If Andy Burnham had been Labour leader in June, he would be prime minister right now. Labour should be worried about the Jeremy Corbyn song/political chant which grates and is sinister at worst and an irritant at best.
Very interesting polling. Suggests Brexit not that significant for Labour voters?
And also that the manifesto and policies were a clear positive for Labour. Logically then they should keep them for next time around.
All parties rushed their manifestos because of the snap election, so none were as fettled as they should be. It is quite likely that Labour will be better prepared next time.
I cannot see May enjoying the conference season. Surely she is toasted enough already?
The next Labour manifesto will be much further to the left than the last one. The party leadership has decided that on 8th June 12.8 million people voted for socialism. I am not sure that's the right call.
Agreed. Take the Labour position on tuition fees, its already been tried and found to have failed in Scotland. Something worth remembering.
SNP policy is far superior
Well, it is if you want free University education for the middle class paid for by less access for the poor.....
More Tory lies , use completely false statistics etc.
That well known Tory rag....the New Statesman:
The worst place for poor students in the UK? Scotland Free education in Scotland: a bung for the middle class, paid for by the poor.
Big John was fond of screaming "liar, liar" at the tories before the last election
What say you now John?
The costs of free University tuition for 1.8 million UK students have still not been correctly calculated by the Labour Party, even though the sum is simple. Number of students * annual university tuition fees = 1.8 x 10^6 * 9.25 x 10^3 = 16. 65 billion.
The bill is probably larger, as I have ignored our (at present) unknown obligations to EU students.
However the bill is calculated, it doesn't come to 8 billion or 9 billion, which Labour repeatedly quote.
If Labour only have budgeted 8 or 9 billion for the policy, it will lead to cuts at Universities.
Not swingeing Tory cuts. but swingeing Labour cuts and substantial redundancies.
Subtract the fraction of the £16bn that is not expected to be paid back by the students already, and the net cost is closer to £9bn.
Very interesting polling. Suggests Brexit not that significant for Labour voters?
And also that the manifesto and policies were a clear positive for Labour. Logically then they should keep them for next time around.
All parties rushed their manifestos because of the snap election, so none were as fettled as they should be. It is quite likely that Labour will be better prepared next time.
I cannot see May enjoying the conference season. Surely she is toasted enough already?
The next Labour manifesto will be much further to the left than the last one. The party leadership has decided that on 8th June 12.8 million people voted for socialism. I am not sure that's the right call.
Agreed. Take the Labour position on tuition fees, its already been tried and found to have failed in Scotland. Something worth remembering.
SNP policy is far superior
Well, it is if you want free University education for the middle class paid for by less access for the poor.....
But it is only returning to the system as it was until the 1990s.
To return the system to the early 1990s, you have to cut the numbers of students substantially.
That means cutting jobs in Universities.
I happen to agree that it would be best to return to before Blair, but it will only come with huge pain.
Dentist charges vary hugely from surgery to surgery in my experience. The same treatments can cost hundreds of pounds more, even thousands, depending on the dentist.
Mrs Ace's experience in private practice is that the more she charges the more referrals and glowing reviews she gets. Consequently, she is very expensive.
Dentistry is the perfect example of a Giffen good - you only have one set of teeth so can't afford to gamble with them. And as people don't have any other way to judge quality price used (the more expensive the dentist, clearly the better they are)..
Exactly. She's not even that good. I wouldn't let her near my teeth on a fucking dare.
Big John was fond of screaming "liar, liar" at the tories before the last election
What say you now John?
The costs of free University tuition for 1.8 million UK students have still not been correctly calculated by the Labour Party, even though the sum is simple. Number of students * annual university tuition fees = 1.8 x 10^6 * 9.25 x 10^3 = 16. 65 billion.
The bill is probably larger, as I have ignored our (at present) unknown obligations to EU students.
However the bill is calculated, it doesn't come to 8 billion or 9 billion, which Labour repeatedly quote.
If Labour only have budgeted 8 or 9 billion for the policy, it will lead to cuts at Universities.
Not swingeing Tory cuts. but swingeing Labour cuts and substantial redundancies.
Subtract the fraction of the £16bn that is not expected to be paid back by the students already, and the net cost is closer to £9bn.
The Universities need 9,250 pounds per student to continue running as they are now.
This is a real cost that has to be found from Government funds.
If it isn't budgeted for, then there will be real redundancies.
Liam Fox just made it very clear who he thinks is responsible for the leaks from cabinet.
Didn't watch it, who does he think is responsible?
He said that the person responsible has been drinking too much prosecco.
Cheers.
I'm assuming he's having a dig at that fine Cambridge gentleman, Andrew Mitchell.
I was thinking he was suggesting Boris Johnson, but perhaps not.
It was the prosecco that made me think Andrew Mitchell because of this from a few days ago.
Theresa May's allies have accused Tory MPs calling for Theresa May to stand down of drinking "too much warm Prosecco" at Summer Parties.
Andrew Mitchell, a former Tory Cabinet minister, reportedly told a private dinner that Mrs May is "dead in the water", has "lost her authority" and is "weak".
David Lidington, the Justice Secretary, dismissed the suggestion. He said: "The Summer parties are the key too this. I have been in Parliament for almost 25 years and almost every July the combination of too much Sun and too much warm Prosecco leads to gossipy stories in the media.
Quite a few prime ministers in my life have been able to walk the streets without being screamed at. Harold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair. It only takes a few to scream.
"Gard spokesperson: Baby Charlie is effectively 'a prisoner of the state'
A family spokesperson has complained that if the Gards were wealthy the situation with their child 'would have never arisen'. Critically ill baby Charlie Gard has been "taken prisoner by the NHS and by the state", a spokesperson for the family has told Sky News. Alasdair Seton-Marsden, who represents Charlie Gard's family to the press, complained that if they were rich instead of "ordinary people" their child would be free to receive treatment in the US."
Big John was fond of screaming "liar, liar" at the tories before the last election
What say you now John?
The costs of free University tuition for 1.8 million UK students have still not been correctly calculated by the Labour Party, even though the sum is simple. Number of students * annual university tuition fees = 1.8 x 10^6 * 9.25 x 10^3 = 16. 65 billion.
The bill is probably larger, as I have ignored our (at present) unknown obligations to EU students.
However the bill is calculated, it doesn't come to 8 billion or 9 billion, which Labour repeatedly quote.
If Labour only have budgeted 8 or 9 billion for the policy, it will lead to cuts at Universities.
Not swingeing Tory cuts. but swingeing Labour cuts and substantial redundancies.
Subtract the fraction of the £16bn that is not expected to be paid back by the students already, and the net cost is closer to £9bn.
The Universities need 9,250 pounds per student to continue running as they are now.
This is a real cost that has to be found from Government funds.
If it isn't budgeted for, then there will be real redundancies.
It does strike me as odd that so many academics seem to be full throttle Corbyn supporters when his flag ship policy removes a pretty much guaranteed, and hypothecated, source of university funding and returns it to the whims of the CoE of the day and the state of public finances.
There is no way that HE budgets will not be salami sliced as the years roll on.
Very interesting polling. Suggests Brexit not that significant for Labour voters?
And also that the manifesto and policies were a clear positive for Labour. Logically then they should keep them for next time around.
All parties rushed their manifestos because of the snap election, so none were as fettled as they should be. It is quite likely that Labour will be better prepared next time.
I cannot see May enjoying the conference season. Surely she is toasted enough already?
The next Labour manifesto will be much further to the left than the last one. The party leadership has decided that on 8th June 12.8 million people voted for socialism. I am not sure that's the right call.
Agreed. Take the Labour position on tuition fees, its already been tried and found to have failed in Scotland. Something worth remembering.
SNP policy is far superior
Well, it is if you want free University education for the middle class paid for by less access for the poor.....
But it is only returning to the system as it was until the 1990s.
To return the system to the early 1990s, you have to cut the numbers of students substantially.
That means cutting jobs in Universities.
I happen to agree that it would be best to return to before Blair, but it will only come with huge pain.
But to what extent were the increased student numbers accompanied by recruitment of more academic staff? I very much get the impression that the impact has been seen via far bigger classes and tutorials with less direct contact with tutors and lecturers than a generation ago. As a result the quality of degree courses has fallen substantially , yet we now expect students to incur significant debt for an inferior product!
Yes - some of the M/C altruism is really rather convenient.
It's in everyone's interests that the state redistributes wealth to ensure everyone has a decent stanard if living that includes access to good public services.
Of course - except too often when it comes down to it people much prefer other people's wealth distributed to them! The reality is that is a very large amount of redistribution which would have to include a hit on the m/c which they do not seem to be so keen on. Much easier to stick with the myth that all the money could come from greedy bankers, Philip Green and some footballers.
The simple fact is that there has never been more wealth in the UK. A lot of very rich people and cash-rich companies choose to keep money they could never hope to spend offshore rather than see some of it redistributed via taxation. That's what leads to growing support for the kibd of left wing populism that Corbyn Labour represents.
The other simple fact is that there has never been more debt in the UK. Its something Corbyn will never address, which is why Labour govts always ruin the economy
Debt = Savings
The total amount of debt equals the total amount of savings. For savings is spending deferred, and debt is spending brought forward.
Big John was fond of screaming "liar, liar" at the tories before the last election
What say you now John?
The costs of free University tuition for 1.8 million UK students have still not been correctly calculated by the Labour Party, even though the sum is simple. Number of students * annual university tuition fees = 1.8 x 10^6 * 9.25 x 10^3 = 16. 65 billion.
The bill is probably larger, as I have ignored our (at present) unknown obligations to EU students.
However the bill is calculated, it doesn't come to 8 billion or 9 billion, which Labour repeatedly quote.
If Labour only have budgeted 8 or 9 billion for the policy, it will lead to cuts at Universities.
Not swingeing Tory cuts. but swingeing Labour cuts and substantial redundancies.
Subtract the fraction of the £16bn that is not expected to be paid back by the students already, and the net cost is closer to £9bn.
The Universities need 9,250 pounds per student to continue running as they are now.
This is a real cost that has to be found from Government funds.
If it isn't budgeted for, then there will be real redundancies.
It does strike me as odd that so many academics seem to be full throttle Corbyn supporters when his flag ship policy removes a pretty much guaranteed, and hypothecated, source of university funding and returns it to the whims of the CoE of the day and the state of public finances.
There is no way that HE budgets will not be salami sliced as the years roll on.
I don't know; the Labour Party's success in GE2017 was at least partly due to a policy of having cake, eating it, and getting Philip Green to pay for it.
Very interesting polling. Suggests Brexit not that significant for Labour voters?
And also that the manifesto and policies were a clear positive for Labour. Logically then they should keep them for next time around.
All parties rushed their manifestos because of the snap election, so none were as fettled as they should be. It is quite likely that Labour will be better prepared next time.
I cannot see May enjoying the conference season. Surely she is toasted enough already?
The next Labour manifesto will be much further to the left than the last one. The party leadership has decided that on 8th June 12.8 million people voted for socialism. I am not sure that's the right call.
Agreed. Take the Labour position on tuition fees, its already been tried and found to have failed in Scotland. Something worth remembering.
SNP policy is far superior
Well, it is if you want free University education for the middle class paid for by less access for the poor.....
But it is only returning to the system as it was until the 1990s.
To return the system to the early 1990s, you have to cut the numbers of students substantially.
That means cutting jobs in Universities.
I happen to agree that it would be best to return to before Blair, but it will only come with huge pain.
But to what extent were the increased student numbers accompanied by recruitment of more academic staff? I very much get the impression that the impact has been seen via far bigger classes and tutorials with less direct contact with tutors and lecturers than a generation ago. As a result the quality of degree courses has fallen substantially , yet we now expect students to incur significant debt for an inferior product!
There has been significant expansion in the numbers of people employed in the UK universities since the introduction of tuition fees.
I would like a policy whereby 25 per cent went to University, their fees were paid by the state, and were recovered by income tax on high earners (often graduates)
However, there is no way that can be achieved without pain and redundancies.
I don't know; the Labour Party's success in GE2017 was at least partly due to a policy of having cake, eating it, and getting Philip Green to pay for it.
I'm getting confused. I thought the Tories were all about cakes and Labour were all about magic money trees and unicorns.
"the horticulture sector is about to be launched right into the Brexit slurry pit with everyone else, thanks to some naïve and ignorant misconceptions about migrant workers."
There are under 400k employed in the entire farming, fishing and forestry sector so I have doubts that Britain needs the unlimited immigration that we are told it does to provide a workforce.
Equally, though, we need to recognise that the way we've structured our tax and benefits system actively discourages British people from taking these jobs.
If you're on housing benefit, then taking a one month fruit picking contract would definitely result in you losing your benefit for a month (possibly meaning your effective tax rate in 70%), and you would then enter Atos bureaucratic hell, with it potentially taking months to get it back again. Would you take the risk?
Atos is incentivised to minimise the short term benefits bill by discouraging people to claim. This, in turn, discourages people from taking seasonal work.
Sending the foreign workers home does not change the f*cked up incentives for native workers, and probably merely results in us losing indigenous production of certain fruits and vegetables.
But is there even the slightest indication that the government is aware of these problems and is seeking to fix them? No. Instead they will issue tens of thousands of agricultural worker visas to Eastern Europeans - because that is the easier short term fix.
Very interesting polling. Suggests Brexit not that significant for Labour voters?
And also that the manifesto and policies were a clear positive for Labour. Logically then they should keep them for next time around.
All parties rushed their manifestos because of the snap election, so none were as fettled as they should be. It is quite likely that Labour will be better prepared next time.
I cannot see May enjoying the conference season. Surely she is toasted enough already?
The next Labour manifesto will be much further to the left than the last one. The party leadership has decided that on 8th June 12.8 million people voted for socialism. I am not sure that's the right call.
Agreed. Take the Labour position on tuition fees, its already been tried and found to have failed in Scotland. Something worth remembering.
SNP policy is far superior
Well, it is if you want free University education for the middle class paid for by less access for the poor.....
But it is only returning to the system as it was until the 1990s.
To return the system to the early 1990s, you have to cut the numbers of students substantially.
That means cutting jobs in Universities.
I happen to agree that it would be best to return to before Blair, but it will only come with huge pain.
But to what extent were the increased student numbers accompanied by recruitment of more academic staff? I very much get the impression that the impact has been seen via far bigger classes and tutorials with less direct contact with tutors and lecturers than a generation ago. As a result the quality of degree courses has fallen substantially , yet we now expect students to incur significant debt for an inferior product!
There has been significant expansion in the numbers of people employed in the UK universities since the introduction of tuition fees.
I would like a policy whereby 25 per cent went to University, their fees were paid by the state, and were recovered by income tax on high earners (often graduates)
However, there is no way that can be achieved without pain and redundancies.
If you have substantially higher taxes on graduates than other countries, then you encourage a brain drain.
I was thinking of an expletive when I saw this, and I didn't even vote Labour. This right here is McDonnell admitting that it's all a con. He comes across more and more as a man with a deep seated grudge towards anyone to the right of him as opposed to someone interested in providing solutions to Britain's problems.
No doubt, we'll see the cult of Corbyn attempt to spin this.
He never promised to scrap student debt?
“Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I’m looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden.”
Anyone who reads that and thinks... Oh great no more student debt for me... Isn't reading what he said very carefully.
Imo reducing the eye watering interest rate on recent graduates would be a good start... (Lengthening the period of paying it off might actually hurt graduates and help the Exchequer)
O/T Wimbledon final: A real outside chance but value all the same. Federer will very likely beat CILIC and his is around 5/4 to do so in straight sets. Many would have you believe CILIC doesn't have a chance. But CILIC has been serving incredibly well and making very few errors when his first serve goes in. His second serve is looking more reliable too. If he can serve as well as he is capable of (not a given) then it is conceivable that the Croat can win the match in straight sets. As we know on grass courts if you are serving terrific then you start with a huge advantage and you make it very hard for your opponent to break through. CILIC's only win against Federer was a 3-0 sets win in the US Open in 2014. If CILIC does have the edge today on serving then there's nothing to say he won't win in straight sets.
Obviously Federer is favourite for a reason and he hasn't dropped a set all tournament. He has won 6 of their 7 meetings plus he is Federer. So we are flying against conventional wisdom but just looking at value. At 20/1 for a CILIC 3-0 sets win, that is the value choice. I think it's closer to 10/1. Still unlikely but the only way to make money in the long run is to take on prices like this. So if you fancy a small stake and have some interest in the match, the 20/1 on straight sets with Skybet and BetVictor is my recommendation.
Enjoy the Wimbledon final for those watching it. We're very lucky to have such a compelling sportsman as Federer still playing.
The previous bet was voided after Djokovic retired injured and everyone should get a refund.
I was thinking of an expletive when I saw this, and I didn't even vote Labour. This right here is McDonnell admitting that it's all a con. He comes across more and more as a man with a deep seated grudge towards anyone to the right of him as opposed to someone interested in providing solutions to Britain's problems.
No doubt, we'll see the cult of Corbyn attempt to spin this.
He never promised to scrap student debt?
“Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I’m looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden.”
Anyone who reads that and thinks... Oh great no more student debt for me... Isn't reading what he said very carefully.
Imo reducing the eye watering interest rate on recent graduates would be a good start... (Lengthening the period of paying it off might actually hurt graduates and help the Exchequer)
A later quote says: "“And I don’t see why those that had the historical misfortune to be at university during the £9,000 period should be burdened excessively compared to those that went before or those that come after. I will deal with it.”
Burdened excessively to me does not mean he will cancel all debt.
Could Boris Johnson's love life block his route to Number 10?
'Tory bible' editor claims the ever-aspiring Foreign Secretary could be 'exposed' after ruthless rivals begin 'shadow leadership campaign' to take over from Theresa May
Matthew Pariss was making less than subtle hints about this in a column a few weeks back.
Max Wossname -- the very tall ex-Telegraph editor and part-time historian -- said as much years ago. This is old news, and does not seem to have done Boris any harm up to now. He has been elected Mayor of London twice and led the successful Brexit campaign. Prosecco-drinking friends of rival leadership contenders need more than Boris bonking his way across London, or even the Darius Guppy unpleasantness.
I don't watch it (I have watched some of the 70's and 80's ones, but not the relaunch) but it's amusing to see people losing their shit on social media at the real possibility the next Doctor Who might be a woman.
I was thinking of an expletive when I saw this, and I didn't even vote Labour. This right here is McDonnell admitting that it's all a con. He comes across more and more as a man with a deep seated grudge towards anyone to the right of him as opposed to someone interested in providing solutions to Britain's problems.
No doubt, we'll see the cult of Corbyn attempt to spin this.
He never promised to scrap student debt?
“Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I’m looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden.”
Anyone who reads that and thinks... Oh great no more student debt for me... Isn't reading what he said very carefully.
Imo reducing the eye watering interest rate on recent graduates would be a good start... (Lengthening the period of paying it off might actually hurt graduates and help the Exchequer)
As is everything in politics an impression that labour would scrap previous student fees became part of labour's narrative and they now have the problem of saying they did not mean it
The total amount of debt equals the total amount of savings. For savings is spending deferred, and debt is spending brought forward.
When money was money it mainly was.
Now: Debt = Savings + moneyprinting + OPM
Fair point.
Nevertheless, I think it is crucially important to realise why the statement "everyone should save more and borrow less" is bunkum.
Its an aphorism from a differently structured economy. Its truth has diminished as central banking has become the source and director of new finance. When/if we eliminate the central bankers then savings will again be a primary source of finance. Probably a good thing overall. and certainly fun to see the bankers swing.
Having held (and lost) match points against Federer at last year's Wimbledon, the odds against against Cilic in today's final look overdone. I backed him yesterday at 5.5 with BetfairEx (5.275 net of comm'n), which is equivalent to him having only an 18% chance of winning in this two horse race. The best bookies' odds are currently 5.0 (equivalent to him having a 20% chance) with Betway or Stan James, still fair value imho. I've also backed him to win by 3-1 in sets at odds of 14.0 (13.35 net). DYOR.
I was thinking of an expletive when I saw this, and I didn't even vote Labour. This right here is McDonnell admitting that it's all a con. He comes across more and more as a man with a deep seated grudge towards anyone to the right of him as opposed to someone interested in providing solutions to Britain's problems.
No doubt, we'll see the cult of Corbyn attempt to spin this.
He never promised to scrap student debt?
“Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I’m looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden.”
Anyone who reads that and thinks... Oh great no more student debt for me... Isn't reading what he said very carefully.
Imo reducing the eye watering interest rate on recent graduates would be a good start... (Lengthening the period of paying it off might actually hurt graduates and help the Exchequer)
Pledging to axe fees in future, he told NME magazine: “I don’t see why those that had the historical misfortune to be at university during the £9,000 period should be burdened excessively compared to those that went before or those that come after.
"I will deal with it.”
Even with that quote, that you've just quoted there - McDonnell is even rowing back on that. Corbyn promised in some way to help students with debt now, and McDonnell is now saying it's just an 'ambition.'
I was thinking of an expletive when I saw this, and I didn't even vote Labour. This right here is McDonnell admitting that it's all a con. He comes across more and more as a man with a deep seated grudge towards anyone to the right of him as opposed to someone interested in providing solutions to Britain's problems.
No doubt, we'll see the cult of Corbyn attempt to spin this.
He never promised to scrap student debt?
“Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I’m looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden.”
Anyone who reads that and thinks... Oh great no more student debt for me... Isn't reading what he said very carefully.
Imo reducing the eye watering interest rate on recent graduates would be a good start... (Lengthening the period of paying it off might actually hurt graduates and help the Exchequer)
No doubt Vince Cable will make some interesting contributions to the debate on behalf of the Lib Dems, in his role as the architect of the current system, or perhaps more accurately the hapless fall guy.
On topic:- so despite so many people claiming that Labour's success was only because of opposition to Brexit (and thus that their support will crumble when they "realise" Corbyn supports Brexit), it turns out Brexit didn't even come on the radar screen for most Labour voters in deciding how they voted.
I'd put myself as part of the 14% anti-Corbyn, with a bit of best of bad bunch and better suited to govern. It's heartening so many people liked Labour's policies and that was their reason, reportedly, although personally I didn't find the niceness of policies to be an issue - of course they sounded nicer.
Although 'provide hope' for the many? Gods, I guess that is nice, but it's so saccharine. And the many still voted more for the other people.
On topic:- so despite so many people claiming that Labour's success was only because of opposition to Brexit (and thus that their support will crumble when they "realise" Corbyn supports Brexit), it turns out Brexit didn't even come on the radar screen for most Labour voters in deciding how they voted.
While that's true, it's also worth noting that the Labour Party did particularly well in Remainia.
Also, paradoxically, I would suggest the Tories should be worried about how low the "anti-Theresa May" option ranks on Labour voters' list of reasons.
It once again suggests that it's not as simple for the Tories as switching to any other leader and they'll automatically have all their problems solved, because May herself is not that toxically unpopular -- it's the Tory "brand" and their policies that are unpopular. May's own personal standing obviously did slide during the campaign, but even so, it was only in the sense that she became seen as "just another typical Tory" (whereas at the start of the campaign, she was seen as different from most Tories and was tentatively securing votes from people who didn't generally like the Tories but did like her personally).
On topic:- so despite so many people claiming that Labour's success was only because of opposition to Brexit (and thus that their support will crumble when they "realise" Corbyn supports Brexit), it turns out Brexit didn't even come on the radar screen for most Labour voters in deciding how they voted.
Who said it was 'only' because of an opposition to Brexit? People argued that most Labour voters are Remainers who do not want a Hard Brexit, not that Labour only gained votes because of Brexit.
The debate was over whether a centre-left, progressive party who voters are predominately Remainers should be arguing for a Hard Brexit.
Given that many Labour supporters want to see Corbyn in number 10, frankly, they should be concerned that so many of the Conservative voters they need to convince are anti-Labour and anti-Corbyn. It looks like Labour have a bit of brand issue, which is unsurprising given how badly Corbynistas take disagreement.
On topic:- so despite so many people claiming that Labour's success was only because of opposition to Brexit (and thus that their support will crumble when they "realise" Corbyn supports Brexit), it turns out Brexit didn't even come on the radar screen for most Labour voters in deciding how they voted.
While that's true, it's also worth noting that the Labour Party did particularly well in Remainia.
Do you think it suggests some people are a bit embarrassed about it? Voting for a party you ordinarily wouldn't vote for out of spite might not be something many people would be keen to admit. I suppose the anti Tory reason might partly be related to Brexit.
On topic:- so despite so many people claiming that Labour's success was only because of opposition to Brexit (and thus that their support will crumble when they "realise" Corbyn supports Brexit), it turns out Brexit didn't even come on the radar screen for most Labour voters in deciding how they voted.
While that's true, it's also worth noting that the Labour Party did particularly well in Remainia.
Do you think it suggests some people are a bit embarrassed about it? Voting for a party you ordinarily wouldn't vote for out of spite might not be something many people would be keen to admit. I suppose the anti Tory reason might partly be related to Brexit.
Don't think it was out of spite. Many Conservative Remainers may have genuinely disagreed with May's Hard Brexit and the direction she was taking the Conservative Party.
On topic:- so despite so many people claiming that Labour's success was only because of opposition to Brexit (and thus that their support will crumble when they "realise" Corbyn supports Brexit), it turns out Brexit didn't even come on the radar screen for most Labour voters in deciding how they voted.
While that's true, it's also worth noting that the Labour Party did particularly well in Remainia.
Yes and no. Labour actually increased their own vote by roughly the same in Leave seats as they did in Remain seats -- the difference was that the Tory vote declined much more in Remain seats than in Leave seats, because there were less UKIP votes for them to pick up in Remain seats.
On topic:- so despite so many people claiming that Labour's success was only because of opposition to Brexit (and thus that their support will crumble when they "realise" Corbyn supports Brexit), it turns out Brexit didn't even come on the radar screen for most Labour voters in deciding how they voted.
While that's true, it's also worth noting that the Labour Party did particularly well in Remainia.
Do you think it suggests some people are a bit embarrassed about it? Voting for a party you ordinarily wouldn't vote for out of spite might not be something many people would be keen to admit. I suppose the anti Tory reason might partly be related to Brexit.
Don't think it was out of spite. Many Conservative Remainers may have genuinely disagreed with May's Hard Brexit and the direction she was taking the Conservative Party.
On topic:- so despite so many people claiming that Labour's success was only because of opposition to Brexit (and thus that their support will crumble when they "realise" Corbyn supports Brexit), it turns out Brexit didn't even come on the radar screen for most Labour voters in deciding how they voted.
While that's true, it's also worth noting that the Labour Party did particularly well in Remainia.
Do you think it suggests some people are a bit embarrassed about it? Voting for a party you ordinarily wouldn't vote for out of spite might not be something many people would be keen to admit. I suppose the anti Tory reason might partly be related to Brexit.
Don't think it was out of spite. Many Conservative Remainers may have genuinely disagreed with May's Hard Brexit and the direction she was taking the Conservative Party.
They should have voted Lib Dem.
It's true, I agree. I was concerned about Brexit, in the end - and wasn't keen on either May or Corbyn, so that's what I did. Although the LD EU position was too Europhile even for me, it was more closer to my position than May's or Corbyn's so I compromised.
On topic:- so despite so many people claiming that Labour's success was only because of opposition to Brexit (and thus that their support will crumble when they "realise" Corbyn supports Brexit), it turns out Brexit didn't even come on the radar screen for most Labour voters in deciding how they voted.
Who said it was 'only' because of an opposition to Brexit? People argued that most Labour voters are Remainers who do not want a Hard Brexit, not that Labour only gained votes because of Brexit.
The debate was over whether a centre-left, progressive party who voters are predominately Remainers should be arguing for a Hard Brexit.
Given that many Labour supporters want to see Corbyn in number 10, frankly, they should be concerned that so many of the Conservative voters they need to convince are anti-Labour and anti-Corbyn. It looks like Labour have a bit of brand issue, which is unsurprising given how badly Corbynistas take disagreement.
Plenty of people (not necessarily you) have claimed that a lot of people voted for Labour even despite not liking the party or their policies, but just because of Brexit. In particular their gains in Canterbury and Kensington have been ascribed to that. But it just isn't supported by any of the polling evidence, or any of the anecdotal evidence from people who actually did canvassing for Labour.
On topic:- so despite so many people claiming that Labour's success was only because of opposition to Brexit (and thus that their support will crumble when they "realise" Corbyn supports Brexit), it turns out Brexit didn't even come on the radar screen for most Labour voters in deciding how they voted.
Who said it was 'only' because of an opposition to Brexit? People argued that most Labour voters are Remainers who do not want a Hard Brexit, not that Labour only gained votes because of Brexit.
The debate was over whether a centre-left, progressive party who voters are predominately Remainers should be arguing for a Hard Brexit.
Given that many Labour supporters want to see Corbyn in number 10, frankly, they should be concerned that so many of the Conservative voters they need to convince are anti-Labour and anti-Corbyn. It looks like Labour have a bit of brand issue, which is unsurprising given how badly Corbynistas take disagreement.
Plenty of people (not necessarily you) have claimed that a lot of people voted for Labour even despite not liking the party or their policies, but just because of Brexit. In particular their gains in Canterbury and Kensington have been ascribed to that. But it just isn't supported by any of the polling evidence, or any of the anecdotal evidence from people who actually did canvassing for Labour.
Perhaps. Most analyses I've read have pointed towards a range of factors as to why Labour did well - fatigue with austerity, a more general fatigue with the post-Thatcher economic settlement, tuition fees, housing, the NHS, education, Corbyn, and question marks over TMay's competence. Where Brexit was cited, was one significant reason Labour may have done well London and other Remainy areas which were held by the Conservatives. I don't think national polling would be able to pick up whether Brexit was a significant factor in those specific areas or not, given that there is an asterisk generally towards sub-samples.
I was thinking of an expletive when I saw this, and I didn't even vote Labour. This right here is McDonnell admitting that it's all a con. He comes across more and more as a man with a deep seated grudge towards anyone to the right of him as opposed to someone interested in providing solutions to Britain's problems.
No doubt, we'll see the cult of Corbyn attempt to spin this.
He never promised to scrap student debt?
“Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I’m looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden.”
Anyone who reads that and thinks... Oh great no more student debt for me... Isn't reading what he said very carefully.
Imo reducing the eye watering interest rate on recent graduates would be a good start... (Lengthening the period of paying it off might actually hurt graduates and help the Exchequer)
Pledging to axe fees in future, he told NME magazine: “I don’t see why those that had the historical misfortune to be at university during the £9,000 period should be burdened excessively compared to those that went before or those that come after.
"I will deal with it.”
Even with that quote, that you've just quoted there - McDonnell is even rowing back on that. Corbyn promised in some way to help students with debt now, and McDonnell is now saying it's just an 'ambition.'
We'll have to agree to disagree. To me it's quite clear that it was never and still is not a promise to do anything specific. It wasn't in the manifesto.
Perhaps. Most analyses I've read have pointed towards a range of factors as to why Labour did well - fatigue with austerity, a more general fatigue with the post-Thatcher economic settlement, tuition fees, housing, the NHS, education, Corbyn, and question marks over TMay's competence. Where Brexit was cited, was one significant reason Labour may have done well London and other Remainy areas which were held by the Conservatives. I don't think national polling would be able to pick up whether Brexit was a significant factor in those specific areas or not, given that there is an asterisk generally towards sub-samples.
Again though, Labour didn't do extraordinarily well in London, in terms of their own vote. Their vote went up by very similar amounts across all of the English regions, regardless of how they voted on Brexit -- their increase in London was 10.8%, only a bit above the England average of 10.3%, and below their best increase of 11.5% in the (Leave-voting) South West. The difference in London was that the Tory vote fell there (whereas they increased in every other English region) because there were less UKIP votes for them to vacuum up.
In any case though, "specific areas" or not, you would expect Brexit to register something in a national poll of this kind, if it was really was a big factor Labour voters in any seats at all. After all, the SNP register 4-6% in national polls even though they don't even contest the vast majority of seats!
The total amount of debt equals the total amount of savings. For savings is spending deferred, and debt is spending brought forward.
When money was money it mainly was.
Now: Debt = Savings + moneyprinting + OPM
Fair point.
Nevertheless, I think it is crucially important to realise why the statement "everyone should save more and borrow less" is bunkum.
You are the one who has often said on here that the countries with the best economies are those with the highest savings ratios. That is a considerable departure from your normal claims.
What is becoming patently clear is that Brexit is a calamity the country can do without and that Brexiteers are idiots/morons/xenophobes.
Sad, sad times...
What has long been clear is that even long after we have left and Brexit has proved successful, you will still be making claims that it is all some sort of disaster.
No doubt Vince Cable will make some interesting contributions to the debate on behalf of the Lib Dems, in his role as the architect of the current system, or perhaps more accurately the hapless fall guy.
Yes. Ultimately the system was a fudge because Lib Dems and Tories had very different ideas of what it was supposed to do.
Personally I get a bit free market on this topic. Give everyone access to an interest free/near interest free loan and let them spend it on university or any other kind of post-school education course. The massive implicit subsidy of offering people cheap loans only for university I think is a mistake.
.... long after we have left and Brexit has proved successful ...
Hi Richard - would you care to put a timescale on when we will reach this state of nirvana that you are forecasting? Six years? Sixty? Six hundred???
Who has mentioned Nirvana? That is the trouble with you Remaniacs, you know that in the end things will work out fine for us and you fear that more than anything as it will prove you wrong. So you resort to scorn. All it does is reflect on how poor your own judgement really is.
.... long after we have left and Brexit has proved successful ...
Hi Richard - would you care to put a timescale on when we will reach this state of nirvana that you are forecasting? Six years? Sixty? Six hundred???
Who has mentioned Nirvana? That is the trouble with you Remaniacs, you know that in the end things will work out fine for us and you fear that more than anything as it will prove you wrong. So you resort to scorn. All it does is reflect on how poor your own judgement really is.
Scorn? That was not scorn, closer to sarcasm perhaps but definitely not scorn.
Nonetheless I see you failed to answer the simple question of a timescale.
On topic:- so despite so many people claiming that Labour's success was only because of opposition to Brexit (and thus that their support will crumble when they "realise" Corbyn supports Brexit), it turns out Brexit didn't even come on the radar screen for most Labour voters in deciding how they voted.
While that's true, it's also worth noting that the Labour Party did particularly well in Remainia.
Do you think it suggests some people are a bit embarrassed about it? Voting for a party you ordinarily wouldn't vote for out of spite might not be something many people would be keen to admit. I suppose the anti Tory reason might partly be related to Brexit.
Don't think it was out of spite. Many Conservative Remainers may have genuinely disagreed with May's Hard Brexit and the direction she was taking the Conservative Party.
They should have voted Lib Dem.
They probably did where the LDs had a chance of winning, but that wasn't the case in too many constituencies.
.... long after we have left and Brexit has proved successful ...
Hi Richard - would you care to put a timescale on when we will reach this state of nirvana that you are forecasting? Six years? Sixty? Six hundred???
Who has mentioned Nirvana? That is the trouble with you Remaniacs, you know that in the end things will work out fine for us and you fear that more than anything as it will prove you wrong. So you resort to scorn. All it does is reflect on how poor your own judgement really is.
Scorn? That was not scorn, closer to sarcasm perhaps but definitely not scorn.
Nonetheless I see you failed to answer the simple question of a timescale.
I would suggest that, barring major financial crisis or a Corbyn Government, within 5 years of Brexit our GDP will be at or exceeding the current non Brexit predictions. There will be a short term hit but nothing as severe as some of the self inflicted recessions we have seen in the past.
Mr. Tyndall, certainly was. Odd to write up too. It's technically red because the only tip I offered in an article was wrong, but I did get an 8 winner (effectively, 26 each way) for qualifying.
Anyone who wants to examine Liam Fox's "Shared Values" with Duterte,the relationship between the UK and the Philippines and/or thinks Nixon's War on Drugs is working-about as well as as the War on Sodomy in Ulster.There is 5 minutes of essential viewing,worth a good chunk of the licence fee from the beeb.
Anyone who wants to examine Liam Fox's "Shared Values" with Duterte,the relationship between the UK and the Philippines and/or thinks Nixon's War on Drugs is working-about as well as as the War on Sodomy in Ulster.There is 5 minutes of essential viewing,worth a good chunk of the licence fee from the beeb.
Comments
The worst place for poor students in the UK? Scotland
Free education in Scotland: a bung for the middle class, paid for by the poor.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2015/12/worst-place-poor-students-uk-scotland
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/886537143551631360
That means cutting jobs in Universities.
I happen to agree that it would be best to return to before Blair, but it will only come with huge pain.
This is a real cost that has to be found from Government funds.
If it isn't budgeted for, then there will be real redundancies.
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/886542394296074241
A family spokesperson has complained that if the Gards were wealthy the situation with their child 'would have never arisen'.
Critically ill baby Charlie Gard has been "taken prisoner by the NHS and by the state", a spokesperson for the family has told Sky News.
Alasdair Seton-Marsden, who represents Charlie Gard's family to the press, complained that if they were rich instead of "ordinary people" their child would be free to receive treatment in the US."
http://news.sky.com/story/gard-spokesperson-baby-charlie-is-effectively-a-prisoner-of-the-state-10949732
There is no way that HE budgets will not be salami sliced as the years roll on.
https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/886535987572031489
The total amount of debt equals the total amount of savings. For savings is spending deferred, and debt is spending brought forward.
I would like a policy whereby 25 per cent went to University, their fees were paid by the state, and were recovered by income tax on high earners (often graduates)
However, there is no way that can be achieved without pain and redundancies.
Now Labour are on about cakes...
If you're on housing benefit, then taking a one month fruit picking contract would definitely result in you losing your benefit for a month (possibly meaning your effective tax rate in 70%), and you would then enter Atos bureaucratic hell, with it potentially taking months to get it back again. Would you take the risk?
Atos is incentivised to minimise the short term benefits bill by discouraging people to claim. This, in turn, discourages people from taking seasonal work.
Sending the foreign workers home does not change the f*cked up incentives for native workers, and probably merely results in us losing indigenous production of certain fruits and vegetables.
But is there even the slightest indication that the government is aware of these problems and is seeking to fix them? No. Instead they will issue tens of thousands of agricultural worker visas to Eastern Europeans - because that is the easier short term fix.
“Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I’m looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden.”
Anyone who reads that and thinks... Oh great no more student debt for me... Isn't reading what he said very carefully.
Imo reducing the eye watering interest rate on recent graduates would be a good start...
(Lengthening the period of paying it off might actually hurt graduates and help the Exchequer)
Now: Debt = Savings + moneyprinting + OPM
Nevertheless, I think it is crucially important to realise why the statement "everyone should save more and borrow less" is bunkum.
Obviously Federer is favourite for a reason and he hasn't dropped a set all tournament. He has won 6 of their 7 meetings plus he is Federer. So we are flying against conventional wisdom but just looking at value. At 20/1 for a CILIC 3-0 sets win, that is the value choice. I think it's closer to 10/1. Still unlikely but the only way to make money in the long run is to take on prices like this. So if you fancy a small stake and have some interest in the match, the 20/1 on straight sets with Skybet and BetVictor is my recommendation.
Enjoy the Wimbledon final for those watching it. We're very lucky to have such a compelling sportsman as Federer still playing.
The previous bet was voided after Djokovic retired injured and everyone should get a refund.
"“And I don’t see why those that had the historical misfortune to be at university during the £9,000 period should be burdened excessively compared to those that went before or those that come after. I will deal with it.”
Burdened excessively to me does not mean he will cancel all debt.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_59311bc1e4b075bff0f22306/amp
Having held (and lost) match points against Federer at last year's Wimbledon, the odds against against Cilic in today's final look overdone. I backed him yesterday at 5.5 with BetfairEx (5.275 net of comm'n), which is equivalent to him having only an 18% chance of winning in this two horse race. The best bookies' odds are currently 5.0 (equivalent to him having a 20% chance) with Betway or Stan James, still fair value imho. I've also backed him to win by 3-1 in sets at odds of 14.0 (13.35 net).
DYOR.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/886544953194803200
Pledging to axe fees in future, he told NME magazine: “I don’t see why those that had the historical misfortune to be at university during the £9,000 period should be burdened excessively compared to those that went before or those that come after.
"I will deal with it.”
Even with that quote, that you've just quoted there - McDonnell is even rowing back on that. Corbyn promised in some way to help students with debt now, and McDonnell is now saying it's just an 'ambition.'
Although 'provide hope' for the many? Gods, I guess that is nice, but it's so saccharine. And the many still voted more for the other people.
It once again suggests that it's not as simple for the Tories as switching to any other leader and they'll automatically have all their problems solved, because May herself is not that toxically unpopular -- it's the Tory "brand" and their policies that are unpopular. May's own personal standing obviously did slide during the campaign, but even so, it was only in the sense that she became seen as "just another typical Tory" (whereas at the start of the campaign, she was seen as different from most Tories and was tentatively securing votes from people who didn't generally like the Tories but did like her personally).
The debate was over whether a centre-left, progressive party who voters are predominately Remainers should be arguing for a Hard Brexit.
Given that many Labour supporters want to see Corbyn in number 10, frankly, they should be concerned that so many of the Conservative voters they need to convince are anti-Labour and anti-Corbyn. It looks like Labour have a bit of brand issue, which is unsurprising given how badly Corbynistas take disagreement.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jul/13/gary-oldman-churchill-first-trailer-for-darkest-hour-released
Mr Oldman is a very fine actor, it will be interesting to see what he makes of it....
To me it's quite clear that it was never and still is not a promise to do anything specific.
It wasn't in the manifesto.
In any case though, "specific areas" or not, you would expect Brexit to register something in a national poll of this kind, if it was really was a big factor Labour voters in any seats at all. After all, the SNP register 4-6% in national polls even though they don't even contest the vast majority of seats!
What is becoming patently clear is that Brexit is a calamity the country can do without and that Brexiteers are idiots/morons/xenophobes.
Sad, sad times...
More red tape
Businesses closing
Fewer rights
SUCCESS !!!!!!!!
Ultimately the system was a fudge because Lib Dems and Tories had very different ideas of what it was supposed to do.
Personally I get a bit free market on this topic.
Give everyone access to an interest free/near interest free loan and let them spend it on university or any other kind of post-school education course. The massive implicit subsidy of offering people cheap loans only for university I think is a mistake.
You've clearly had too much already and it's only lunchtime.
Nonetheless I see you failed to answer the simple question of a timescale.
F1: no spoilers, but that was quite the end to the race.
Out, not so much...
whether in or out the UK is headed down the GDP league and wont maintain fifth place
success could be measured on GDP per head, but then we'd have to stop basing our economy on low skill low cost labour
NEW THREAD
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38337746