That is an interesting piece with some very good policy suggestions for helping the Tories out of their current sticky spot. It left out the one that would really help though. If you want a policy that will win over young people then reversing Brexit would really help.
It doesn't mention Osborne's freezing of the level at which student tuition debts become repayable. Something which will cost most graduates £6,000.
The contrast between the media frothing over the proposed NI change in the last Budget and the lack of interest in Osborne's money grab is curious.
Osborne's freezing of the repayment level probably cost the Conservatives their majority by itself.
Of course, you might with some justice point out that simply being elected as a Conservative in a city noted for being left-wing was an achievement. However, he was also perhaps fortunate in his opponent, a rather tired and stale politician with an indifferent track record whose blokeish persona was wearing rather thin.
To be a successful PM you need to be more than a good campaigner. You need to have energy, determination and administrative talent. Not only has Boris not demonstrated he has these, he has frequently demonstrated he doesn't have them. That, apart from any other reason, is why he's at the Foreign Office where administrative talent isn't important.
I agree he would be a better PM than Corbyn, as he is at least intelligent. I also strongly suspect in a straight fight between the two he would win easily based on his wider experience and considerably higher profile. Perhaps not quite Macmillan vs Gaitskell 1959, but arguably Baldwin vs Attlee, who had barely time to move out of Lansbury's shadow in 1935.
But in other crucial ways he is very like Corbyn or for that matter Donald Trump. He says what his core constituency wants to hear even though in practice he doesn't care much about it (Brexit/Trident) he makes a lot of noise but there's never any substance behind it (NHS/tuition fees) he's from an extremely wealthy and privileged background and has adopted the London mentality and outlook, and he's utterly clueless on the real problems we face - indeed, there's no sign either of them have actually grasped what they are (neither have put forward meaningful proposals on coping with a rapidly ageing population or the looming electricity generation shortages).
And for that reason, I think he would be a disastrous PM. And I think the PCP know that too and would block him from the final round.
I am not looking for a brilliant PM just someone to stop Corbyn, as I said last night if Boris beats Corbyn and Labour then pick someone like Umunna Boris would find it downhill from there but he would have done the job required
The PCP want to ultimately beat Corbyn above all else too
It is misguided if the Government's main priority is to prevent the leader of the opposition to become prime minister!
Not in my view if the leader of the opposition is as dangerous for the country as Corbyn.
Sorry, Labour opened the populist box by electing Corbyn so they cannot complain if the Tories decide to play the populist game themselves
Dom Raab also happens to be my own MP and very good he is too. A definite for Cabinet and soon (with others), and unquestionably a credible candidate for next leader. What many of us are demanding over the next 3 or so years is the emergence of a decent number of talented next-generation contenders from whom we members can choose. Hammond, Davis, Rudd, Johnson, Fox, Green et al......their time for the top slot has been and gone.
The basic problem is that PB used to be an interesting site with balanced, informative commentary. No longer. It reads like the Guardian these days: all left-leaning and myopic. It badly needs counterpoint.
Troll post of the day. I suggest you try Breitbart.
"no matter how encouraged they were by the general election, those Labour MPs who support the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor, are endorsing men who, rather than bring the country back from the brink, would send it over the edge."
"no matter how encouraged they were by the general election, those Labour MPs who support the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor, are endorsing men who, rather than bring the country back from the brink, would send it over the edge."
"no matter how encouraged they were by the general election, those Labour MPs who support the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor, are endorsing men who, rather than bring the country back from the brink, would send it over the edge."
"no matter how encouraged they were by the general election, those Labour MPs who support the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor, are endorsing men who, rather than bring the country back from the brink, would send it over the edge."
That kind of thing might have more purchase if we had a government that was focused on what is in the country's best interest, but instead they give every appearance of not caring about it all.
Hamilton is 20 on Betfair to win qualifying. He’s only a tenth and a half off in P3 and will turn the engine up when it matters at the sharp end of qualifying.
Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.
We should have chosen to go into opposition.
The result meant you didn't actually have that choice. No government without one of the Conservatives or the DUP would have had a majority and the DUP would never have put the IRA-supporting Corbyn (which he is, whatever his ridiculous claims on the subject) into power. (That the Conservatives missed this rather obvious card in negotiations, preferring to allow the DUP to get money instead, bodes ill for Brexit negotiations.)
It would, from every point of view, have been better to offer to talk to the SNP and Liberal Democrats first, so that when they refused to play ball (which they would have done, of course) they would have been unable to criticise this arrangement which was the only viable option. However, we are where we are.
And any government that keeps out Corbyn - a less able and less honest version of Chavez - is a good deal. Given his age, time is on the country's side over that.
To be frank the Tories used the arithmetic of 2010 to kill the Lib Dems, and they're using the arithmetic of 2017 to immolate themselves.
As for Boris, just f*** off you lightweight attention seeking prick. Sorry, Just needed to get that off my chest.
"no matter how encouraged they were by the general election, those Labour MPs who support the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor, are endorsing men who, rather than bring the country back from the brink, would send it over the edge."
The basic problem is that PB used to be an interesting site with balanced, informative commentary. No longer. It reads like the Guardian these days: all left-leaning and myopic. It badly needs counterpoint.
Troll post of the day. I suggest you try Breitbart.
Breitbart would be too leftwing for him, I expect!
"no matter how encouraged they were by the general election, those Labour MPs who support the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor, are endorsing men who, rather than bring the country back from the brink, would send it over the edge."
Dom Raab also happens to be my own MP and very good he is too. A definite for Cabinet and soon (with others), and unquestionably a credible candidate for next leader. What many of us are demanding over the next 3 or so years is the emergence of a decent number of talented next-generation contenders from whom we members can choose. Hammond, Davis, Rudd, Johnson, Fox, Green et al......their time for the top slot has been and gone.
I believe my bets on Tracey, Johnny and Rory might colour my future voting... given the chance.
Hamilton is 20 on Betfair to win qualifying. He’s only a tenth and a half off in P3 and will turn the engine up when it matters at the sharp end of qualifying.
The basic problem is that PB used to be an interesting site with balanced, informative commentary. No longer. It reads like the Guardian these days: all left-leaning and myopic. It badly needs counterpoint.
That's really unfair on Mr Herdson. Remember, he hired this guy;
The basic problem is that PB used to be an interesting site with balanced, informative commentary. No longer. It reads like the Guardian these days: all left-leaning and myopic. It badly needs counterpoint.
That's really unfair on Mr Herdson. Remember, he hired this guy;
"no matter how encouraged they were by the general election, those Labour MPs who support the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor, are endorsing men who, rather than bring the country back from the brink, would send it over the edge."
The basic problem is that PB used to be an interesting site with balanced, informative commentary. No longer. It reads like the Guardian these days: all left-leaning and myopic. It badly needs counterpoint.
That's really unfair on Mr Herdson. Remember, he hired this guy;
Negotiations have got us absolutely nowhere. Red Line positions retreated from. Rhetoric exposed ss embarassing incompetent bluster.
This reshuffle needs to start with Davis, Fox and Johnson. If the UK is to have even the faint remaining chance of an agreement it needs a political negotiation team who aren't dogmatic cretins.
Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.
We should have chosen to go into opposition.
And put Party before Country?
Not the Tory way, surely?
I don't think it would be a choice between the two.
As I said in a recent article, the chances of Corbyn winning the next are high. The swing of the pendulum, a potential Brexit recession, the difficulty of Brexit talks producing an acceptable deal (or any deal), the 'running out of steam' argument, the small majority and defeats it will bring: all will make life harder for the Tories and easier for Labour.
So the choice was between the likelihood of five years of a Corbyn government, possibly with an outright majority; more probably at the beck and call of the SNP - or a year or so now, where he has no majority unless the Tories or DUP give him one, and where he can trash his brand in the harsh light and difficult choices of government.
I'm not saying that such a strategy would have been without risks but nor is the option actually chosen.
The basic problem is that PB used to be an interesting site with balanced, informative commentary. No longer. It reads like the Guardian these days: all left-leaning and myopic. It badly needs counterpoint.
That's really unfair on Mr Herdson. Remember, he hired this guy;
Good article DH, but I think that you underestimate both the issues of austerity in the public sector, and the growing economic problems.
The government has long been in denial about efficiency savings, hence the appeal of Boris's £350 million per week for the NHS.
On the economy we have low unemployment, but low performance elsewhere, and all propped up by massive debt. It is a house of cards.
I don't believe that unemployment is anything like as low as most commentators seek to imply.There are many people working 16 - 20 hours a week who would like to be in fulltime work but are not eligible for JSA because they have exceeded the 16 hour threshold. A more accurate picture would be to count them as the equivalent of 0.4 or 0.5 of a JSA claimant but no attempt is made to do that at all. Comparisons often made with the 1970s are pretty ludicrous too. Back then 16 - 18 year olds claimed Unemployment Benefit - including students during vacations. People claiming on a Contribution basis received the benefit for 12 months - not 6 months as has been the case now for many years. We also need to recall that during the Thatcher /Major years many who had previously claimed JSA were deliberately diverted to claim other benefits such as ESA - the clear political intent being to lower the headline unemployment figures. If we were to strip away all the various adjustments that have occurred since the 1970s I am pretty sure we would still be looking at unemployment levels in excess of 2 million.
Negotiations have got us absolutely nowhere. Red Line positions retreated from. Rhetoric exposed ss embarassing incompetent bluster.
This reshuffle needs to start with Davis, Fox and Johnson. If the UK is to have even the faint remaining chance of an agreement it needs a political negotiation team who aren't dogmatic cretins.
What is £2 billion when Corbyn has promised to magic a trillion quid out of his anus if he gets into power?
Corbyn understands you can raise extra taxes to pay nurses enough so that recruitment and retention is possible
Mrs May is on record that only a MMT can pay for that.
£2bn for self preservation is fine apparently
The BoE has magicked £ half a trillion from nowhere and doesn't really know how QE can be reversed.
Commercial banks create around £65k of 'magic money' every time you take out a modest £5k loan for £5k. Multiply that in proportion to all the UK mortgage, business and credit card lending.
It might help people to learn how fractional reserve banking works before they criticise govts. for planning to create a 'mere' £750-1,000 billion.
Negotiations have got us absolutely nowhere. Red Line positions retreated from. Rhetoric exposed ss embarassing incompetent bluster.
This reshuffle needs to start with Davis, Fox and Johnson. If the UK is to have even the faint remaining chance of an agreement it needs a political negotiation team who aren't dogmatic cretins.
Not going to happen
I know. She doesn't have the political power needed to both remove them and cope with them making trouble on the back benches. And so we merrily row towards the cliff edge
Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.
We should have chosen to go into opposition.
The result meant you didn't actually have that choice. No government without one of the Conservatives or the DUP would have had a majority and the DUP would never have put the IRA-supporting Corbyn (which he is, whatever his ridiculous claims on the subject) into power. (That the Conservatives missed this rather obvious card in negotiations, preferring to allow the DUP to get money instead, bodes ill for Brexit negotiations.)
It would, from every point of view, have been better to offer to talk to the SNP and Liberal Democrats first, so that when they refused to play ball (which they would have done, of course) they would have been unable to criticise this arrangement which was the only viable option. However, we are where we are.
And any government that keeps out Corbyn - a less able and less honest version of Chavez - is a good deal. Given his age, time is on the country's side over that.
To be frank the Tories used the arithmetic of 2010 to kill the Lib Dems, and they're using the arithmetic of 2017 to immolate themselves.
As for Boris, just f*** off you lightweight attention seeking prick. Sorry, Just needed to get that off my chest.
He and Thornberry are well matched for each other...
On the assumption that you were referring to Boris, of course.
For only a billion more, the Labour Party can create an entire National Care Service, fixing the problem of elderly care, making it free at the point of use.
I know it only costs 3 billion because that number was in the Labour Party manifesto.
David Herdson never wrote a truer word: "the public does arguments, not numbers. "
Very interesting and thought-provoking piece. Particularly about the big numbers. A pay rise would be a lot. The EU want a lot. For the DUP a lot was found. Probably as much political information as most people have heard in the last 3 months.
Negotiations have got us absolutely nowhere. Red Line positions retreated from. Rhetoric exposed ss embarassing incompetent bluster.
This reshuffle needs to start with Davis, Fox and Johnson. If the UK is to have even the faint remaining chance of an agreement it needs a political negotiation team who aren't dogmatic cretins.
Not going to happen
I know. She doesn't have the political power needed to both remove them and cope with them making trouble on the back benches. And so we merrily row towards the cliff edge
The cliff edge is a two way responsibility. The EU have been intent on punishing the UK from day one but that is not shared by individual Nations in the EU who are increasingly expressing alarm as are the business organisations throughout Europe.
Next week TM hosts a joint conference with Macron in the US on terrorism and then goes to Florence to hopefully lay down the basis of a deal.
Let's see how matters pan out though remainers will attempt to discredit every action as their aim is stop Brexit
Whatever happened to Grant Shapps? He used to be controversial but then he just slid off the radar. Taking Oscar Wilde's dictum that the only worse thing is not being talked about, Shapps might welcome the attention.
For only a billion more, the Labour Party can create an entire National Care Service, fixing the problem of elderly care, making it free at the point of use.
I know it only costs 3 billion because that number was in the Labour Party manifesto.
David Herdson never wrote a truer word: "the public does arguments, not numbers. "
With the greatest of respect three billion goes nowhere near fixing elderly care. My own sister was in nursing care with terminal cancer for two years at an annual cost of £38,000. The cost to include dementia is billions
Whatever happened to Grant Shapps? He used to be controversial but then he just slid off the radar. Taking Oscar Wilde's dictum that the only worse thing is not being talked about, Shapps might welcome the attention.
In his constituency, pretty much the entire 2015 UKIP vote shifted to labour.
Although in reality, I recon at least half of labours gain came from 2015 con voters.
For only a billion more, the Labour Party can create an entire National Care Service, fixing the problem of elderly care, making it free at the point of use.
I know it only costs 3 billion because that number was in the Labour Party manifesto.
David Herdson never wrote a truer word: "the public does arguments, not numbers. "
With the greatest of respect three billion goes nowhere near fixing elderly care. My own sister was in nursing care with terminal cancer for two years at an annual cost of £38,000. The cost to include dementia is billions
Of course, I know that.
It was one of the most ridiculous numbers in the Labour Party manifesto. It should have been easy for journalists or politicians to shoot down. Or at least ask how the number was arrived at.
Anyone who can do simple math at the level of Key Stage 2 Arithmetic can see that a National Care Service will cost about an order of magnitude more. When I tried to work it out, I reckoned the true cost is about 20 billion.
However, it appears that almost all the political class, journalists, MPs and voters can't do Key Stage 2 arithmetic. As David Herdson says, "the public don't do numbers".
(For what it is worth, I am in favour of a National Care Service. However, to get anything done in this world, you need to start with a sensible idea of the budget. So I don't hold out much hope of Labour successfully creating a National Care Service because they have a woeful idea of the true cost.)
Negotiations have got us absolutely nowhere. Red Line positions retreated from. Rhetoric exposed ss embarassing incompetent bluster.
This reshuffle needs to start with Davis, Fox and Johnson. If the UK is to have even the faint remaining chance of an agreement it needs a political negotiation team who aren't dogmatic cretins.
Not going to happen
I know. She doesn't have the political power needed to both remove them and cope with them making trouble on the back benches. And so we merrily row towards the cliff edge
May's programming code places higher priority on maintaining the Tory Party in one piece than the country. Unfortunate for the rest of us.
For only a billion more, the Labour Party can create an entire National Care Service, fixing the problem of elderly care, making it free at the point of use.
I know it only costs 3 billion because that number was in the Labour Party manifesto.
David Herdson never wrote a truer word: "the public does arguments, not numbers. "
With the greatest of respect three billion goes nowhere near fixing elderly care. My own sister was in nursing care with terminal cancer for two years at an annual cost of £38,000. The cost to include dementia is billions
Good article DH, but I think that you underestimate both the issues of austerity in the public sector, and the growing economic problems.
The government has long been in denial about efficiency savings, hence the appeal of Boris's £350 million per week for the NHS.
On the economy we have low unemployment, but low performance elsewhere, and all propped up by massive debt. It is a house of cards.
I don't believe that unemployment is anything like as low as most commentators seek to imply.There are many people working 16 - 20 hours a week who would like to be in fulltime work but are not eligible for JSA because they have exceeded the 16 hour threshold. A more accurate picture would be to count them as the equivalent of 0.4 or 0.5 of a JSA claimant but no attempt is made to do that at all. Comparisons often made with the 1970s are pretty ludicrous too. Back then 16 - 18 year olds claimed Unemployment Benefit - including students during vacations. People claiming on a Contribution basis received the benefit for 12 months - not 6 months as has been the case now for many years. We also need to recall that during the Thatcher /Major years many who had previously claimed JSA were deliberately diverted to claim other benefits such as ESA - the clear political intent being to lower the headline unemployment figures. If we were to strip away all the various adjustments that have occurred since the 1970s I am pretty sure we would still be looking at unemployment levels in excess of 2 million.
Universal credit actually may move towards that in that you do not lose all your benefits if you get a part time job for a few hours
Negotiations have got us absolutely nowhere. Red Line positions retreated from. Rhetoric exposed ss embarassing incompetent bluster.
This reshuffle needs to start with Davis, Fox and Johnson. If the UK is to have even the faint remaining chance of an agreement it needs a political negotiation team who aren't dogmatic cretins.
Not going to happen
I know. She doesn't have the political power needed to both remove them and cope with them making trouble on the back benches. And so we merrily row towards the cliff edge
The cliff edge is a two way responsibility. The EU have been intent on punishing the UK from day one but that is not shared by individual Nations in the EU who are increasingly expressing alarm as are the business organisations throughout Europe.
Next week TM hosts a joint conference with Macron in the US on terrorism and then goes to Florence to hopefully lay down the basis of a deal.
Let's see how matters pan out though remainers will attempt to discredit every action as their aim is stop Brexit
Why are people wasting time worrying about the EU. I don't give a fuck about the EU. I care about us negotiating a good deal. It seems very unlikely that we will.
The cliff edge is a two way responsibility. The EU have been intent on punishing the UK from day one but that is not shared by individual Nations in the EU who are increasingly expressing alarm as are the business organisations throughout Europe.
I still cannot understand why the EU Heads of Government acceded to yet another highly unconstitutional if not wholly illegal power grab by Juncker when he appointed somebody to lead negotiations for the EU without even consulting them.
I would have thought losing a vote of this significance, considerably helped by his silly mistakes, would have been the perfect time to sack him, or reappoint him as EU representative to the Amundsen Scott base, and get either some big figure in to lead proper federalisation or somebody bland and competent who would use the powers of their office not the powers reserved to Heads of Government.
It's probably too late to rectify their mistake now as well given even if Barnier and Juncker are removed the delusional Verhofstadt, the man who famously said the Brexit vote demonstrated how popular the EU was, would still be on it.
For only a billion more, the Labour Party can create an entire National Care Service, fixing the problem of elderly care, making it free at the point of use.
I know it only costs 3 billion because that number was in the Labour Party manifesto.
David Herdson never wrote a truer word: "the public does arguments, not numbers. "
For only a billion more, the Labour Party can create an entire National Care Service, fixing the problem of elderly care, making it free at the point of use.
I know it only costs 3 billion because that number was in the Labour Party manifesto.
David Herdson never wrote a truer word: "the public does arguments, not numbers. "
With the greatest of respect three billion goes nowhere near fixing elderly care. My own sister was in nursing care with terminal cancer for two years at an annual cost of £38,000. The cost to include dementia is billions
Mr G Mawr yn y Gogledd
I think it was sarcasm.
Yes and his later response at an annual cost of circa 20 billion is probably nearer and it is one of many flaws with TM campaign that the conservatives didn't completely demolish Corbyn's musing
For only a billion more, the Labour Party can create an entire National Care Service, fixing the problem of elderly care, making it free at the point of use.
I know it only costs 3 billion because that number was in the Labour Party manifesto.
David Herdson never wrote a truer word: "the public does arguments, not numbers. "
With the greatest of respect three billion goes nowhere near fixing elderly care. My own sister was in nursing care with terminal cancer for two years at an annual cost of £38,000. The cost to include dementia is billions
Of course, I know that.
It was one of the most ridiculous numbers in the Labour Party manifesto. It should have been easy for journalists or politicians to shoot down. Or at least ask how the number was arrived at.
Anyone who can do simple math at the level of Key Stage 2 Arithmetic can see that a National Care Service will cost about an order of magnitude more. When I tried to work it out, I reckoned the true cost is about 20 billion.
However, it appears that almost all the political class, journalists, MPs and voters can't do Key Stage 2 arithmetic. As David Herdson says, "the public don't do numbers".
(For what it is worth, I am in favour of a National Care Service. However, to get anything done in this world, you need to start with a sensible idea of the budget. So I don't hold out much hope of Labour successfully creating a National Care Service because they have a woeful idea of the true cost.)
Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.
We should have chosen to go into opposition.
A novel idea The Conservatives have never done that since WW2 .Choosing to go into opposition goes against their base instinct of been the sole an only party able to govern this country.
February (or, strictly speaking, March) 1974.
Yes David I thought about Feb ,1974 Heath did not choose to go into opposition as in reality he tried hard to get a deal with the Liberals to stay in government.So in my opinion was forced.to relinquish power .
He did. But he could also have tried to do a deal with the Ulster Unionists but decided the price would have been too high. There is a certain irony in there but N Ireland was very different in the early/mid-1970s.
Even with the Ulster Unionists the numbers didn't work for Heath in February 1974:
In fact Heath would have need both the Liberals and the UUP to get a bare majority.
He claimed he tried to split 7 of the 12 Unionists off and get them to rejoin the Conservatives, but they opposed power-sharing so it wouldn't work.
However, he was in practice assuming that when it came to the crunch they would support his government against Wilson which is why he only spoke seriously to Thorpe.
That election is a very slightly better parallel to David's suggestion as of course Heath had to offer tacit support to Labour - whom he described as 'standing on the most extreme platform of any party in the twentieth century' - and lost 20 seats at the next election as a result.
There were not 12 Unionists following the Feb 74 election. Gerry Fitt held Belfast West for the SDLP and Ian Paisley already had his own party.
Given the result of GE2017 the Tories had no choice but to do a deal with the DUP.
We should have chosen to go into opposition.
A novel idea The Conservatives have never done that since WW2 .Choosing to go into opposition goes against their base instinct of been the sole an only party able to govern this country.
February (or, strictly speaking, March) 1974.
Yes David I thought about Feb ,1974 Heath did not choose to go into opposition as in reality he tried hard to get a deal with the Liberals to stay in government.So in my opinion was forced.to relinquish power .
He did. But he could also have tried to do a deal with the Ulster Unionists but decided the price would have been too high. There is a certain irony in there but N Ireland was very different in the early/mid-1970s.
Even with the Ulster Unionists the numbers didn't work for Heath in February 1974:
In fact Heath would have need both the Liberals and the UUP to get a bare majority.
He claimed he tried to split 7 of the 12 Unionists off and get them to rejoin the Conservatives, but they opposed power-sharing so it wouldn't work.
However, he was in practice assuming that when it came to the crunch they would support his government against Wilson which is why he only spoke seriously to Thorpe.
That election is a very slightly better parallel to David's suggestion as of course Heath had to offer tacit support to Labour - whom he described as 'standing on the most extreme platform of any party in the twentieth century' - and lost 20 seats at the next election as a result.
There were not 12 Unionists following the Feb 74 election. Gerry Fitt held Belfast West for the SDLP and Ian Paisley already had his own party.
Ten then. That will teach me to trust Heath's figures!
For only a billion more, the Labour Party can create an entire National Care Service, fixing the problem of elderly care, making it free at the point of use.
I know it only costs 3 billion because that number was in the Labour Party manifesto.
David Herdson never wrote a truer word: "the public does arguments, not numbers. "
With the greatest of respect three billion goes nowhere near fixing elderly care. My own sister was in nursing care with terminal cancer for two years at an annual cost of £38,000. The cost to include dementia is billions
Mr G Mawr yn y Gogledd
I think it was sarcasm.
Yes and his later response at an annual cost of circa 20 billion is probably nearer and it is one of many flaws with TM campaign that the conservatives didn't completely demolish Corbyn's musing
Hilary Clinton demolished Trump's figures. So did the Mexican president.
Corbyn's figures were repeatedly attacked as a pack of lies. Anyone sane could see he was as clueless as Diane Abbott without the excuse of serious illness.
The problem is that didn't matter as May's own figures were scarcely more credible. Moreover, hers promised lots of pain.
The voters were offered a choice between lies offering pain and lies offering pleasure. You can hardly blame them under the circumstances for deciding on the latter.
You can blame the Conservatives, very much, for calling a snap election when they were not ready and having no clue what their vague ideas for the future would cost.
You can also blame Labour for putting forward a pair of monsters like Corbyn and Macdonnell.
The one thing I could most easily understand is those who chose not to vote - yet turnout went up.
For only a billion more, the Labour Party can create an entire National Care Service, fixing the problem of elderly care, making it free at the point of use.
I know it only costs 3 billion because that number was in the Labour Party manifesto.
David Herdson never wrote a truer word: "the public does arguments, not numbers. "
With the greatest of respect three billion goes nowhere near fixing elderly care. My own sister was in nursing care with terminal cancer for two years at an annual cost of £38,000. The cost to include dementia is billions
Mr G Mawr yn y Gogledd
I think it was sarcasm.
Yes and his later response at an annual cost of circa 20 billion is probably nearer and it is one of many flaws with TM campaign that the conservatives didn't completely demolish Corbyn's musing
Hilary Clinton demolished Trump's figures. So did the Mexican president.
Corbyn's figures were repeatedly attacked as a pack of lies. Anyone sane could see he was as clueless as Diane Abbott without the excuse of serious illness.
The problem is that didn't matter as May's own figures were scarcely more credible. Moreover, hers promised lots of pain.
The voters were offered a choice between lies offering pain and lies offering pleasure. You can hardly blame them under the circumstances for deciding on the latter.
You can blame the Conservatives, very much, for calling a snap election when they were not ready and having no clue what their vague ideas for the future would cost.
You can also blame Labour for putting forward a pair of monsters like Corbyn and Macdonnell.
The one thing I could most easily understand is those who chose not to vote - yet turnout went up.
Negotiations have got us absolutely nowhere. Red Line positions retreated from. Rhetoric exposed ss embarassing incompetent bluster.
This reshuffle needs to start with Davis, Fox and Johnson. If the UK is to have even the faint remaining chance of an agreement it needs a political negotiation team who aren't dogmatic cretins.
Not going to happen
I know. She doesn't have the political power needed to both remove them and cope with them making trouble on the back benches. And so we merrily row towards the cliff edge
The cliff edge is a two way responsibility. The EU have been intent on punishing the UK from day one but that is not shared by individual Nations in the EU who are increasingly expressing alarm as are the business organisations throughout Europe.
Next week TM hosts a joint conference with Macron in the US on terrorism and then goes to Florence to hopefully lay down the basis of a deal.
Let's see how matters pan out though remainers will attempt to discredit every action as their aim is stop Brexit
How is it their responsibility? The EU has rules on how it trades with non-EEA countries it doesn't have separate deals with. It has rules on policing it's external and internal borders. Our triggering of Article 50 makes no difference to those rules and it's absurd arrogance / naivety to assume they will abruptly change these rules just for us.
For only a billion more, the Labour Party can create an entire National Care Service, fixing the problem of elderly care, making it free at the point of use.
I know it only costs 3 billion because that number was in the Labour Party manifesto.
David Herdson never wrote a truer word: "the public does arguments, not numbers. "
With the greatest of respect three billion goes nowhere near fixing elderly care. My own sister was in nursing care with terminal cancer for two years at an annual cost of £38,000. The cost to include dementia is billions
Mr G Mawr yn y Gogledd
I think it was sarcasm.
Yes and his later response at an annual cost of circa 20 billion is probably nearer and it is one of many flaws with TM campaign that the conservatives didn't completely demolish Corbyn's musing
Hilary Clinton demolished Trump's figures. So did the Mexican president.
Corbyn's figures were repeatedly attacked as a pack of lies. Anyone sane could see he was as clueless as Diane Abbott without the excuse of serious illness.
The problem is that didn't matter as May's own figures were scarcely more credible. Moreover, hers promised lots of pain.
The voters were offered a choice between lies offering pain and lies offering pleasure. You can hardly blame them under the circumstances for deciding on the latter.
You can blame the Conservatives, very much, for calling a snap election when they were not ready and having no clue what their vague ideas for the future would cost.
You can also blame Labour for putting forward a pair of monsters like Corbyn and Macdonnell.
The one thing I could most easily understand is those who chose not to vote - yet turnout went up.
Politics !!!!!!!!!!
These are interesting times - as the Chinese would say.
Negotiations have got us absolutely nowhere. Red Line positions retreated from. Rhetoric exposed ss embarassing incompetent bluster.
This reshuffle needs to start with Davis, Fox and Johnson. If the UK is to have even the faint remaining chance of an agreement it needs a political negotiation team who aren't dogmatic cretins.
Not going to happen
I know. She doesn't have the political power needed to both remove them and cope with them making trouble on the back benches. And so we merrily row towards the cliff edge
The cliff edge is a two way responsibility. The EU have been intent on punishing the UK from day one but that is not shared by individual Nations in the EU who are increasingly expressing alarm as are the business organisations throughout Europe.
Next week TM hosts a joint conference with Macron in the US on terrorism and then goes to Florence to hopefully lay down the basis of a deal.
Let's see how matters pan out though remainers will attempt to discredit every action as their aim is stop Brexit
How is it their responsibility? The EU has rules on how it trades with non-EEA countries it doesn't have separate deals with. It has rules on policing it's external and internal borders. Our triggering of Article 50 makes no difference to those rules and it's absurd arrogance / naivety to assume they will abruptly change these rules just for us.
No need to change their rules - just talk trade as they have with Canada or face tariffs on all their goods coming into the UK
Negotiations have got us absolutely nowhere. Red Line positions retreated from. Rhetoric exposed ss embarassing incompetent bluster.
This reshuffle needs to start with Davis, Fox and Johnson. If the UK is to have even the faint remaining chance of an agreement it needs a political negotiation team who aren't dogmatic cretins.
Not going to happen
I know. She doesn't have the political power needed to both remove them and cope with them making trouble on the back benches. And so we merrily row towards the cliff edge
The cliff edge is a two way responsibility. The EU have been intent on punishing the UK from day one but that is not shared by individual Nations in the EU who are increasingly expressing alarm as are the business organisations throughout Europe.
Next week TM hosts a joint conference with Macron in the US on terrorism and then goes to Florence to hopefully lay down the basis of a deal.
Let's see how matters pan out though remainers will attempt to discredit every action as their aim is stop Brexit
How is it their responsibility? The EU has rules on how it trades with non-EEA countries it doesn't have separate deals with. It has rules on policing it's external and internal borders. Our triggering of Article 50 makes no difference to those rules and it's absurd arrogance / naivety to assume they will abruptly change these rules just for us.
Big G still clinging to the 'they need us more than we need them' fallacy. To be fair it is the cancer at the heart of Tory Brexit.
Negotiations have got us absolutely nowhere. Red Line positions retreated from. Rhetoric exposed ss embarassing incompetent bluster.
This reshuffle needs to start with Davis, Fox and Johnson. If the UK is to have even the faint remaining chance of an agreement it needs a political negotiation team who aren't dogmatic cretins.
Not going to happen
I know. She doesn't have the political power needed to both remove them and cope with them making trouble on the back benches. And so we merrily row towards the cliff edge
The cliff edge is a two way responsibility. The EU have been intent on punishing the UK from day one but that is not shared by individual Nations in the EU who are increasingly expressing alarm as are the business organisations throughout Europe.
Next week TM hosts a joint conference with Macron in the US on terrorism and then goes to Florence to hopefully lay down the basis of a deal.
Let's see how matters pan out though remainers will attempt to discredit every action as their aim is stop Brexit
How is it their responsibility? The EU has rules on how it trades with non-EEA countries it doesn't have separate deals with. It has rules on policing it's external and internal borders. Our triggering of Article 50 makes no difference to those rules and it's absurd arrogance / naivety to assume they will abruptly change these rules just for us.
Negotiations have got us absolutely nowhere. Red Line positions retreated from. Rhetoric exposed ss embarassing incompetent bluster.
This reshuffle needs to start with Davis, Fox and Johnson. If the UK is to have even the faint remaining chance of an agreement it needs a political negotiation team who aren't dogmatic cretins.
Not going to happen
I know. She doesn't have the political power needed to both remove them and cope with them making trouble on the back benches. And so we merrily row towards the cliff edge
The cliff edge is a two way responsibility. The EU have been intent on punishing the UK from day one but that is not shared by individual Nations in the EU who are increasingly expressing alarm as are the business organisations throughout Europe.
Next week TM hosts a joint conference with Macron in the US on terrorism and then goes to Florence to hopefully lay down the basis of a deal.
Let's see how matters pan out though remainers will attempt to discredit every action as their aim is stop Brexit
How is it their responsibility? The EU has rules on how it trades with non-EEA countries it doesn't have separate deals with. It has rules on policing it's external and internal borders. Our triggering of Article 50 makes no difference to those rules and it's absurd arrogance / naivety to assume they will abruptly change these rules just for us.
Big G still clinging to the 'they need us more than we need them' fallacy. To be fair it is the cancer at the heart of Tory Brexit.
Negotiations have got us absolutely nowhere. Red Line positions retreated from. Rhetoric exposed ss embarassing incompetent bluster.
This reshuffle needs to start with Davis, Fox and Johnson. If the UK is to have even the faint remaining chance of an agreement it needs a political negotiation team who aren't dogmatic cretins.
Not going to happen
I know. She doesn't have the political power needed to both remove them and cope with them making trouble on the back benches. And so we merrily row towards the cliff edge
The cliff edge is a two way responsibility. The EU have been intent on punishing the UK from day one but that is not shared by individual Nations in the EU who are increasingly expressing alarm as are the business organisations throughout Europe.
Next week TM hosts a joint conference with Macron in the US on terrorism and then goes to Florence to hopefully lay down the basis of a deal.
Let's see how matters pan out though remainers will attempt to discredit every action as their aim is stop Brexit
How is it their responsibility? The EU has rules on how it trades with non-EEA countries it doesn't have separate deals with. It has rules on policing it's external and internal borders. Our triggering of Article 50 makes no difference to those rules and it's absurd arrogance / naivety to assume they will abruptly change these rules just for us.
Big G still clinging to the 'they need us more than we need them' fallacy. To be fair it is the cancer at the heart of Tory Brexit.
Why not work on the basis that we need each other?
Negotiations have got us absolutely nowhere. Red Line positions retreated from. Rhetoric exposed ss embarassing incompetent bluster.
This reshuffle needs to start with Davis, Fox and Johnson. If the UK is to have even the faint remaining chance of an agreement it needs a political negotiation team who aren't dogmatic cretins.
Not going to happen
I know. She doesn't have the political power needed to both remove them and cope with them making trouble on the back benches. And so we merrily row towards the cliff edge
The cliff edge is a two way responsibility. The EU have been intent on punishing the UK from day one but that is not shared by individual Nations in the EU who are increasingly expressing alarm as are the business organisations throughout Europe.
Next week TM hosts a joint conference with Macron in the US on terrorism and then goes to Florence to hopefully lay down the basis of a deal.
Let's see how matters pan out though remainers will attempt to discredit every action as their aim is stop Brexit
How is it their responsibility? The EU has rules on how it trades with non-EEA countries it doesn't have separate deals with. It has rules on policing it's external and internal borders. Our triggering of Article 50 makes no difference to those rules and it's absurd arrogance / naivety to assume they will abruptly change these rules just for us.
What then, is the point of negotiations?
There isn't much, as has been demonstrated by DD. It's probably the only thing he has achieved.
Theresa's speech will be interesting. I suspect it will cement the hardest of Brexits with, given the location, some romantic guff about looking beyond the horizon and sailing the seven sees. DD will, of course, be redundant so we won't have to worry about him again. All eyes will then be on Liam for many years to come.
Theresa's speech will be interesting. I suspect it will cement the hardest of Brexits with, given the location, some romantic guff about looking beyond the horizon and sailing the seven sees. DD will, of course, be redundant so we won't have to worry about him again. All eyes will then be on Liam for many years to come.
I suspect it will be all waffle and actually say nothing.
Just read Boris's piece on his Facebook page (not behind a paywall like on the Telegraph).
I didn't read it is a challenge to May. After the reception it got last night it was surprisingly flattering to May.
Boris just needs to throw a bit of loyalty about and bide his time: wait till Theresa is replaced by PM Jezza, become colourful and high-profile LOTO, crush Labour when its doomed socialism self-destructs. That's the theory.
Austerity can't be dead long term. We have a national debt approaching £2 trillion and that excludes unfunded future public sector pension and PFI liabilities and are still spending far more than we collect in taxes. Given demographics and our welfare bill things can surely only get worse.
What is always amazing to me is how we obsess about the £350m a week on a bus or even the £2 billon for the DUP deal but at no time during the election or since has there been any debate about the £50 billion this year and in future we will be throwing away on interest on debt. And that is interest at some of the lowest effective interest rate terms in centuries - heaven help us if the rates rose in the future.
That's equivalent to increasing spending on the NHS by nearly 50 per cent - and it's all handed over to the financial sectors. Yet no politician or journalist ever raises it or discusses this planned £250 Bn of spending this Parliament. Yet its rather more material that a one off DUP bribe of £2bn.
Austerity can't be dead long term. We have a national debt approaching £2 trillion and that excludes unfunded future public sector pension and PFI liabilities and are still spending far more than we collect in taxes.
What is always amazing to me is how we obsess about the £350m a week on a bus or even the £2 billon for the DUP deal but at no time during the election or since has there been any debate about the £50 billion this year and in future we will be throwing away on interest on debt. And that is interest at some of the lowest effective interest rate terms in centuries - heaven help us if the rates rose in the future.
That's equivalent to increasing spending on the NHS by nearly 50 per cent - and it's all handed over to the financial sectors. Yet no politician or journalist ever raises it or discusses this planned £250 Bn of spending this Parliament. Yet its rather more material that a one off DUP bribe of £2bn.
Because to ask questions like this leads to answers involving people living within their means rather than to the style they think they deserve or discussions about levels of wealth creation compared to wealth consumption.
And many people, including no shortage of Conservative supporters, get worried about what it might mean for them.
Negotiations have got us absolutely nowhere. Red Line positions retreated from. Rhetoric exposed ss embarassing incompetent bluster.
This reshuffle needs to start with Davis, Fox and Johnson. If the UK is to have even the faint remaining chance of an agreement it needs a political negotiation team who aren't dogmatic cretins.
Not going to happen
I know. She doesn't have the political power needed to both remove them and cope with them making trouble on the back benches. And so we merrily row towards the cliff edge
The cliff edge is a two way responsibility. The EU have been intent on punishing the UK from day one but that is not shared by individual Nations in the EU who are increasingly expressing alarm as are the business organisations throughout Europe.
Next week TM hosts a joint conference with Macron in the US on terrorism and then goes to Florence to hopefully lay down the basis of a deal.
Let's see how matters pan out though remainers will attempt to discredit every action as their aim is stop Brexit
How is it their responsibility? The EU has rules on how it trades with non-EEA countries it doesn't have separate deals with. It has rules on policing it's external and internal borders. Our triggering of Article 50 makes no difference to those rules and it's absurd arrogance / naivety to assume they will abruptly change these rules just for us.
No need to change their rules - just talk trade as they have with Canada or face tariffs on all their goods coming into the UK
And that's what will happen - tariffs. We can have a Canada deal or a Switzerland deal we just need 10 years to negotiate it and we have 14 months. Which means we need an off the shelf deal which makes life easy for both sides and what's more such a deal already exists - rejoin EFTA. We can help lead EFTA as a strong neighbour and trade partner of the EU, but for some stupid reason the tories screech betrayal when it is mentioned.
They WANT tariffs. And they'll get them - A WTO solution is workable in the long term. Just not in Macch 2019 as we simply can't set ourselves up for the physical and electronic checks on all imports/exports that quickly. Which means either we leave and stay in the EEA- the EFTA Norway option. Or we fall all the way out and give our economy a fatal heart attack. The Europeansdon't have to give us shit and they absolutely won't. And if the boot was on the other foot we'd do the same
Austerity can't be dead long term. We have a national debt approaching £2 trillion and that excludes unfunded future public sector pension and PFI liabilities and are still spending far more than we collect in taxes. Given demographics and our welfare bill things can surely only get worse.
What is always amazing to me is how we obsess about the £350m a week on a bus or even the £2 billon for the DUP deal but at no time during the election or since has there been any debate about the £50 billion this year and in future we will be throwing away on interest on debt. And that is interest at some of the lowest effective interest rate terms in centuries - heaven help us if the rates rose in the future.
That's equivalent to increasing spending on the NHS by nearly 50 per cent - and it's all handed over to the financial sectors. Yet no politician or journalist ever raises it or discusses this planned £250 Bn of spending this Parliament. Yet its rather more material that a one off DUP bribe of £2bn.
The only way austerity would have continued longer term is if Remain had won the referendum and George Osborne had continued as Chancellor cutting back spending as a percentage of GDP to 35% as he intended. That would have balanced the books and matched the amount the government takes in tax as a percentage of GDP but would also have meant the UK spending less than France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan the US and Canada and was probably politically unviable. Australia and Switzerland are the only western nations who spend 35% or less of their GDP, Osborne's target
Just read Boris's piece on his Facebook page (not behind a paywall like on the Telegraph).
I didn't read it is a challenge to May. After the reception it got last night it was surprisingly flattering to May.
Boris just needs to throw a bit of loyalty about and bide his time: wait till Theresa is replaced by PM Jezza, become colourful and high-profile LOTO, crush Labour when its doomed socialism self-destructs. That's the theory.
The Tories will not be fighting the next general election under May
Austerity can't be dead long term. We have a national debt approaching £2 trillion and that excludes unfunded future public sector pension and PFI liabilities and are still spending far more than we collect in taxes. Given demographics and our welfare bill things can surely only get worse.
What is always amazing to me is how we obsess about the £350m a week on a bus or even the £2 billon for the DUP deal but at no time during the election or since has there been any debate about the £50 billion this year and in future we will be throwing away on interest on debt. And that is interest at some of the lowest effective interest rate terms in centuries - heaven help us if the rates rose in the future.
That's equivalent to increasing spending on the NHS by nearly 50 per cent - and it's all handed over to the financial sectors. Yet no politician or journalist ever raises it or discusses this planned £250 Bn of spending this Parliament. Yet its rather more material that a one off DUP bribe of £2bn.
The UK has had 7 years of austerity, and is showing no sign of working. How many more years do you require?
The cliff edge is a two way responsibility. The EU have been intent on punishing the UK from day one but that is not shared by individual Nations in the EU who are increasingly expressing alarm as are the business organisations throughout Europe.
I still cannot understand why the EU Heads of Government acceded to yet another highly unconstitutional if not wholly illegal power grab by Juncker when he appointed somebody to lead negotiations for the EU without even consulting them.
I would have thought losing a vote of this significance, considerably helped by his silly mistakes, would have been the perfect time to sack him, or reappoint him as EU representative to the Amundsen Scott base, and get either some big figure in to lead proper federalisation or somebody bland and competent who would use the powers of their office not the powers reserved to Heads of Government.
It's probably too late to rectify their mistake now as well given even if Barnier and Juncker are removed the delusional Verhofstadt, the man who famously said the Brexit vote demonstrated how popular the EU was, would still be on it.
It is pretty basic stuff. In Brexit talks we do not get to pick the team for the other side. Considering that Juncker, Barnier and Tusk are running rings around our team that is probably a bad tbing, but thems the rules of the game.
A lot of our team are arguing about what the objective should be, and playing to the gallery in the Conservative party and tabloid press. Maybe these sorts of things should have been worked out before A50 was invoked. One wonders what they have been up to over the last year.
Austerity can't be dead long term. We have a national debt approaching £2 trillion and that excludes unfunded future public sector pension and PFI liabilities and are still spending far more than we collect in taxes. Given demographics and our welfare bill things can surely only get worse.
What is always amazing to me is how we obsess about the £350m a week on a bus or even the £2 billon for the DUP deal but at no time during the election or since has there been any debate about the £50 billion this year and in future we will be throwing away on interest on debt. And that is interest at some of the lowest effective interest rate terms in centuries - heaven help us if the rates rose in the future.
That's equivalent to increasing spending on the NHS by nearly 50 per cent - and it's all handed over to the financial sectors. Yet no politician or journalist ever raises it or discusses this planned £250 Bn of spending this Parliament. Yet its rather more material that a one off DUP bribe of £2bn.
The UK has had 7 years of austerity, and is showing no sign of working. How many more years do you require?
The UK has borrowed over a trillion quid during the last decade and is running a current account deficit of £100bn per year.
It shows no sign of working. How many more years do you require ?
Both of you have gotten tariffs exactly wrong. The EU does not impose tariffs on goods leaving the EU, it imposes them on goods entering the EU
When the UK leaves the EU, then the EU will not impose tariffs on goods entering the UK from the EU, it will impose tariffs on goods leaving the UK for the EU: ie UK exports to the EU, not UK imports from the EU. The only reason why the UK would have tariffs slapped on UK imports from the EU would be if the UK government imposed them
The failure of damn nearly everybody to understand how this works is of some concern. That Wetherspoons bloke got it wrong yesterday too....
Austerity can't be dead long term. We have a national debt approaching £2 trillion and that excludes unfunded future public sector pension and PFI liabilities and are still spending far more than we collect in taxes. Given demographics and our welfare bill things can surely only get worse.
What is always amazing to me is how we obsess about the £350m a week on a bus or even the £2 billon for the DUP deal but at no time during the election or since has there been any debate about the £50 billion this year and in future we will be throwing away on interest on debt. And that is interest at some of the lowest effective interest rate terms in centuries - heaven help us if the rates rose in the future.
That's equivalent to increasing spending on the NHS by nearly 50 per cent - and it's all handed over to the financial sectors. Yet no politician or journalist ever raises it or discusses this planned £250 Bn of spending this Parliament. Yet its rather more material that a one off DUP bribe of £2bn.
The UK has had 7 years of austerity, and is showing no sign of working. How many more years do you require?
The UK has borrowed over a trillion quid during the last decade and is running a current account deficit of £100bn per year.
It shows no sign of working. How many more years do you require ?
So there was no austerity over the last seven years? Then the government has failed to implement it's economic policy.
Comments
The contrast between the media frothing over the proposed NI change in the last Budget and the lack of interest in Osborne's money grab is curious.
Osborne's freezing of the repayment level probably cost the Conservatives their majority by itself.
Sorry, Labour opened the populist box by electing Corbyn so they cannot complain if the Tories decide to play the populist game themselves
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/jeremy-corbyn/news/88975/new-plans-could-see-future-labour
https://capx.co/is-this-the-most-dangerous-man-in-britain/
Not the Tory way, surely?
You wouldn't catch me making any sexual references in thread headers.
That kind of thing might have more purchase if we had a government that was focused on what is in the country's best interest, but instead they give every appearance of not caring about it all.
Hamilton is 20 on Betfair to win qualifying. He’s only a tenth and a half off in P3 and will turn the engine up when it matters at the sharp end of qualifying.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/motor-sport/event/28372699/market?marketId=1.133861569
As for Boris, just f*** off you lightweight attention seeking prick. Sorry, Just needed to get that off my chest.
Spurs playing at the same time as England 20-20 tonight.....
And I thought the ongoing Tory shambles couldn't depress me any more. Boris is an ever enlarging political 'black hole' it seems to me.
I'm keeping my membership card for when he or any of the other Brexiteers go for the leadership just in case.
I think he will be an excellent chancellor.
(Though those are quite tempting odds.)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-aide-execution-consultant-hanging-10441392
That's not something a guardianista leftie would do.
Mrs May is on record that only a MMT can pay for that.
£2bn for self preservation is fine apparently
Conservatism is in crisis.
Writing pre-qualifying tosh now.
Also the governments response of being fair to public sector employees but also to the tax payer is a good political narrative
This reshuffle needs to start with Davis, Fox and Johnson. If the UK is to have even the faint remaining chance of an agreement it needs a political negotiation team who aren't dogmatic cretins.
As I said in a recent article, the chances of Corbyn winning the next are high. The swing of the pendulum, a potential Brexit recession, the difficulty of Brexit talks producing an acceptable deal (or any deal), the 'running out of steam' argument, the small majority and defeats it will bring: all will make life harder for the Tories and easier for Labour.
So the choice was between the likelihood of five years of a Corbyn government, possibly with an outright majority; more probably at the beck and call of the SNP - or a year or so now, where he has no majority unless the Tories or DUP give him one, and where he can trash his brand in the harsh light and difficult choices of government.
I'm not saying that such a strategy would have been without risks but nor is the option actually chosen.
The tories can't balance the books and remain in power. That's a big problem for them.
Comparisons often made with the 1970s are pretty ludicrous too. Back then 16 - 18 year olds claimed Unemployment Benefit - including students during vacations. People claiming on a Contribution basis received the benefit for 12 months - not 6 months as has been the case now for many years. We also need to recall that during the Thatcher /Major years many who had previously claimed JSA were deliberately diverted to claim other benefits such as ESA - the clear political intent being to lower the headline unemployment figures. If we were to strip away all the various adjustments that have occurred since the 1970s I am pretty sure we would still be looking at unemployment levels in excess of 2 million.
Commercial banks create around £65k of 'magic money' every time you take out a modest £5k loan for £5k. Multiply that in proportion to all the UK mortgage, business and credit card lending.
It might help people to learn how fractional reserve banking works before they criticise govts. for planning to create a 'mere' £750-1,000 billion.
On the assumption that you were referring to Boris, of course.
It cost 2 billion for them to bribe 10 MPs.
For only a billion more, the Labour Party can create an entire National Care Service, fixing the problem of elderly care, making it free at the point of use.
I know it only costs 3 billion because that number was in the Labour Party manifesto.
David Herdson never wrote a truer word: "the public does arguments, not numbers. "
Probably as much political information as most people have heard in the last 3 months.
https://twitter.com/PeoplesMomentum/status/909010585450315776
Raising taxes on yourself to spend on others is unpopular.
Next week TM hosts a joint conference with Macron in the US on terrorism and then goes to Florence to hopefully lay down the basis of a deal.
Let's see how matters pan out though remainers will attempt to discredit every action as their aim is stop Brexit
No tip, but a round up of rumours and news.
Although in reality, I recon at least half of labours gain came from 2015 con voters.
It was one of the most ridiculous numbers in the Labour Party manifesto. It should have been easy for journalists or politicians to shoot down. Or at least ask how the number was arrived at.
Anyone who can do simple math at the level of Key Stage 2 Arithmetic can see that a National Care Service will cost about an order of magnitude more. When I tried to work it out, I reckoned the true cost is about 20 billion.
However, it appears that almost all the political class, journalists, MPs and voters can't do Key Stage 2 arithmetic. As David Herdson says, "the public don't do numbers".
(For what it is worth, I am in favour of a National Care Service. However, to get anything done in this world, you need to start with a sensible idea of the budget. So I don't hold out much hope of Labour successfully creating a National Care Service because they have a woeful idea of the true cost.)
I think it was sarcasm.
I would have thought losing a vote of this significance, considerably helped by his silly mistakes, would have been the perfect time to sack him, or reappoint him as EU representative to the Amundsen Scott base, and get either some big figure in to lead proper federalisation or somebody bland and competent who would use the powers of their office not the powers reserved to Heads of Government.
It's probably too late to rectify their mistake now as well given even if Barnier and Juncker are removed the delusional Verhofstadt, the man who famously said the Brexit vote demonstrated how popular the EU was, would still be on it.
Corbyn's figures were repeatedly attacked as a pack of lies. Anyone sane could see he was as clueless as Diane Abbott without the excuse of serious illness.
The problem is that didn't matter as May's own figures were scarcely more credible. Moreover, hers promised lots of pain.
The voters were offered a choice between lies offering pain and lies offering pleasure. You can hardly blame them under the circumstances for deciding on the latter.
You can blame the Conservatives, very much, for calling a snap election when they were not ready and having no clue what their vague ideas for the future would cost.
You can also blame Labour for putting forward a pair of monsters like Corbyn and Macdonnell.
The one thing I could most easily understand is those who chose not to vote - yet turnout went up.
Anyway, I am off. Have a good weekend everyone!
https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/909026168409649153
I didn't read it is a challenge to May. After the reception it got last night it was surprisingly flattering to May.
What is always amazing to me is how we obsess about the £350m a week on a bus or even the £2 billon for the DUP deal but at no time during the election or since has there been any debate about the £50 billion this year and in future we will be throwing away on interest on debt. And that is interest at some of the lowest effective interest rate terms in centuries - heaven help us if the rates rose in the future.
That's equivalent to increasing spending on the NHS by nearly 50 per cent - and it's all handed over to the financial sectors. Yet no politician or journalist ever raises it or discusses this planned £250 Bn of spending this Parliament. Yet its rather more material that a one off DUP bribe of £2bn.
And many people, including no shortage of Conservative supporters, get worried about what it might mean for them.
They WANT tariffs. And they'll get them - A WTO solution is workable in the long term. Just not in Macch 2019 as we simply can't set ourselves up for the physical and electronic checks on all imports/exports that quickly. Which means either we leave and stay in the EEA- the EFTA Norway option. Or we fall all the way out and give our economy a fatal heart attack. The Europeansdon't have to give us shit and they absolutely won't. And if the boot was on the other foot we'd do the same
NEW THREAD
A lot of our team are arguing about what the objective should be, and playing to the gallery in the Conservative party and tabloid press. Maybe these sorts of things should have been worked out before A50 was invoked. One wonders what they have been up to over the last year.
It shows no sign of working. How many more years do you require ?
@Big_G_NorthWales, @RochdalePioneers
Both of you have gotten tariffs exactly wrong. The EU does not impose tariffs on goods leaving the EU, it imposes them on goods entering the EU
When the UK leaves the EU, then the EU will not impose tariffs on goods entering the UK from the EU, it will impose tariffs on goods leaving the UK for the EU: ie UK exports to the EU, not UK imports from the EU. The only reason why the UK would have tariffs slapped on UK imports from the EU would be if the UK government imposed them
The failure of damn nearly everybody to understand how this works is of some concern. That Wetherspoons bloke got it wrong yesterday too....