
Town with railway station on commuter line into London - what's the journey time these days, 90 minutes ? I suspect that's a lot less than it was in the 70s and the trains are more comfortable as well.
Property is about supply and demand and especially so in the south east. I would qualify your comment with "there are a lot of wealthy people who want to live in a place like Hedge End" and I'm sure it's very attractive. It's representative of a type of English suburban dormitory town but not representative of England as a whole.
I live in East Ham to the east of London and property (mainly rental) moves fast here as well, Does that mean all the people here are rich or simply there are a lot of people desperate for somewhere to live 30 minutes from central London ?
No job security? We cannot employ people, we are desperate to give job security but we get no applications for our vacancies. Reading the posts on here you would think that Boys from the Blackstuff could be a reflection of current Britain. I was looking for a job in the early 1980s. There were none. Now there are 1000s of vacancies and not just in minimum wage zero hours contracts. We have had a vacancy for a mechanical estimator paying £22 per hour for a year.
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.
I wonder if yet again the 'received wisdom' and media narrative is going wrong. After all we were told 2015 was a certain hung parliament - possibly with Ed Miliband as PM. Then David Cameron was going to win the referendum and be PM until 2019. Then Theresa May was going to win a landslide and rule for a decade.
Now it's 'TMay is a bust, Tories doomed, Brexit doomed, Corbyn government a shoe-in at the next election'. That may well be the case, but I suspect a lot of people voted Labour in spite of Corbyn rather than because of him - and they were also the beneficiaries of the protest vote that went Lib Dem in 2005/2010 and UKIP in 2015.
So after the last couple of years, it would be a mistake to make any kind of assumptions about what is going to happen in UK politics. No one knows, least of all the political commentariat.
Before long we'll have to accept that public sector workers don't pay tax. They receive money from the Treasury but none is returned, all contributions come from private industry.
Mr Evershed talks about unfunded state pensions, its one big ponzi scheme and we all know what happens to them. It looks likely that Mrs May will be holding the parcel when the music stops, it will start when property downturns.
You do talk some twaddle mate!
I'm happy for you reply.
Tell me what the income tax take would be if everybody worked in the public sector.
Firstly, I'd never advocate running the country where everyone worked in the public sector (aka communism) but it clearly could be done and would still generate government funds through taxation, but mostly through the profits of production (which the government would necessarily control in such a situation.) In such a situation, income tax take could be as high or low as the government decided.
Well you've dodged the question which makes my point. As has been pointed out state and public sector pensions are massively underfunded, it has to be accepted that cannot go on indefinitely.
And of course I'm happy for you to give me an example of where govt controlled production has led to prosperity.
Ah now, here's a point we agree on... the massively underfunded pensions cannot go on indefinitely. As a country we need to pay for public services - tax the rich (includes me luckily) a bit more!
How anyone can think that this Country is going through Austerity is beyond me. As a child of the 1970s we had nothing, our playground was wasteland of which there was vast swathes. (Just look at the playgrounds in parks today) Our textbooks at school had been used by previous generations. We had regular power cuts. There was no money for anything and we had no sense of entitlement. This Country has been through a revolution. Go to any City Centre and look at the huge amounts of money that have and continue to be spent in regenration. We have record employment and very low unemployment. The economy is booming. If you just read this site you would think we were in Greece's position and had 10 million unemployed.
It isn't about material wealth though. The unfolding crisis is about inequality, diminishing levels of job security, and access to housing. People will end up killing the golden goose of economic growth because they can see it doesn't work for them. I recently calculated that from my own personal perspective, I would be better off if it was 1997 and none of the economic growth that you refer to happened. Reason: If it was 1997 on my salary I could afford to live in a 3 bed semi in a nice area close to a good school. My job would have been much more secure. I would have had significantly better pension rights. I don't care that people would be walking around in reebok shellsuits, and there are no nice coffee shops. Economic growth = only benefits the rich, and exacerbates inequality.
To say that economic growth only benefits the rich is nonsense. I agree that house prices have gone up to much, but whose fault is that? In terms of normal living costs, there have been huge falls in costs compared to 1997. Look at food, clothing, electrical products etc. Unfortunately as a nation we are obseesed with housing and dont seem to mind paying a hugh percentage of our income on it. I dont think you can blame politicians for that...
You absolutely can blame politicians for the dismal rate of housebuilding over the last two decades.
Yup, they could repeal the planning laws and the problem would solve itself in about 2 years.
No job security? We cannot employ people, we are desperate to give job security but we get no applications for our vacancies. Reading the posts on here you would think that Boys from the Blackstuff could be a reflection of current Britain. I was looking for a job in the early 1980s. There were none. Now there are 1000s of vacancies and not just in minimum wage zero hours contracts. We have had a vacancy for a mechanical estimator paying £22 per hour for a year.
I think debating whether the £350m a week poster was a lie or not during the referendum campaign, exhaustively, is pointless.
And yet it's clearly not pointless.
It was a lie.
The guy that invented the lie says it crucial.
The Brexit headbangers still claim black is white
Bloody hell. There are so many valid arguments against Brexit that a thousand monkeys with typewriters would come up with several by lunchtime, but you still manage to home unerringly in on the only two which have no validity at all.
OK - what about this little gem? Feel free to add it to the Euratom debacle
I read that a month or two back - I wonder if the Remainy analysis, of months if not years of Operation Stack Phase N (where N is quite big) at Dover in particular and the resulting trade and supply horror show for both ourselves and RoI, could be accurate. If so, it will be THE defining impression a hard Brexit leaves on the general voter.
Im from Hedge End near Southampton. The amount of new home building that is going on within 3 miles of here now is quite amazing. All these new homes instantly sell. There must be lots and lots of rich people round here then.
Town with railway station on commuter line into London - what's the journey time these days, 90 minutes ? I suspect that's a lot less than it was in the 70s and the trains are more comfortable as well.
Property is about supply and demand and especially so in the south east. I would qualify your comment with "there are a lot of wealthy people who want to live in a place like Hedge End" and I'm sure it's very attractive. It's representative of a type of English suburban dormitory town but not representative of England as a whole.
I live in East Ham to the east of London and property (mainly rental) moves fast here as well, Does that mean all the people here are rich or simply there are a lot of people desperate for somewhere to live 30 minutes from central London ?
There was no train station in the 1970s , although the train from eastleigh airport ( 6 minute drive by car) now called Southampton Parkway took the same time as today. There are hundreds of small towns like Hedge End around the country where normal people live and work quite happily and maintain a very good standard of living, especially compared to the 1970s and 80s. There is just too much doom and gloom written on this site which is not relective of vast swathes of the UK.
Im from Hedge End near Southampton. The amount of new home building that is going on within 3 miles of here now is quite amazing. All these new homes instantly sell. There must be lots and lots of rich people round here then.
Town with railway station on commuter line into London - what's the journey time these days, 90 minutes ? I suspect that's a lot less than it was in the 70s and the trains are more comfortable as well.
Property is about supply and demand and especially so in the south east. I would qualify your comment with "there are a lot of wealthy people who want to live in a place like Hedge End" and I'm sure it's very attractive. It's representative of a type of English suburban dormitory town but not representative of England as a whole.
I live in East Ham to the east of London and property (mainly rental) moves fast here as well, Does that mean all the people here are rich or simply there are a lot of people desperate for somewhere to live 30 minutes from central London ?
Have a look at the time series for the estimates of station usage:
Hedge End saw a steady increase from the start of the series in 1997-98 to 2010-11. Since then it hasn't gone up that much (note the dip in 2013-14 when the line was shut for a month or so due to a landslip).
I worked at ONS in Titchfield from May 2009 to May 2014. One of the reasons I left was that the traffic became a lot worse in the last two years of my time there. So I don't think it's just a London thing, I think the South Coast has been booming in its own right the last five years or so.
Im from Hedge End near Southampton. The amount of new home building that is going on within 3 miles of here now is quite amazing. All these new homes instantly sell. There must be lots and lots of rich people round here then.
Town with railway station on commuter line into London - what's the journey time these days, 90 minutes ? I suspect that's a lot less than it was in the 70s and the trains are more comfortable as well.
Property is about supply and demand and especially so in the south east. I would qualify your comment with "there are a lot of wealthy people who want to live in a place like Hedge End" and I'm sure it's very attractive. It's representative of a type of English suburban dormitory town but not representative of England as a whole.
I live in East Ham to the east of London and property (mainly rental) moves fast here as well, Does that mean all the people here are rich or simply there are a lot of people desperate for somewhere to live 30 minutes from central London ?
The journey times are probably not that dissimilar to the 1970s. The track and stations will be more-or-less the same. I don't know the details but if it's anything like W Yorks, it's more likely that stations have opened than closed (when I was growing up, there were three stations between Leeds and Skipton - my local line; there are now nine). The trains at the time would have been third-rail EMUs with a maximum speed of 90mph; those these days have a maximum of 100mph (which is also the line's maximum speed), so the difference would have been small, even allowing for better acceleration and braking - particularly if new stations have been built. Much more comfortable these days though.
Comments
However, the EU ref was not an error, and I'm delighted at the outcome (although not how HMG has handled it)
There's a myth that the issue would, somehow, have gone away had Cameron not called it. It wouldn't have, and the fissure between the UK and EU would have grown stronger as it integrated more and more over time.
There is an alternate argument that HMG should have led a fundamental renegotiation at the time the EU treaties were reopened in either 2018-2020, or post a GE2020 election win for the Tories (let's say, under Gove).
That probably would have failed, with similar results, but it might have been less disruptive and divisive in the short-term and would have required HMG to produce proper contingency plans for a Brexit, which I think Gove would have done, in the event of failure.
This is how political debate has been debased
Baldwin was a pretty good PM.
The Davies Enquiry took 76 days to work and produce its findings and that was despite the obfuscation of the then National Coal Board and I suspect the huge influence of the Coal Board in the region as a whole and the fear of lost jobs probably mitigated or contained anger to an extent we've not seen at Grenfell.
This site seems full of legal know-alls so my thought is whether, as we've seen elsewhere, the difficulty of pursuing corporate manslaughter charges against organisations and individuals is going to lead to further resentment in the months and years to come.
I believe the site of the former school in Aberfan is a garden with the names of the children who perished on headstones.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/885414423824924672
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/885418771522965508
I think debating whether the £350m a week poster was a lie or not during the referendum campaign, exhaustively, is pointless.
I think it goes rather deeper than this. It's not about unreasonability on the part of the residents nor lack of empathy from those that are acting to investigate etc, it's s fundamental breakdown of the coexistence of haves and have nots. The tragedy lays bare the differences in how we exist. And everything, as ever, ties back into the crash of 2008. 7 years of fiscal restraint, no pay increases for emergency workers, closure of sure starts, libraries etc. And we are told to look forward to at least 8 more years of this. It's writing off one third of the working life of many people, restraint for the whole childhood of those unlucky enough to have been born in 2010. And that's all sold as necessary for the common good, for the fiscal survival of the nation.
The reality is the rich are still rich and have not suffered, the poor see the limited services they enjoy closing. Take out rich and poor, and call it them and us. Then the us burn to death in a tower block that, amongst hundreds of others, is not suitably protected against fire.....
The reality of the economy is disintegrating in the face of unreasonable expectations of the us to lose out in order to protect the them, and the mechanics of how that glues the whole together and keeps it ticking is white noise.
The ingredients for revolution are there. Short term it would be at the ballot box. If restraint goes on then it will be on the streets. People are done with restraint. Grenfell is a tragic, horrible microcosm of that playing out.
If you can't see why that might not be the most effective way to win people over, then I can't help you.
The hyperbole at the moment is stratospheric.
It was a lie.
The guy that invented the lie says it crucial.
The Brexit headbangers still claim black is white
Going back further, of course Thatcher's first and second terms were hors concours as the French say, the third term poorish. All of the governments after Macmillan until Thatcher were bad to awful. (Wilson's governments were good on social issues but utterly failed to address the most pressing issue of the day, which was the rising militancy and destructiveness of the unions, which is why we had got into such a mess by 1979). Douglas-Home was eminently forgettable. Macmillan was good.
In any case, rating PMs solely on their ability to win elections (on which criterion Churchill should be lower still given 1945), is of itself of very limited value.
https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/885418967673839616
The wealthy need to consider giving up their pastry chef or we will be back for the butler and housemaid.
Put it this way, I'm a JAM (benefits and partner in living wage employment) and as of now I'd countenance stringent changes that a few years ago I'd have considered bizarre, dangerous extremist politics. And I've not been on the JAM floor that long, couple of years. Those that have subsisted at this level for years are deeper into the zeal of drastic change.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-year-as-prime-minister_uk_59662ae5e4b005b0fdca266d
May shouldnt actually be in office since Cameron promised he'd stay on post referendum
Then he legged it
1: Turn up to the bloody debates!
2: Come up with an appealing manifesto to attract voters not pour a bucket of cold sick all over them.
If the EU really wanted us to stay they'd make one more best and final offer.
I don't recall PPE students being highly sought by top employers.
There will never be enough money to chuck at the NHS to some people
he could double toxify the LDs
It's all about a sharing society.
National insurance brings in about £130bn a year.
By contrast, this year's spending estimate:
Pensions: £159bn
Health: £146bn
Social Security: £112bn
The building will need to come down but that is going to be an utterly horrible process
Morning all.
I think it goes rather deeper than this. It's not about unreasonability on the part of the residents nor lack of empathy from those that are acting to investigate etc, it's s fundamental breakdown of the coexistence of haves and have nots. The tragedy lays bare the differences in how we exist. And everything, as ever, ties back into the crash of 2008. 7 years of fiscal restraint, no pay increases for emergency workers, closure of sure starts, libraries etc. And we are told to look forward to at least 8 more years of this. It's writing off one third of the working life of many people, restraint for the whole childhood of those unlucky enough to have been born in 2010. And that's all sold as necessary for the common good, for the fiscal survival of the nation.
The reality is the rich are still rich and have not suffered, the poor see the limited services they enjoy closing. Take out rich and poor, and call it them and us. Then the us burn to death in a tower block that, amongst hundreds of others, is not suitably protected against fire.....
The reality of the economy is disintegrating in the face of unreasonable expectations of the us to lose out in order to protect the them, and the mechanics of how that glues the whole together and keeps it ticking is white noise.
The ingredients for revolution are there. Short term it would be at the ballot box. If restraint goes on then it will be on the streets. People are done with restraint. Grenfell is a tragic, horrible microcosm of that playing out.
How anyone can think that this Country is going through Austerity is beyond me. As a child of the 1970s we had nothing, our playground was wasteland of which there was vast swathes. (Just look at the playgrounds in parks today) Our textbooks at school had been used by previous generations. We had regular power cuts. There was no money for anything and we had no sense of entitlement. This Country has been through a revolution. Go to any City Centre and look at the huge amounts of money that have and continue to be spent in regenration. We have record employment and very low unemployment. The economy is booming. If you just read this site you would think we were in Greece's position and had 10 million unemployed.
And Scott, who is stilled trapped in the massive great signposted bear trap of a political advert that helped to win the referendum because it got Remainers dismissing the costs of EU membership AND the very real problems of millions in this country simletaneously. Hilarious!
I don't know how factually accurate the film is supposed to be, but it doesn't appear controversial to suggest that his principal contribution was refusal to compromise when so many Tories were advocating it through to 1940 and his ability to inspire and boost morale through his speeches.
The cake expression is rather daft though, as cake goes stale quickly, keeping a cake is not usually wise. Also in an obese society, eating cake is unwise. We would be better neither having cake (because of storage costs) nor eating it!
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-compare-internationally/
The NHS is cheap and the stats prove it. By all means privatise the NHS for better outcomes, or to save more lives, or shorten queues. Just don't expect to save money.
and the Armageddon, you'll have to sell your chilren theme wasnt ?
really grow up, both sides fought the campaign on outright bollocks it's just one set of bollocks resounded better with the public than the other
I shed no tears for May who, as many politicians will, played the opportunist card well in and immediately after the EU Referendum, enjoyed her share of luck as all politicians need but overplayed her hand as most politicians ultimately do and either came to believe in her own invincibility (hubris) or allowed her natural caution to be overcome by the adoration of fawning courtiers.
She made her bed, we all have to lie in it. There will be a fascinating counterfactual one day based on May resigning on Friday June 8th but I suspect her husband talked her out of it.
Yet I don't wholly agree with OGH's argument. Incoming non-elected Prime Ministers are always vulnerable to the argument of not having a mandate to govern and lead - that argument was thrown at both May and Brown. Getting that election majority quashes all that and secures the position so you can see why leaders in that position would seek it.
In the 1950s, both Eden and MacMillan successfully won elections to strengthen their position having taken over when their predecessors stepped down and Major did the same in 1992.
Opposition leaders, even those who have been elected, need to earn their stripes by taking a seat off another party at a by-election. It strengthens and in a way legitimises them even though they have won their position through some form of electoral process.
Any one who has wealth of say £500k (or even less) properly managed has stability, security and a great life in general. (rich)
Anyone who goes to work finds more and more insecurity in working conditions, jobs and salaries falling, and the welfare safety net completely disintegrating vs inflation (one example: my son's nursery fees just rose 10% in one year). Housing? No hope of that. (poor)
The obvious political solution to this problem is for the poor to organise to expropriate and redistribute the assets of the rich.
Mr Evershed talks about unfunded state pensions, its one big ponzi scheme and we all know what happens to them. It looks likely that Mrs May will be holding the parcel when the music stops, it will start when property downturns.
How anyone can think that this Country is going through Austerity is beyond me. As a child of the 1970s we had nothing, our playground was wasteland of which there was vast swathes. (Just look at the playgrounds in parks today) Our textbooks at school had been used by previous generations. We had regular power cuts. There was no money for anything and we had no sense of entitlement. This Country has been through a revolution. Go to any City Centre and look at the huge amounts of money that have and continue to be spent in regenration. We have record employment and very low unemployment. The economy is booming. If you just read this site you would think we were in Greece's position and had 10 million unemployed.
That's probably because that's how it feels to a not insignificant number of people.
And of course I used restraint rather than austerity precisely because of the old distinction. The economy is booming for the alright Jacks and the wealthiest of them are pocketing the wealth not allowing it to flow downwards.
It's also a very different world to the 70s, nobody alive now is, or should be, judging the rights and wrongs of 2017 against the situation in 1974.
Tell me what the income tax take would be if everybody worked in the public sector.
@BBCNormanS: Euratom: Govt says will be "transition to a new nuclear safeguards regime in the UK,"
We will build a new giant bureaucracy...
No tears.
People will end up killing the golden goose of economic growth because they can see it doesn't work for them.
I recently calculated that from my own personal perspective, I would be better off if it was 1997 and none of the economic growth that you refer to happened.
Reason: If it was 1997 on my salary I could afford to live in a 3 bed semi in a nice area close to a good school. My job would have been much more secure. I would have had significantly better pension rights.
I don't care that people would be walking around in reebok shellsuits, and there are no nice coffee shops.
Economic growth = only benefits the rich, and exacerbates inequality.
Nigel Farage admits it was 'a mistake'.
No extra money is going to the NHS.
Expecting it to be forgiven and forgotten is expecting rather a lot.
And of course I'm happy for you to give me an example of where govt controlled production has led to prosperity.
Macron pulls out the stops for Trump
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2017/07/12/01003-20170712ARTFIG00295-macron-veut-sortir-trump-de-l-isolement.php
It was crucial. Denying that seems stupid. Like Brexit.
Isn't it a lesson of history that it is better not to put too much executive power in the hands of one man/woman?Suez is a good example.Sir Anthony Eden was in the middle of a medically prescribed amphetamine addiction,known in my day as a speed freak,one unfortunate side effect being severe paranoia-see Hitler's medical records also.It is worth remembering that amphetamine is a drug of war and is the Daesh drug of choice.I would not rely on the judgement of a long-term speed freak.My experience is they are the most unreliable people on the planet.Poor old Wilson and Mrs T both developed dementia and Robert Harris' biography is proof of Blair's delusions of grandeur and belief he was God.Power drove Blair mad.It gets them all in the end.
The High Street where I live was full of small shops run by locals - yes, there were the national chains such as Sainsbury's, Woolworth's and Fine Fare but the local Wimpy was run by a lovely Italian family who cooked meals to order.
Yes, there were power cuts in late 73 and early 74 and I remember doing my homework by candle light but I blamed both the Government and the Unions in equal measure.
I don't recognise the "booming Britain" you see today - yes, there are a lot of people working and in work but a lot are economically inactive and the rules for being able to claim benefit I(and therefore appear on the unemployment statistics) are far more draconian now than in the 1970s so the "true" number of unemployed isn't clear.
Some areas are prospering but in others the overspend from the mid-2000s has left a legacy of closed shops and gaps in retail centres. There was an oversupply and the result now is empty retail space not helped by the trend toward Internet shopping.
At the meeting where they decided to paint a giant lie on the side of a bus and promote it every day for a month, the number on the lie is not the issue
that must mean the Remain campaign were incredibly thick
why didnt you just get a bus and write £351 million for the NHS if we stay in ?
youd have won by a mile
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-national-audit-office-amyas-morse-customs-check-computer-it-system-a7837811.html
As I mentioned yesterday go to any Town Centre on a weekend. These places are packed with ordinairy people and restaurants and bars are jam packed. Is this just rich people who are out?
That said, his defiance against the backdrop of a Nazi invasion and his commitment to international structures after WW2 were his defining features..,..
I think Churchill would have despaired at the UK reducing it's international role due to Brexit and so becoming a peripheral little Island at the edge of Europe begging for trade deals with vile regimes.....
or have you become a Macaroon and support the state visit ?
And, in truth, 'can't get there from here' is a large, and legitimate, part of the answer. Widening it out, 'can't get there from here' is a huge part of politics today - it is central to Brexit, where it is not only the rules for exit or the mere concept of not being in the EU makings difficult, but disentangling the accrued common investment of the last 40 years.
Indeed, it also holds apart the different legal traditions of the UK and Europe which, at a Westminster and Whitehall level at least, was a significant driver of Brexit.
So, to what extent should 'can't get there from here' be accepted as a force in deciding what change can be pursued?
If Labour and the Lib-Dems are going to bring Mother Theresa to Hades who is Satan?
Churchill's overwhelming contribution was to prevent the Halifax faction engineering an armistice with Germany, and his convincing and inspiring the nation to fight.
Britain's main strategic contribution to defeating Germany was winning the Battle of Britain - probably the only point at which we could have lost the war.
That victory is mainly down to the strategic preparation and tactical genius of Dowding and Park. Churchill was wise enough not seriously to interfere in their work until the battle was won.
Brexit was only ever a right wing ideological take over of the Tories by people who cannot cope with liberalism or progress....to be so alienated from the EU...on the whole an urbane, progressive and liberal grouping, you just have to be an zealot nutjob......
The distinction is
cheap stuff vs stable employment and affordable housing.
Much of the cheap stuff is a consequence of technology and would have happened anyway.
The crisis is that people have no job security and no hope of accessing the housing market.
https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/qjmed/hci071
Property is about supply and demand and especially so in the south east. I would qualify your comment with "there are a lot of wealthy people who want to live in a place like Hedge End" and I'm sure it's very attractive. It's representative of a type of English suburban dormitory town but not representative of England as a whole.
I live in East Ham to the east of London and property (mainly rental) moves fast here as well, Does that mean all the people here are rich or simply there are a lot of people desperate for somewhere to live 30 minutes from central London ?
No job security? We cannot employ people, we are desperate to give job security but we get no applications for our vacancies. Reading the posts on here you would think that Boys from the Blackstuff could be a reflection of current Britain. I was looking for a job in the early 1980s. There were none. Now there are 1000s of vacancies and not just in minimum wage zero hours contracts. We have had a vacancy for a mechanical estimator paying £22 per hour for a year.
http://www.orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/station-usage-estimates
Hedge End saw a steady increase from the start of the series in 1997-98 to 2010-11. Since then it hasn't gone up that much (note the dip in 2013-14 when the line was shut for a month or so due to a landslip).
I worked at ONS in Titchfield from May 2009 to May 2014. One of the reasons I left was that the traffic became a lot worse in the last two years of my time there. So I don't think it's just a London thing, I think the South Coast has been booming in its own right the last five years or so.