Old ground, but the dementia tax was inexplicably stupid. It was highly emotive, it affected the elderly (who vote rather a lot), there was no groundwork done for it, and the only reason it made the manifesto was because May's two lieutenants had far too much sway.
The groundwork point is the most important. Surprising people is fine if you're giving them sweeties. If you're diving headfirst into an emotive policy area full of financial implications you have to prepare the ground, otherwise it's as risky as pursuing a Carthaginian towards a lake.
The dementia tax was an entirely right and fair policy - however as you say no groundwork was laid and it was not properly explained. It's quite amazing now little understanding there is of the current social care system.
Compare two elderly women with dementia both living on a state pension under the current system.
One woman owns a £3m house outright and has £20k in cash savings. She currently gets free home care despite having assets worth over £3m.
The has £40k in the bank she inherited from her parents, rents a council flat and no other assets. She is required to pay 100 per cent of her home care charges out of her savings until they reach £23k.
So the former worth over £3m gets her home care paid for by the taxpayer. The latter worth £40k pays 100 per cent of the costs. Isn't that disgusting - yet that is the current policy. Under the Manifesto proposal the poorer woman gets to keep all her savings - the former has to eat into her £3m asset not by paying upfront but via a charge on her property. Why should a house be treated differently to any other asset - it can be converted into cash in weeks after all.
Let's be honest it was never about caring about elderly people with dementia - it was about maximising inheritances for their 60 year old kids.
Of course the Tories never explained that - and Labour instead fought for multi million pound property owners at the expense of poorer pensioners.
It just illustrated Mays inability to get a message across.
We might not like what a party is proposing but most of all we want politicians who are ready to take unpopular decisions which are right for the country.
Are you having a laugh?
EDIT: Having read the rest of the piece I think Mike's wrong. The u-turn (if you can call it that) wasn't great, but that wasn't what the opposition focussed on. It was the policy itself that did the damage.
It's certainly not true we want politicians to take right butv unpopular decisions. By definition they are unpopular, unwanted. What is the case is we say we want someone who does what is right not just popular. But we don't reward it. And of course they in turn know they cannot do any thing, right or wrong, unless they are popular enough, so have to do silly stuff to remain popular.
I think you can get away with one unpopular policy - even a very unpopular one that is clearly going wrong, like Iraq - if the feeling is that you're otherwise on top of things. Floating voters take an overall view. The Tory problem is that they seem to have no particular ideas on what they want to do (in which they resemble Labour in 2010), except for some sort of Brexit, and they can't even agree on what sort of Brexit they want. I wouldn't say that people feel scared of the Government or that they hate Mrs May, but a common current view is that they're a waste of space at a difficult time when we actually need a competent government.
They aren't very convinced by Labour either at the moment. But the level of apparent unity and firmness of purpose will give a competence edge which is usually a Tory asset.
'Firmness of purpose' is perhaps a slight exaggeration, considering how many times you've told us recently that Labour doesn't need a policy on Europe.
The dementia tax showed pb at its worst during the election -- there was relentless spin on pb that it was the finest, most magnificent policy since the repeal of the Corn Laws. I realise it is essential to pb that we have activists from all sides but sometimes it descends into targeted astroturfing -- presumably with the intention of influencing visiting journalists.
Complacency, even when you seem to have a large advantage, is always bloody silly. At best it doesn't help, at worst it turns a seemingly certain victory to defeat (more like Cannae than Trasimene).
Was not just complacency, it was combined with even more visceral contempt than ever for their opponent.
There were several factors why people voted Leave, immigration and sovereignty being the most obvious. I'm not often right but before the Referendum I predicted a large number of Labour voters with little interest in the EU saw it as an opportunity to give Cameron and Osborne a kicking, and they got the result they wanted.
Unfair or not, so many Conservatives have no idea how large swathes of people, mainly in large cities, despise them. I don't feel that way at all but a little humility from time to time would do them a massive favour.
Re the thread header, if the egotists were to concentrate on governing rather than posturing they might make a better job of it.
One of the reasons the AV referendum went the way it did was because Labour, unofficially, wanted to give Nick Clegg a kicking. I recall the leaflets.
The dementia tax showed pb at its worst during the election -- there was relentless spin on pb that it was the finest, most magnificent policy since the repeal of the Corn Laws. I realise it is essential to pb that we have activists from all sides but sometimes it descends into targeted astroturfing -- presumably with the intention of influencing visiting journalists.
On topic, no, the dementia tax proposal was so toxic that I don't think anything could have saved that issue. I don't think the U-turn made much difference - it was too fiddly to cut through. What did more damage was Theresa May hiding from the debates and the public. That didn't look strong.
But Mike's main point is right. The Tories are delivering little successfully at the moment which combined with too much internal conflict is harming how they're seen by the public.
The dementia tax wasn't toxic. Reminding people of an iniquitous, unsustainable, and essentially non party political issue was the toxic bit.
I canvassed hundreds of people during the election. I have plenty of first-hand feedback and that policy was toxic. One problem was that it simply wasn't well-explained, as should always have been obvious: you can't explain complex detail in the middle of an election campaign when your opponents will look to take any opportunity to discredit your plans and your reputation. It should have been obvious that a single, possibly distorted, criticism could kill support for it if effectively made (the Tories want to take you house), and as such should never have been in the manifesto.
What should have been there was a commitment to come up with a policy within a year, after consultation, and the general principles that would guide that policy. Then, it could have been rolled out as before. Once it'd been in operation for 3-4 years at the next election, the potential to scare voters would have been much reduced.
What's utterly amazing is how obvious this is, and how off-piste you would need to be to think otherwise.
I can only imagine that in the rush to get the manifesto out, a massive mistake was made.
On topic, no, the dementia tax proposal was so toxic that I don't think anything could have saved that issue. I don't think the U-turn made much difference - it was too fiddly to cut through. What did more damage was Theresa May hiding from the debates and the public. That didn't look strong.
But Mike's main point is right. The Tories are delivering little successfully at the moment which combined with too much internal conflict is harming how they're seen by the public.
The dementia tax wasn't toxic. Reminding people of an iniquitous, unsustainable, and essentially non party political issue was the toxic bit.
I canvassed hundreds of people during the election. I have plenty of first-hand feedback and that policy was toxic. One problem was that it simply wasn't well-explained, as should always have been obvious: you can't explain complex detail in the middle of an election campaign when your opponents will look to take any opportunity to discredit your plans and your reputation. It should have been obvious that a single, possibly distorted, criticism could kill support for it if effectively made (the Tories want to take you house), and as such should never have been in the manifesto.
What should have been there was a commitment to come up with a policy within a year, after consultation, and the general principles that would guide that policy. Then, it could have been rolled out as before. Once it'd been in operation for 3-4 years at the next election, the potential to scare voters would have been much reduced.
First you define the problem, and let that problem sink into the public's conciousness. Then you come up with potential solutions (for big issues, with reports and inquiries) and duke it out with the opposition. But the public must believe the problem is large enough to be worth the downsides.
Although as the Browne Review showed, even careful preparation does not always work when party-political considerations come into view.
IMV the issue was probably that the government did not prepare the ground well enough pre-election. Elderly care is a real issue, but many people probably did not believe the Conservatives suddenly cared about it.
On topic, no, the dementia tax proposal was so toxic that I don't think anything could have saved that issue. I don't think the U-turn made much difference - it was too fiddly to cut through. What did more damage was Theresa May hiding from the debates and the public. That didn't look strong.
But Mike's main point is right. The Tories are delivering little successfully at the moment which combined with too much internal conflict is harming how they're seen by the public.
The dementia tax wasn't toxic. Reminding people of an iniquitous, unsustainable, and essentially non party political issue was the toxic bit.
Reminding people of it would not in itself have done the damage if they went on to say ”so we are going to have a Royal Commission and a cross party initiative and kick the issue into touch for years”.
Looking at you, Nick and Fiona.
That said, it puts paid to the party/country charge against the Cons. Definitely bad for the Party and good for the country.
Mr. Scrapheap, indeed. But what will the public do, faced with a weak government and an Opposition that's not up to it?
I think the Conservative Party lost its reputation for competence when it resorted to cheating in the 2015 election - sufficiently proved by the Electoral Commission, if not enough evidence for criminal prosecutions.
It then went in for more dodgy practice in the 2017 election.
And ended up with a thoroughly incompetent EU Referendum campaign, where it headed the campaign on both sides, and failed to come up with any answers, before, during and since.
So it is not only a thoroughly incompetent government - of course it is - it is also a thoroughý illegitimate one.
If it had been a legitimate government, it might have been able to keep in touch with reality, and thus be more worthy of respect.
The dementia tax showed pb at its worst during the election -- there was relentless spin on pb that it was the finest, most magnificent policy since the repeal of the Corn Laws. I realise it is essential to pb that we have activists from all sides but sometimes it descends into targeted astroturfing -- presumably with the intention of influencing visiting journalists.
I take it you weren't a fan of the "dementia tax" policy - what in particular did you find so awful?
(Note to candidates: remember that we are starting from here for this question.)
There were several factors why people voted Leave, immigration and sovereignty being the most obvious. I'm not often right but before the Referendum I predicted a large number of Labour voters with little interest in the EU saw it as an opportunity to give Cameron and Osborne a kicking, and they got the result they wanted.
Unfair or not, so many Conservatives have no idea how large swathes of people, mainly in large cities, despise them. I don't feel that way at all but a little humility from time to time would do them a massive favour.
Re the thread header, if the egotists were to concentrate on governing rather than posturing they might make a better job of it.
One of the reasons the AV referendum went the way it did was because Labour, unofficially, wanted to give Nick Clegg a kicking. I recall the leaflets.
Correct, and I can't think of a single issue where Clegg and Cameron disagreed. The two main thread writers on here are TSE and MS, its difficult to tell the difference even though one is a fanatical Lib Dem and the other a Cameron worshipper.
The dementia tax showed pb at its worst during the election -- there was relentless spin on pb that it was the finest, most magnificent policy since the repeal of the Corn Laws. I realise it is essential to pb that we have activists from all sides but sometimes it descends into targeted astroturfing -- presumably with the intention of influencing visiting journalists.
Citations required.
Does rcs log contributors' IP addresses? Was there (and is there at PMQs) an uptick from the Westminster area?
On Osborne I've always given him credit for being clever, and a strategic thinker, but with significant personality and behavioural flaws - it was too obvious that he saw everyone else as a pawn to play in his game, and didn't really care if they liked it or not. Hint: they didn't.
I think he worked well in partnership with David Cameron, and William Hague (whose influence is underrated) up until 2016, because they compensated for his political weaknesses and took the edge off him.
But, his brand of strategy had started to look rather tired by 2016, which was much more suited to the early 00s than now, and he simply made too many enemies.
By 2016 it was clear his economic strategy wasn't working.
Osborne changed economic strategy.
In 2010 it was to end the government and current account deficits in 5 years, a 'March of the makers', to stop the UK being a country which 'borrows money from China to buy things from China'.
In 2012 he changed to extra borrowing to fuel a house price and consumption bubble.
The consequences being the national debt still rising, a £115bn current account deficit, falling home ownership and intergenerational inequality.
Aside from the long term damage this has done to the country it will also do long term damage to the Conservative party.
All so that the Conservatives could have a few more votes in 2015.
On topic, no, the dementia tax proposal was so toxic that I don't think anything could have saved that issue. I don't think the U-turn made much difference - it was too fiddly to cut through. What did more damage was Theresa May hiding from the debates and the public. That didn't look strong.
But Mike's main point is right. The Tories are delivering little successfully at the moment which combined with too much internal conflict is harming how they're seen by the public.
The dementia tax wasn't toxic. Reminding people of an iniquitous, unsustainable, and essentially non party political issue was the toxic bit.
I canvassed hundreds of people during the election. I have plenty of first-hand feedback and that policy was toxic. One problem was that it simply wasn't well-explained, as should always have been obvious: you can't explain complex detail in the middle of an election campaign when your opponents will look to take any opportunity to discredit your plans and your reputation. It should have been obvious that a single, possibly distorted, criticism could kill support for it if effectively made (the Tories want to take you house), and as such should never have been in the manifesto.
What should have been there was a commitment to come up with a policy within a year, after consultation, and the general principles that would guide that policy. Then, it could have been rolled out as before. Once it'd been in operation for 3-4 years at the next election, the potential to scare voters would have been much reduced.
I canvassed hundreds of people during the election also and I have plenty of first-hand feedback that the policy was hard but actually fair. And I was in a central London constituency full of multi-million pound houses wherein plenty, and I mean thousands of voters voted for Jezza over Tezza.
It was with a resigned face that most of these people realised that it was the right policy although they personally would likely be hit.
So does that make it toxic? You takes your pick but for me the answer is no, any more than rationing any other scarce resource is toxic.
The dementia tax showed pb at its worst during the election -- there was relentless spin on pb that it was the finest, most magnificent policy since the repeal of the Corn Laws. I realise it is essential to pb that we have activists from all sides but sometimes it descends into targeted astroturfing -- presumably with the intention of influencing visiting journalists.
Citations required.
Does rcs log contributors' IP addresses? Was there (and is there at PMQs) an uptick from the Westminster area?
I was looking for citations on this bit, where you wrote 'there was relentless spin on pb that it was the finest, most magnificent policy since the repeal of the Corn Laws.'
The dementia tax showed pb at its worst during the election -- there was relentless spin on pb that it was the finest, most magnificent policy since the repeal of the Corn Laws. I realise it is essential to pb that we have activists from all sides but sometimes it descends into targeted astroturfing -- presumably with the intention of influencing visiting journalists.
Citations required.
Does rcs log contributors' IP addresses? Was there (and is there at PMQs) an uptick from the Westminster area?
I honestly don't remember this. I remember a number of us saying it was an clusterf*** of epic proportions. I remember the odd comment saying it was 'brave' and good for the country and will help reassure people.
Memory is a strange thing though. Someone will have to check the record.
On topic, no, the dementia tax proposal was so toxic that I don't think anything could have saved that issue. I don't think the U-turn made much difference - it was too fiddly to cut through. What did more damage was Theresa May hiding from the debates and the public. That didn't look strong.
But Mike's main point is right. The Tories are delivering little successfully at the moment which combined with too much internal conflict is harming how they're seen by the public.
The dementia tax wasn't toxic. Reminding people of an iniquitous, unsustainable, and essentially non party political issue was the toxic bit.
I canvassed hundreds of people during the election. I have plenty of first-hand feedback and that policy was toxic. One problem was that it simply wasn't well-explained, as should always have been obvious: you can't explain complex detail in the middle of an election campaign when your opponents will look to take any opportunity to discredit your plans and your reputation. It should have been obvious that a single, possibly distorted, criticism could kill support for it if effectively made (the Tories want to take you house), and as such should never have been in the manifesto.
What should have been there was a commitment to come up with a policy within a year, after consultation, and the general principles that would guide that policy. Then, it could have been rolled out as before. Once it'd been in operation for 3-4 years at the next election, the potential to scare voters would have been much reduced.
I canvassed hundreds of people during the election also and I have plenty of first-hand feedback that the policy was hard but actually fair. And I was in a central London constituency full of multi-million pound houses wherein plenty, and I mean thousands of voters voted for Jezza over Tezza.
It was with a resigned face that most of these people realised that it was the right policy although they personally would likely be hit.
So does that make it toxic? You takes your pick but for me the answer is no, any more than rationing any other scarce resource is toxic.
It was too hard a sell in the election campaign as it came from nowhere. It needed to have been discussed a few times in the past 6 months so people had time to think about it and comprehend why it was required.
The dementia tax showed pb at its worst during the election -- there was relentless spin on pb that it was the finest, most magnificent policy since the repeal of the Corn Laws. I realise it is essential to pb that we have activists from all sides but sometimes it descends into targeted astroturfing -- presumably with the intention of influencing visiting journalists.
I take it you weren't a fan of the "dementia tax" policy - what in particular did you find so awful?
(Note to candidates: remember that we are starting from here for this question.)
I have no fixed view on the policy. I'm merely pointing out the contrast between the cheerleading, perhaps augmented by astroturfing, before polling day, and the current consensus.
There were several factors why people voted Leave, immigration and sovereignty being the most obvious. I'm not often right but before the Referendum I predicted a large number of Labour voters with little interest in the EU saw it as an opportunity to give Cameron and Osborne a kicking, and they got the result they wanted.
Unfair or not, so many Conservatives have no idea how large swathes of people, mainly in large cities, despise them. I don't feel that way at all but a little humility from time to time would do them a massive favour.
Re the thread header, if the egotists were to concentrate on governing rather than posturing they might make a better job of it.
One of the reasons the AV referendum went the way it did was because Labour, unofficially, wanted to give Nick Clegg a kicking. I recall the leaflets.
Correct, and I can't think of a single issue where Clegg and Cameron disagreed. The two main thread writers on here are TSE and MS, its difficult to tell the difference even though one is a fanatical Lib Dem and the other a Cameron worshipper.
Well that says more about you and then anything else. here's somethings Cameron and Clegg disagreed on
i) AV ii) House of Lords reform iii) Drug policy
I could list more, but I don't want to embarrass you any further.
There were several factors why people voted Leave, immigration and sovereignty being the most obvious. I'm not often right but before the Referendum I predicted a large number of Labour voters with little interest in the EU saw it as an opportunity to give Cameron and Osborne a kicking, and they got the result they wanted.
Unfair or not, so many Conservatives have no idea how large swathes of people, mainly in large cities, despise them. I don't feel that way at all but a little humility from time to time would do them a massive favour.
Re the thread header, if the egotists were to concentrate on governing rather than posturing they might make a better job of it.
One of the reasons the AV referendum went the way it did was because Labour, unofficially, wanted to give Nick Clegg a kicking. I recall the leaflets.
Correct, and I can't think of a single issue where Clegg and Cameron disagreed. The two main thread writers on here are TSE and MS, its difficult to tell the difference even though one is a fanatical Lib Dem and the other a Cameron worshipper.
Both are realists, unwilling to particularly let dogma get in the way of practicality. Their political philosophies are somewhat different, but when thrown together they had to put their differences aside and work together.
ISTR some issues where there were differences got kicked into the long grass.
The alternative would have been for open warfare between them, as we have seen in both the Labour and Conservative parties recently. It is to Cameron and Clegg's credit that the coalition government was far more stable than not only the one we have now, but also probably Blair's from 2003 when Brown's agitating was at its height.
I don't disagree with Mike's analysis although I suspect the niggling doubts began when the over-rated "Spreadsheet Phil" cocked up on Class 4 National Insurance contributions for the self employed in his Spring budget only to have to reverse the changes shortly afterwards.
May was in charge. Either both missed it, or they knew and then they back pedalled, both of which she must have signed off on. If it was the latter, and if she u-turned, then it us on her since she surely knew about it beforehand.
Sure - but as the thread header says it is the TORY record of competence not May's or Hammond's or anyone else..
Of course Osbo did something similar with his omnishambles budget but that wasn't a few months before an election. Nevertheless given a strong and sturdy GE campaign people would have forgotten about Hammond's budget. But May's u-turn kind of reinforced the diminishing competence meme x10
There were several factors why people voted Leave, immigration and sovereignty being the most obvious. I'm not often right but before the Referendum I predicted a large number of Labour voters with little interest in the EU saw it as an opportunity to give Cameron and Osborne a kicking, and they got the result they wanted.
Unfair or not, so many Conservatives have no idea how large swathes of people, mainly in large cities, despise them. I don't feel that way at all but a little humility from time to time would do them a massive favour.
Re the thread header, if the egotists were to concentrate on governing rather than posturing they might make a better job of it.
One of the reasons the AV referendum went the way it did was because Labour, unofficially, wanted to give Nick Clegg a kicking. I recall the leaflets.
Correct, and I can't think of a single issue where Clegg and Cameron disagreed. The two main thread writers on here are TSE and MS, its difficult to tell the difference even though one is a fanatical Lib Dem and the other a Cameron worshipper.
Well that says more about you and then anything else. here's somethings Cameron and Clegg disagreed on
i) AV ii) House of Lords reform iii) Drug policy
I could list more, but I don't want to embarrass you any further.
Please feel free to embarrass me, after all you do it to yourself on a daily basis. I'm sure the Cleggs and Camerons had many heated discussions in the nice restaurants in which they dined together.
You should do planning for both sides of a referendum outcome.
If the civil service had planned to leave the single market, the Brexiteers would have said it was nonsense
There was no Leave scenario the civil service could realistically plan for, and the Brexiteers know it, they just need a scapegoat for their fuckup.
Firstly - the planning should not have leaked. It doesn't normally when civil servants prepare before elections for opposing parties. So the Brexiteers would never have had an opportunity to complain.
If it had leaked, and they had complained, well - so what?
The point is that the country should be well-run regardless of what the public chooses.
In recent GEs, Civil Servants will have done preparation for a range of coalition options, no overall control etc. So they are perfectly capable of planning for uncertainty.
There is plenty of work that could have been done so that when TM/DC came back after the result they were faced with a bunch of problems, and a list of possible solutions.
For instance - it must have been pretty obvious that you would need new border checks/customs arrangements in Dover under scenarios where we leave the customs union. Then you'd realise there are problems with the physical infrastructure, roads need to be widened etc.
Rather than discovering new problems like this 6 months or more into the job - TM should have been given as much of this information as possible on day 1 if not before.
I think that's a core reason why we haven't made as much progress as we'd like in negotiations - because Ministers are still discovering potential issues and then having to rethink their plans.
On topic, no, the dementia tax proposal was so toxic that I don't think anything could have saved that issue. I don't think the U-turn made much difference - it was too fiddly to cut through. What did more damage was Theresa May hiding from the debates and the public. That didn't look strong.
But Mike's main point is right. The Tories are delivering little successfully at the moment which combined with too much internal conflict is harming how they're seen by the public.
The dementia tax wasn't toxic. Reminding people of an iniquitous, unsustainable, and essentially non party political issue was the toxic bit.
I canvassed hundreds of people during the election. I have plenty of first-hand feedback and that policy was toxic. One problem was that it simply wasn't well-explained, as should always have been obvious: you can't explain complex detail in the middle of an election campaign when your opponents will look to take any opportunity to discredit your plans and your reputation. It should have been obvious that a single, possibly distorted, criticism could kill support for it if effectively made (the Tories want to take you house), and as such should never have been in the manifesto.
What should have been there was a commitment to come up with a policy within a year, after consultation, and the general principles that would guide that policy. Then, it could have been rolled out as before. Once it'd been in operation for 3-4 years at the next election, the potential to scare voters would have been much reduced.
I canvassed hundreds of people during the election also and I have plenty of first-hand feedback that the policy was hard but actually fair. And I was in a central London constituency full of multi-million pound houses wherein plenty, and I mean thousands of voters voted for Jezza over Tezza.
It was with a resigned face that most of these people realised that it was the right policy although they personally would likely be hit.
So does that make it toxic? You takes your pick but for me the answer is no, any more than rationing any other scarce resource is toxic.
It was too hard a sell in the election campaign as it came from nowhere. It needed to have been discussed a few times in the past 6 months so people had time to think about it and comprehend why it was required.
Yes I agree as people have said, it was a bombshell and took everyone by surprise. It was an indication of the hubris exhibited by Nick & Fiona. Such a large majority, we can be bold. And of course as Gordon Brown could have told the team, the reality is far, far different.
But one way or another, and bedside manner aside, it was the right thing to do.
The dementia tax showed pb at its worst during the election -- there was relentless spin on pb that it was the finest, most magnificent policy since the repeal of the Corn Laws. I realise it is essential to pb that we have activists from all sides but sometimes it descends into targeted astroturfing -- presumably with the intention of influencing visiting journalists.
I take it you weren't a fan of the "dementia tax" policy - what in particular did you find so awful?
(Note to candidates: remember that we are starting from here for this question.)
I have no fixed view on the policy. I'm merely pointing out the contrast between the cheerleading, perhaps augmented by astroturfing, before polling day, and the current consensus.
There were several factors why people voted Leave, immigration and sovereignty being the most obvious. I'm not often right but before the Referendum I predicted a large number of Labour voters with little interest in the EU saw it as an opportunity to give Cameron and Osborne a kicking, and they got the result they wanted.
Unfair or not, so many Conservatives have no idea how large swathes of people, mainly in large cities, despise them. I don't feel that way at all but a little humility from time to time would do them a massive favour.
Re the thread header, if the egotists were to concentrate on governing rather than posturing they might make a better job of it.
One of the reasons the AV referendum went the way it did was because Labour, unofficially, wanted to give Nick Clegg a kicking. I recall the leaflets.
Correct, and I can't think of a single issue where Clegg and Cameron disagreed. The two main thread writers on here are TSE and MS, its difficult to tell the difference even though one is a fanatical Lib Dem and the other a Cameron worshipper.
Both are realists, unwilling to particularly let dogma get in the way of practicality. Their political philosophies are somewhat different, but when thrown together they had to put their differences aside and work together.
ISTR some issues where there were differences got kicked into the long grass.
The alternative would have been for open warfare between them, as we have seen in both the Labour and Conservative parties recently. It is to Cameron and Clegg's credit that the coalition government was far more stable than not only the one we have now, but also probably Blair's from 2003 when Brown's agitating was at its height.
I never get why people call that coalition stable, the results of the 2015 election suggest anything but.
On Osborne I've always given him credit for being clever, and a strategic thinker, but with significant personality and behavioural flaws - it was too obvious that he saw everyone else as a pawn to play in his game, and didn't really care if they liked it or not. Hint: they didn't.
I think he worked well in partnership with David Cameron, and William Hague (whose influence is underrated) up until 2016, because they compensated for his political weaknesses and took the edge off him.
But, his brand of strategy had started to look rather tired by 2016, which was much more suited to the early 00s than now, and he simply made too many enemies.
By 2016 it was clear his economic strategy wasn't working.
Osborne changed economic strategy.
In 2010 it was to end the government and current account deficits in 5 years, a 'March of the makers', to stop the UK being a country which 'borrows money from China to buy things from China'.
In 2012 he changed to extra borrowing to fuel a house price and consumption bubble.
The consequences being the national debt still rising, a £115bn current account deficit, falling home ownership and intergenerational inequality.
Aside from the long term damage this has done to the country it will also do long term damage to the Conservative party.
All so that the Conservatives could have a few more votes in 2015.
The odd thing about Osborne is that he kept up the harshness on austerity rhetoric while backing off austerity in substance.
For instance - it must have been pretty obvious that you would need new border checks/customs arrangements in Dover under scenarios where we leave the customs union. Then you'd realise there are problems with the physical infrastructure, roads need to be widened etc.
Brexiteers explicitly said before the vote we would not leave the single market.
One of the hardest things about the political system is that it's very difficult to decouple popularity and support for one of the Big Two from unpopularity and fear of the other one. How many people voted Tory because they were enthused at the Tory offering and PM versus how many voted that way for fear of Corbyn and Labour? And I don't think you can decouple it without a great deal of effort.
I'd tend to agree that the majority of people want "competent governance/economy" over any ideology, and rightly or wrongly, the Tories have associated themselves successfully with that theme. Losing that theme is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for losing power - as long as sufficient people are anti-Labour/anti-Corbyn (and there is a significant number of such; while Corbyn enthused a chunk of people, he disenthused another chunk - this chunk usually votes Conservative to start with, so it's hard to make out, but it does mean peeling them away to get over the top will be extraordinarily difficult).
The downside of that losing the competence tick is, for the Tories, like skydiving without a reserve parachute. They'll be okay until all of a sudden they're really not.
On Osborne I've always given him credit for being clever, and a strategic thinker, but with significant personality and behavioural flaws - it was too obvious that he saw everyone else as a pawn to play in his game, and didn't really care if they liked it or not. Hint: they didn't.
I think he worked well in partnership with David Cameron, and William Hague (whose influence is underrated) up until 2016, because they compensated for his political weaknesses and took the edge off him.
But, his brand of strategy had started to look rather tired by 2016, which was much more suited to the early 00s than now, and he simply made too many enemies.
The Osborne/Crosby of demonising the other side in apocalyptic/dogwhistle terms is one that has diminishing returns. While it effectively hurts whoever you currently fighting, it also drags your own party down to the gutter and causes a lot of people to hate you. Then when someone fresh comes along (Corbyn), you start from a lower base of likability, everyone is enthused just by the thought of change and you become the boy that cries wolf when you try the same thing again.
For instance - it must have been pretty obvious that you would need new border checks/customs arrangements in Dover under scenarios where we leave the customs union. Then you'd realise there are problems with the physical infrastructure, roads need to be widened etc.
Brexiteers explicitly said before the vote we would not leave the single market.
Why would they plan for that?
Some did - some didn't. I think most said we would leave the SM (although I could be wrong on that). Sensible government would have been to model for both scenarios.
For instance - it must have been pretty obvious that you would need new border checks/customs arrangements in Dover under scenarios where we leave the customs union. Then you'd realise there are problems with the physical infrastructure, roads need to be widened etc.
Brexiteers explicitly said before the vote we would not leave the single market.
Why would they plan for that?
"The EU’s supporters say ‘we must have access to the Single Market’. Britain will have access to the Single Market after we vote leave. British businesses that want to sell to the EU will obey EU rules just as American, Swiss, or Chinese businesses do. Only about one in twenty British businesses export to the EU but every business is subject to every EU law. There is no need for Britain to impose all EU rules on all UK businesses as we do now, any more than Australia or Canada or India imposes all EU rules on their businesses. British businesses that wish to follow Single Market rules should be able to without creating obligations on everybody else to follow them. The vast majority of British businesses that do not sell to the EU will benefit from the much greater flexibility we will have.
The idea that our trade will suffer because we stop imposing terrible rules such as the Clinical Trial Directive is silly. The idea that ‘access to the Single Market’ is a binary condition and one must accept all Single Market rules is already nonsense - the Schengen system is ‘Single Market’ and we are not part of that. After we vote to leave, we will expand the number of damaging Single Market rules that we no longer impose and we will behave like the vast majority of countries around the world, trading with the EU but, crucially, without accepting the supremacy of EU law."
For instance - it must have been pretty obvious that you would need new border checks/customs arrangements in Dover under scenarios where we leave the customs union. Then you'd realise there are problems with the physical infrastructure, roads need to be widened etc.
Brexiteers explicitly said before the vote we would not leave the single market.
Why would they plan for that?
"The EU’s supporters say ‘we must have access to the Single Market’. Britain will have access to the Single Market after we vote leave. British businesses that want to sell to the EU will obey EU rules just as American, Swiss, or Chinese businesses do. Only about one in twenty British businesses export to the EU but every business is subject to every EU law. There is no need for Britain to impose all EU rules on all UK businesses as we do now, any more than Australia or Canada or India imposes all EU rules on their businesses. British businesses that wish to follow Single Market rules should be able to without creating obligations on everybody else to follow them. The vast majority of British businesses that do not sell to the EU will benefit from the much greater flexibility we will have.
The idea that our trade will suffer because we stop imposing terrible rules such as the Clinical Trial Directive is silly. The idea that ‘access to the Single Market’ is a binary condition and one must accept all Single Market rules is already nonsense - the Schengen system is ‘Single Market’ and we are not part of that. After we vote to leave, we will expand the number of damaging Single Market rules that we no longer impose and we will behave like the vast majority of countries around the world, trading with the EU but, crucially, without accepting the supremacy of EU law."
On Osborne I've always given him credit for being clever, and a strategic thinker, but with significant personality and behavioural flaws - it was too obvious that he saw everyone else as a pawn to play in his game, and didn't really care if they liked it or not. Hint: they didn't.
I think he worked well in partnership with David Cameron, and William Hague (whose influence is underrated) up until 2016, because they compensated for his political weaknesses and took the edge off him.
But, his brand of strategy had started to look rather tired by 2016, which was much more suited to the early 00s than now, and he simply made too many enemies.
By 2016 it was clear his economic strategy wasn't working.
I am no fan of George Osborne, but one thing I won't take criticism of is his broad macroeconomic strategy.
But what token did he get it wrong?
He steadily reduced a humongous deficit, whilst ensuring the highest employment rate for nearly 40 years. Any faster, the Tories would have been thrown out of office for excessive cuts, any slower and the problem would simply not have been dealt with, and lead to a even larger ballooning of our national debt to unsustainable levels.
One of the hardest things about the political system is that it's very difficult to decouple popularity and support for one of the Big Two from unpopularity and fear of the other one. How many people voted Tory because they were enthused at the Tory offering and PM versus how many voted that way for fear of Corbyn and Labour? And I don't think you can decouple it without a great deal of effort.
I'd tend to agree that the majority of people want "competent governance/economy" over any ideology, and rightly or wrongly, the Tories have associated themselves successfully with that theme. Losing that theme is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for losing power - as long as sufficient people are anti-Labour/anti-Corbyn (and there is a significant number of such; while Corbyn enthused a chunk of people, he disenthused another chunk - this chunk usually votes Conservative to start with, so it's hard to make out, but it does mean peeling them away to get over the top will be extraordinarily difficult).
The downside of that losing the competence tick is, for the Tories, like skydiving without a reserve parachute. They'll be okay until all of a sudden they're really not.
The Tories will probably be OK until the Corbyn firewall goes. That means one last GE in which they win most seats, but perhaps not an overall majority.
On topic, no, the dementia tax proposal was so toxic that I don't think anything could have saved that issue. I don't think the U-turn made much difference - it was too fiddly to cut through. What did more damage was Theresa May hiding from the debates and the public. That didn't look strong.
But Mike's main point is right. The Tories are delivering little successfully at the moment which combined with too much internal conflict is harming how they're seen by the public.
The dementia tax wasn't toxic. Reminding people of an iniquitous, unsustainable, and essentially non party political issue was the toxic bit.
I canvassed hundreds of people during the election. I have plenty of first-hand feedback and that policy was toxic. One problem was that it simply wasn't well-explained, as should always have been obvious: you can't explain complex detail in the middle of an election campaign when your opponents will look to take any opportunity to discredit your plans and your reputation. It should have been obvious that a single, possibly distorted, criticism could kill support for it if effectively made (the Tories want to take you house), and as such should never have been in the manifesto.
What should have been there was a commitment to come up with a policy within a year, after consultation, and the general principles that would guide that policy. Then, it could have been rolled out as before. Once it'd been in operation for 3-4 years at the next election, the potential to scare voters would have been much reduced.
My main experience of canvassing was (a) May Ratnered her own USP and (b) the failure to go on the economy was a big mistake.
People were just very disappointed in Theresa May, and fed up of austerity, so were tempted by the only fresh thing on the menu.
This is the most incompetent government since Eden and Macmillan.
Current Betfair midprices:
Johnson 6.6 Davis 7.6 Rudd 9.4 Mogg 9.6 Davidson 16.25 (ridiculous: she should be at maybe 80) Hammond 19.5
implied price of anyone bar the above: 2.5
Rudd looks strong and may go into the last two, if there are a last two for more than a few hours. Which is not to say she's as strong as Johnson, but she's doing well and against Johnson she could come across as nice, sane and safe, albeit without flair. If a "Stop Johnson" candidate arises, it could be her.
Johnson and Mogg both have an instantly recognisable image, a cartoon style - Mr Cripes and Mr Likes His Nanny. Neither image is realistic but who's talking about reality? It's worth recalling the role of wrestling in building Trump's successful cartoon image in the US.
I'm still happy with my investment in Davis-Rudd-Mogg-Johnson.
Plus Vote Leave were promising so many contradictory things, as well as unrealistic things, the civil service couldn't realistically wargame for it.
The civil service is so incompetent that they couldn't wargame the worst possible case they could come up with? Really they couldn't imagine a hard exit as something to plan for? really? WTF!
Two arguments are routinely advanced for the status quo. First, it is suggested that May must stay in place until the Brexit talks are concluded. The idiot logic of this claim is that the most important negotiations to face this country since the second world war require the smack of weak leadership.
Plus Vote Leave were promising so many contradictory things, as well as unrealistic things, the civil service couldn't realistically wargame for it.
The civil service is so incompetent that they couldn't wargame the worst possible case they could come up with? Really they couldn't imagine a hard exit as something to plan for? really? WTF!
But then Vote Leave would have accused them and the government of engaging in Project Fear.
Would you like me to list all the times 'Hard/WTO Brexit' was called Project Fear?
On topic, it's an interesting question - the events of September 1992 are hailed by many as having been hugely positive for the economy in the medium and longer term and there's plenty of evidence to support it but the political impact of 16/9/92 was awful.
The perception was the Government has lost control of the situation (which, in a way, they had). The unprecedented hiking of interest rates to defend sterling would have looked good if it had succeeded but the sight of Lamont (and some bloke behind him) coming out of the Treasury in the evening and basically admitting control had been lost was politically shattering.
In truth, the route to the 1997 rout started from that point even though as many would argue, the economic consequences handed Brown and Blair an extremely good legacy.
Government is about management and good management is looking as though you are in control of events. The moment it looks as though events are controlling you is the time to start worrying. Does May look in control of events ? Just about - for now.
The dementia tax showed pb at its worst during the election -- there was relentless spin on pb that it was the finest, most magnificent policy since the repeal of the Corn Laws. I realise it is essential to pb that we have activists from all sides but sometimes it descends into targeted astroturfing -- presumably with the intention of influencing visiting journalists.
Some of us said it was a disaster from the get-go... And the WFA changes.
For instance - it must have been pretty obvious that you would need new border checks/customs arrangements in Dover under scenarios where we leave the customs union. Then you'd realise there are problems with the physical infrastructure, roads need to be widened etc.
Brexiteers explicitly said before the vote we would not leave the single market.
Why would they plan for that?
"The EU’s supporters say ‘we must have access to the Single Market’. Britain will have access to the Single Market after we vote leave. British businesses that want to sell to the EU will obey EU rules just as American, Swiss, or Chinese businesses do. Only about one in twenty British businesses export to the EU but every business is subject to every EU law. There is no need for Britain to impose all EU rules on all UK businesses as we do now, any more than Australia or Canada or India imposes all EU rules on their businesses. British businesses that wish to follow Single Market rules should be able to without creating obligations on everybody else to follow them. The vast majority of British businesses that do not sell to the EU will benefit from the much greater flexibility we will have.
The idea that our trade will suffer because we stop imposing terrible rules such as the Clinical Trial Directive is silly. The idea that ‘access to the Single Market’ is a binary condition and one must accept all Single Market rules is already nonsense - the Schengen system is ‘Single Market’ and we are not part of that. After we vote to leave, we will expand the number of damaging Single Market rules that we no longer impose and we will behave like the vast majority of countries around the world, trading with the EU but, crucially, without accepting the supremacy of EU law."
One of the hardest things about the political system is that it's very difficult to decouple popularity and support for one of the Big Two from unpopularity and fear of the other one. How many people voted Tory because they were enthused at the Tory offering and PM versus how many voted that way for fear of Corbyn and Labour? And I don't think you can decouple it without a great deal of effort.
I'd tend to agree that the majority of people want "competent governance/economy" over any ideology, and rightly or wrongly, the Tories have associated themselves successfully with that theme. Losing that theme is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for losing power - as long as sufficient people are anti-Labour/anti-Corbyn (and there is a significant number of such; while Corbyn enthused a chunk of people, he disenthused another chunk - this chunk usually votes Conservative to start with, so it's hard to make out, but it does mean peeling them away to get over the top will be extraordinarily difficult).
The downside of that losing the competence tick is, for the Tories, like skydiving without a reserve parachute. They'll be okay until all of a sudden they're really not.
The Tories will probably be OK until the Corbyn firewall goes. That means one last GE in which they win most seats, but perhaps not an overall majority.
I'd tend to agree - unless Brexit goes bad and they end up carrying the can (If it goes bad, it could end up being Black Wednesday writ large for them). In that case, all bets are off.
If they do hold through one more election, see off Corbyn, see Corbyn replaced by someone who appears more plausible/less scary, and don't manage to renew their reputation in Government... well, the electorate seem more swingy than ever. It could end up being really bad for them.
(If that happens and Brexit goes bad as well but they cling on - just - for one more term - God only knows what'll happen after that)
Mr. Gin, my mother was unimpressed with the winter fuel allowance policy. She seemed more irate at its absence in Scotland than she did the policy itself.
Government is about management and good management is looking as though you are in control of events. The moment it looks as though events are controlling you is the time to start worrying. Does May look in control of events ? Just about - for now.
She looks awfully without control. To what audience does she look in control of what events? Perhaps in a vague sense she appears to be in some kind of control to some Daily Express readers. I may ask my neighbour who reads that paper.
The Tories will probably be OK until the Corbyn firewall goes. That means one last GE in which they win most seats, but perhaps not an overall majority.
Yes that could be how it pans out. Their last campaign was moronic and there are bound to be a few wise heads who are capable of learning. Anything close to a plurality without a majority will make for a big opportunity on election night.
This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.
Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.
The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.
The hospital pass that May inherited* was down to the ineptitude of Cameron and Osborne. Imagine if they had insisted the Civil Service had done some planning for a Brexit result? Or if Cameron had kept his word and not resigned, but rather, implemented the Brexit his insane posturing both before and after the "renegotiation" had ensured?
(*not that I am exactly excusing Theresa May, standing on the touchline at Twickenham shouting to the scrum "Me! Me!! Pass it to me...." when perhaps netball was her game....)
So you're saying Brexit is a hospital pass, interesting.
I've explained many times why the civil service couldn't do proper planning for Brexit, and that is down entirely to Vote Leave.
It would have been impossible for Dave to offer any contingency plan for a Leave win. Propose a soft Brexit and Farage and co. would have screamed treachery and that the referendum was a sham; propose a hard Brexit and it would have been dismissed as part of 'Project Fear'. A lose lose situation.
The Conservatives' proposed social care policy was a good policy introduced terribly and then retreated from. And it's generally not a good idea to get voters thinking about the possibility that in future they'll be doubly incontinent and suffering from Alzheimer's. Not exactly an inspiring vision.
The Conservatives' bigger problem is that they are consumed by Brexit. It's a second order problem. If they want to be treated seriously, they're going to have to start talking with real passion about the subjects that really matter. That's why they're not seeming very competent.
Good. So you concede that leaving the single market was in the Leave manifesto prior to the vote then.
No, that document says that leaving doesn't mean leaving.
More lies and spin from the leave campaign. It says we can keep all the good stuff without any of the stuff we don't like.
And it's not true.
No - it makes it clear that Leave proposed to leave the single market (the single regulatory regime) and refutes that leaving it doesn't mean we won't have access to it.
This was extensively trailed at the time.
You constantly asserting "lies" and "spin" doesn't make it true.
Good. So you concede that leaving the single market was in the Leave manifesto prior to the vote then.
No, that document says that leaving doesn't mean leaving.
More lies and spin from the leave campaign. It says we can keep all the good stuff without any of the stuff we don't like.
And it's not true.
The new line from people like Bernard Jenkin seems to be that it would be true if only the EU weren't so unreasonable and the Treasury, CBI and the City weren't on their side.
For instance - it must have been pretty obvious that you would need new border checks/customs arrangements in Dover under scenarios where we leave the customs union. Then you'd realise there are problems with the physical infrastructure, roads need to be widened etc.
Brexiteers explicitly said before the vote we would not leave the single market.
Why would they plan for that?
"The EU’s supporters say ‘we must have access to the Single Market’. Britain will have access to the Single Market after we vote leave. British businesses that want to sell to the EU will obey EU rules just as American, Swiss, or Chinese businesses do. Only about one in twenty British businesses export to the EU but every business is subject to every EU law. There is no need for Britain to impose all EU rules on all UK businesses as we do now, any more than Australia or Canada or India imposes all EU rules on their businesses. British businesses that wish to follow Single Market rules should be able to without creating obligations on everybody else to follow them. The vast majority of British businesses that do not sell to the EU will benefit from the much greater flexibility we will have.
The idea that our trade will suffer because we stop imposing terrible rules such as the Clinical Trial Directive is silly. The idea that ‘access to the Single Market’ is a binary condition and one must accept all Single Market rules is already nonsense - the Schengen system is ‘Single Market’ and we are not part of that. After we vote to leave, we will expand the number of damaging Single Market rules that we no longer impose and we will behave like the vast majority of countries around the world, trading with the EU but, crucially, without accepting the supremacy of EU law."
... It therefore seems to me that what damages the reputation for competence is minority or weak government rather than any particular policy changes. An extended period of such government 92-97 led to a total thrashing. At the moment it is hard to see anything other than a repeat post 2022.
This is an important point. I think we can all agree that, far from being strong and stable, the May government is weak and precarious, and that this is a disaster for the Conservative party. (I would also argue disastrous for the country). The question is: what can be done about it?
There are three reasons why the May government is weak and precarious:
1. The PM's personal authority has been shot to pieces by her catastrophic blunder on calling, and then completely screwing up, the election.
2. The party is divided on the central issue facing the government, and in any case that issue may be completely intractable, meaning that even if the government were 100% competent on it, there's no guarantee that the results would be be successful.
3. The parliamentary numbers mean that the government can be held to ransom by any rag-tag coalition of the disaffected, the principled, the cynical, and the calculating, and that it is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the DUP.
The key point here is that changing leader won't change the parliamentary arithmetic, so it won't help with item 3. Indeed, no doubt if there were a change of leader, the DUP - never ones to miss an opportunity - would be sidling up with a request for more pork from the barrel in return for transferring their support to the new leader.
Neither is it likely that a change of leader will help with item 2; if anything, the uneasy and unstable truce which exists would be blown up by the leadership contest.
So the only reason for changing leader now is potentially item 1. In normal circumstances that might be a powerful reason, but the distraction would be very damaging to the Brexit talks, and any new leader would rapidly be hobbled by exactly the same problems 2 and 3 that Theresa May faces. We would swap one weak and precarious PM for another. It's not as though there is an outstanding candidate who, by sheer force of personality and political authority, could impose discipline and purpose on parliament.
In summary, we are stuffed, and just have to hope that we can get through Brexit and then execute a transition in time to be able to fight a competent campaign next time.
The new line from people like Bernard Jenkin seems to be that it would be true if only the EU weren't so unreasonable and the Treasury, CBI and the City weren't on their side.
it makes it clear that Leave proposed to leave the single market (the single regulatory regime) and refutes that leaving it doesn't mean we won't have access to it.
On existing terms. Which is bollocks, and you know it.
The Clinical Trial Directive didn't seem to prevent the French trialing on humans a new headache drug that was already known to kill dogs and leave other dogs with brain damage - a trial which resulted in several human deaths and survivors with brain damage. I wonder how many volunteers they would have got if the prospects had been shown the result of the animal trials. Perhaps the Directive is no substitute for ethics. I believe all the volunteers were recruited from East Europeans.
For instance - it must have been pretty obvious that you would need new border checks/customs arrangements in Dover under scenarios where we leave the customs union. Then you'd realise there are problems with the physical infrastructure, roads need to be widened etc.
Brexiteers explicitly said before the vote we would not leave the single market.
Why would they plan for that?
"The EU’s supporters say ‘we must have access to the Single Market’. Britain will have access to the Single Market after we vote leave. British businesses that want to sell to the EU will obey EU rules just as American, Swiss, or Chinese businesses do. Only about one in twenty British businesses export to the EU but every business is subject to every EU law. There is no need for Britain to impose all EU rules on all UK businesses as we do now, any more than Australia or Canada or India imposes all EU rules on their businesses. British businesses that wish to follow Single Market rules should be able to without creating obligations on everybody else to follow them. The vast majority of British businesses that do not sell to the EU will benefit from the much greater flexibility we will have.
The idea that our trade will suffer because we stop imposing terrible rules such as the Clinical Trial Directive is silly. The idea that ‘access to the Single Market’ is a binary condition and one must accept all Single Market rules is already nonsense - the Schengen system is ‘Single Market’ and we are not part of that. After we vote to leave, we will expand the number of damaging Single Market rules that we no longer impose and we will behave like the vast majority of countries around the world, trading with the EU but, crucially, without accepting the supremacy of EU law."
What’s the matter with the Clinical Trials Directive?
Feel free to Google it. The criticism was that it was excessively bureaucratic and led to up to a 25% fall in clinical trials within the EU following its implementation.
I've always suspected the real reason was that preparing for Leave would give it extra credence and could undermine Operation Fear.
I don't know why they took that decision - it could be for the reason you suggest. My suspicion would be that Dave thought he'd win so no need to plan.
But to me it was grossly irresponsible to call a referendum and then only plan for one outcome - and I think it's undeniable that it has wasted a lot of time.
One of the hardest things about the political system is that it's very difficult to decouple popularity and support for one of the Big Two from unpopularity and fear of the other one. How many people voted Tory because they were enthused at the Tory offering and PM versus how many voted that way for fear of Corbyn and Labour? And I don't think you can decouple it without a great deal of effort.
I'd tend to agree that the majority of people want "competent governance/economy" over any ideology, and rightly or wrongly, the Tories have associated themselves successfully with that theme. Losing that theme is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for losing power - as long as sufficient people are anti-Labour/anti-Corbyn (and there is a significant number of such; while Corbyn enthused a chunk of people, he disenthused another chunk - this chunk usually votes Conservative to start with, so it's hard to make out, but it does mean peeling them away to get over the top will be extraordinarily difficult).
The downside of that losing the competence tick is, for the Tories, like skydiving without a reserve parachute. They'll be okay until all of a sudden they're really not.
The Tories will probably be OK until the Corbyn firewall goes. That means one last GE in which they win most seats, but perhaps not an overall majority.
I'd tend to agree - unless Brexit goes bad and they end up carrying the can (If it goes bad, it could end up being Black Wednesday writ large for them). In that case, all bets are off.
If they do hold through one more election, see off Corbyn, see Corbyn replaced by someone who appears more plausible/less scary, and don't manage to renew their reputation in Government... well, the electorate seem more swingy than ever. It could end up being really bad for them.
(If that happens and Brexit goes bad as well but they cling on - just - for one more term - God only knows what'll happen after that)
The Tories will own Brexit and its consequences 100%, and then some. As I don't think it is likely to turn out well for people's living standards and the UK's global standing, I suspect that the next Tory PM will be the last one for a very long time. However, if I am wrong and Brexit delivers the promised sunlit uplands, the Tories will probably be in power until I pop my clogs.
This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.
Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.
The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.
The hospital pass that May inherited* was down to the ineptitude of Cameron and Osborne. Imagine if they had insisted the Civil Service had done some planning for a Brexit result? Or if Cameron had kept his word and not resigned, but rather, implemented the Brexit his insane posturing both before and after the "renegotiation" had ensured?
(*not that I am exactly excusing Theresa May, standing on the touchline at Twickenham shouting to the scrum "Me! Me!! Pass it to me...." when perhaps netball was her game....)
So you're saying Brexit is a hospital pass, interesting.
I've explained many times why the civil service couldn't do proper planning for Brexit, and that is down entirely to Vote Leave.
It would have been impossible for Dave to offer any contingency plan for a Leave win. Propose a soft Brexit and Farage and co. would have screamed treachery and that the referendum was a sham; propose a hard Brexit and it would have been dismissed as part of 'Project Fear'. A lose lose situation.
Contingency planning generally entails for planning for different contingencies. Preparing the ground for the various possibilities is a critical part of government. It was an abdication of responsibility to have done nothing, and being called names by Nigel Farage is not a good excuse.
This is an important point. I think we can all agree that, far from being strong and stable, the May government is weak and precarious, and that this is a disaster for the Conservative party. (I would also argue disastrous for the country). The question is: what can be done about it?
There are three reasons why the May government is weak and precarious:
1. The PM's personal authority has been shot to pieces by her catastrophic blunder on calling, and then completely screwing up, the election.
2. The party is divided on the central issue facing the government, and in any case that issue may be completely intractable, meaning that even if the government were 100% competent on it, there's no guarantee that the results would be be successful.
3. The parliamentary numbers mean that the government can be held to ransom by any rag-tag coalition of the disaffected, the principled, the cynical, and the calculating, and that it is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the DUP.
The key point here is that changing leader won't change the parliamentary arithmetic, so it won't help with item 3. Indeed, no doubt if there were a change of leader, the DUP - never ones to miss an opportunity - would be sidling up with a request for more pork from the barrel in return for transferring their support to the new leader.
Neither is it likely that a change of leader will help with item 2; if anything, the uneasy and unstable truce which exists would be blown up by the leadership contest.
So the only reason for changing leader now is potentially item 1. In normal circumstances that might be a powerful reason, but the distraction would be very damaging to the Brexit talks, and any new leader would rapidly be hobbled by exactly the same problems 2 and 3 that Theresa May faces. We would swap one weak and precarious PM for another. It's not as though there is an outstanding candidate who, by sheer force of personality and political authority, could impose discipline and purpose on parliament.
In summary, we are stuffed, and just have to hope that we can get through Brexit and then execute a transition in time to be able to fight a competent campaign next time.
To an extent, a change of leader could deal with 2 as well as 1. If a leadership contest resulted in the winning candidate having laid out in detail their proposed negotiating approach, they would have the mandate to whip doubters in line with it. So any would-be Prime Ministers should be thinking through carefully not just whether they want the top job but what they want to do once they've got it.
I've always suspected the real reason was that preparing for Leave would give it extra credence and could undermine Operation Fear.
I don't know why they took that decision - it could be for the reason you suggest. My suspicion would be that Dave thought he'd win so no need to plan.
But to me it was grossly irresponsible to call a referendum and then only plan for one outcome - and I think it's undeniable that it has wasted a lot of time.
Hubris again shown to be the biggest factor in modern politics - Cameron and Clinton and May all being poked in the eye by it.
it makes it clear that Leave proposed to leave the single market (the single regulatory regime) and refutes that leaving it doesn't mean we won't have access to it.
On existing terms. Which is bollocks, and you know it.
No, it doesn't say that.
Perhaps you should go and have a cup of tea, and a nice lie-down, before you give yourself a hernia.
For instance - it must have been pretty obvious that you would need new border checks/customs arrangements in Dover under scenarios where we leave the customs union. Then you'd realise there are problems with the physical infrastructure, roads need to be widened etc.
Brexiteers explicitly said before the vote we would not leave the single market.
Why would they plan for that?
"The EU’s supporters say ‘we must have access to the Single Market’. Britain will have access to the Single Market after we vote leave. British businesses that want to sell to the EU will obey EU rules just as American, Swiss, or Chinese businesses do. Only about one in twenty British businesses export to the EU but every business is subject to every EU law. There is no need for Britain to impose all EU rules on all UK businesses as we do now, any more than Australia or Canada or India imposes all EU rules on their businesses. British businesses that wish to follow Single Market rules should be able to without creating obligations on everybody else to follow them. The vast majority of British businesses that do not sell to the EU will benefit from the much greater flexibility we will have.
The idea that our trade will suffer because we stop imposing terrible rules such as the Clinical Trial Directive is silly. The idea that ‘access to the Single Market’ is a binary condition and one must accept all Single Market rules is already nonsense - the Schengen system is ‘Single Market’ and we are not part of that. After we vote to leave, we will expand the number of damaging Single Market rules that we no longer impose and we will behave like the vast majority of countries around the world, trading with the EU but, crucially, without accepting the supremacy of EU law."
No, it isn't. But it is pointless redebating the campaign with you for the umpteenth time.
"The EU's supporters say 'we must have access to the Single Market'" - no they didn't, they said they wanted to be members of the Single Market. So it begins with a transparent falsehood and goes downhill from there; I'm not surprised you don't want to redebate it for the umpteenth time.
You keep saying that but it doesn't make it true. We haven't left the single market, you're just guessing.
Name a single credible source who thinks leaving the single marker will not have a negative economic impact.
Take your time...
I don't need to name anybody, you lost the argument because all you do is bang away at a keyboard without engaging with real people. Eventually you'll grow up and realise there is more to life than a PC and a bedroom. You are proven wrong on just about everything.
PS I hate the term dementia tax. Paying for your own care is not a tax - precisely the opposite - the alternative depends upon tax.
Of course you are right - but the Conservative campaign was so incompetent that they allowed opposition parties to misrepresent the proposal. It was a fatal mistake, inexcusable given that the proposal was actually reasonably good and was in fact the diametric opposite of a dementia tax,
Contingency planning generally entails for planning for different contingencies. Preparing the ground for the various possibilities is a critical part of government. It was an abdication of responsibility to have done nothing
Which contingency should they have planned for (and how much effort would that have entailed) ?
Even now the Government hasn't got a fucking clue. What exactly should the civil service have planned for before the vote, given they can't plan for it now...
I voted Leave to take back control of our ability to sack the Politicians in charge and to get rid of Laws that stop us saving our Steel industries and that prevent us Nationalising things that the British voter wants to Nationalise.
I never expected us to be better off in the short term. I did expect that we would prioritise Trade though, in order to avoid a cliff edge.
The Conservatives can't complain about the Dementia Tax monicker given that they came up with the equally unfair Death Tax nickname in 2010. Politics is a rough trade.
For instance - it must have been pretty obvious that you would need new border checks/customs arrangements in Dover under scenarios where we leave the customs union. Then you'd realise there are problems with the physical infrastructure, roads need to be widened etc.
Brexiteers explicitly said before the vote we would not leave the single market.
Why would they plan for that?
"The EU’s supporters say ‘we must have access to the Single Market’. Britain will have access to the Single Market after we vote leave. British businesses that want to sell to the EU will obey EU rules just as American, Swiss, or Chinese businesses do. Only about one in twenty British businesses export to the EU but every business is subject to every EU law. There is no need for Britain to impose all EU rules on all UK businesses as we do now, any more than Australia or Canada or India imposes all EU rules on their businesses. British businesses that wish to follow Single Market rules should be able to without creating obligations on everybody else to follow them. The vast majority of British businesses that do not sell to the EU will benefit from the much greater flexibility we will have.
The idea that our trade will suffer because we stop imposing terrible rules such as the Clinical Trial Directive is silly. The idea that ‘access to the Single Market’ is a binary condition and one must accept all Single Market rules is already nonsense - the Schengen system is ‘Single Market’ and we are not part of that. After we vote to leave, we will expand the number of damaging Single Market rules that we no longer impose and we will behave like the vast majority of countries around the world, trading with the EU but, crucially, without accepting the supremacy of EU law."
No, it isn't. But it is pointless redebating the campaign with you for the umpteenth time.
"The EU's supporters say 'we must have access to the Single Market'" - no they didn't, they said they wanted to be members of the Single Market. So it begins with a transparent falsehood and goes downhill from there; I'm not surprised you don't want to redebate it for the umpteenth time.
There were many on the Remain side who confused access and membership, some because they didn't understand the difference.
Why would I want to debate it again with you? It's a total waste of my time.
My personal opinion of Leadsom as PM is that after 6 months people would want Theresa May back. The interviews I watched with Leadsom in them gave me the impression that she was someone who appeared to have almost no grasp of reality.
Comments
Compare two elderly women with dementia both living on a state pension under the current system.
One woman owns a £3m house outright and has £20k in cash savings. She currently gets free home care despite having assets worth over £3m.
The has £40k in the bank she inherited from her parents, rents a council flat and no other assets. She is required to pay 100 per cent of her home care charges out of her savings until they reach £23k.
So the former worth over £3m gets her home care paid for by the taxpayer. The latter worth £40k pays 100 per cent of the costs. Isn't that disgusting - yet that is the current policy. Under the Manifesto proposal the poorer woman gets to keep all her savings - the former has to eat into her £3m asset not by paying upfront but via a charge on her property. Why should a house be treated differently to any other asset - it can be converted into cash in weeks after all.
Let's be honest it was never about caring about elderly people with dementia - it was about maximising inheritances for their 60 year old kids.
Of course the Tories never explained that - and Labour instead fought for multi million pound property owners at the expense of poorer pensioners.
It just illustrated Mays inability to get a message across.
What's utterly amazing is how obvious this is, and how off-piste you would need to be to think otherwise.
I can only imagine that in the rush to get the manifesto out, a massive mistake was made.
Although as the Browne Review showed, even careful preparation does not always work when party-political considerations come into view.
IMV the issue was probably that the government did not prepare the ground well enough pre-election. Elderly care is a real issue, but many people probably did not believe the Conservatives suddenly cared about it.
That said, it puts paid to the party/country charge against the Cons. Definitely bad for the Party and good for the country.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/917303248335396865
It then went in for more dodgy practice in the 2017 election.
And ended up with a thoroughly incompetent EU Referendum campaign, where it headed the campaign on both sides, and failed to come up with any answers, before, during and since.
So it is not only a thoroughly incompetent government - of course it is - it is also a thoroughý illegitimate one.
If it had been a legitimate government, it might have been able to keep in touch with reality, and thus be more worthy of respect.
(Note to candidates: remember that we are starting from here for this question.)
In 2010 it was to end the government and current account deficits in 5 years, a 'March of the makers', to stop the UK being a country which 'borrows money from China to buy things from China'.
In 2012 he changed to extra borrowing to fuel a house price and consumption bubble.
The consequences being the national debt still rising, a £115bn current account deficit, falling home ownership and intergenerational inequality.
Aside from the long term damage this has done to the country it will also do long term damage to the
Conservative party.
All so that the Conservatives could have a few more votes in 2015.
It was with a resigned face that most of these people realised that it was the right policy although they personally would likely be hit.
So does that make it toxic? You takes your pick but for me the answer is no, any more than rationing any other scarce resource is toxic.
"Brexitter" is a play on the song Bedsitter (see lyrics and the Youtube link I posted last night!)
Voting, polling
Blogging, trolling
And now I'm all alone
In Brexit Land
My only home
Hat-tip: Almond & Ball.
Memory is a strange thing though. Someone will have to check the record.
i) AV
ii) House of Lords reform
iii) Drug policy
I could list more, but I don't want to embarrass you any further.
ISTR some issues where there were differences got kicked into the long grass.
The alternative would have been for open warfare between them, as we have seen in both the Labour and Conservative parties recently. It is to Cameron and Clegg's credit that the coalition government was far more stable than not only the one we have now, but also probably Blair's from 2003 when Brown's agitating was at its height.
Of course Osbo did something similar with his omnishambles budget but that wasn't a few months before an election. Nevertheless given a strong and sturdy GE campaign people would have forgotten about Hammond's budget. But May's u-turn kind of reinforced the diminishing competence meme x10
It doesn't normally when civil servants prepare before elections for opposing parties. So the Brexiteers would never have had an opportunity to complain.
If it had leaked, and they had complained, well - so what?
The point is that the country should be well-run regardless of what the public chooses.
In recent GEs, Civil Servants will have done preparation for a range of coalition options, no overall control etc. So they are perfectly capable of planning for uncertainty.
There is plenty of work that could have been done so that when TM/DC came back after the result they were faced with a bunch of problems, and a list of possible solutions.
For instance - it must have been pretty obvious that you would need new border checks/customs arrangements in Dover under scenarios where we leave the customs union. Then you'd realise there are problems with the physical infrastructure, roads need to be widened etc.
Rather than discovering new problems like this 6 months or more into the job - TM should have been given as much of this information as possible on day 1 if not before.
I think that's a core reason why we haven't made as much progress as we'd like in negotiations - because Ministers are still discovering potential issues and then having to rethink their plans.
https://twitter.com/OliverNorgrove/status/917304939059253248
But one way or another, and bedside manner aside, it was the right thing to do.
Policy - correct
Delivery - shocking
https://twitter.com/Electograph/status/917305689353150465
Why would they plan for that?
https://twitter.com/politicalpics/status/917270611373776896
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/917309638441287680
And I don't think you can decouple it without a great deal of effort.
I'd tend to agree that the majority of people want "competent governance/economy" over any ideology, and rightly or wrongly, the Tories have associated themselves successfully with that theme. Losing that theme is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for losing power - as long as sufficient people are anti-Labour/anti-Corbyn (and there is a significant number of such; while Corbyn enthused a chunk of people, he disenthused another chunk - this chunk usually votes Conservative to start with, so it's hard to make out, but it does mean peeling them away to get over the top will be extraordinarily difficult).
The downside of that losing the competence tick is, for the Tories, like skydiving without a reserve parachute. They'll be okay until all of a sudden they're really not.
I think most said we would leave the SM (although I could be wrong on that).
Sensible government would have been to model for both scenarios.
The idea that our trade will suffer because we stop imposing terrible rules such as the Clinical Trial Directive is silly. The idea that ‘access to the Single Market’ is a binary condition and one must accept all Single Market rules is already nonsense - the Schengen system is ‘Single Market’ and we are not part of that. After we vote to leave, we will expand the number of damaging Single Market rules that we no longer impose and we will behave like the vast majority of countries around the world, trading with the EU but, crucially, without accepting the supremacy of EU law."
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
Brexiteers cried project fear.
He was right, they were wrong.
The lies of Brexiteers will haunt them to their graves.
Their sole interest in is undermining Leave, but Oliver's ego enjoys being stroked far too much to realise it.
They were right.
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/917311777574195200
But what token did he get it wrong?
He steadily reduced a humongous deficit, whilst ensuring the highest employment rate for nearly 40 years. Any faster, the Tories would have been thrown out of office for excessive cuts, any slower and the problem would simply not have been dealt with, and lead to a even larger ballooning of our national debt to unsustainable levels.
He did a good job.
No messing.
People were just very disappointed in Theresa May, and fed up of austerity, so were tempted by the only fresh thing on the menu.
The tories stitch up public inquiries, good and proper.
It makes you wonder why they're even bothering with Grenfell.
Current Betfair midprices:
Johnson 6.6
Davis 7.6
Rudd 9.4
Mogg 9.6
Davidson 16.25 (ridiculous: she should be at maybe 80)
Hammond 19.5
implied price of anyone bar the above: 2.5
Rudd looks strong and may go into the last two, if there are a last two for more than a few hours. Which is not to say she's as strong as Johnson, but she's doing well and against Johnson she could come across as nice, sane and safe, albeit without flair. If a "Stop Johnson" candidate arises, it could be her.
Johnson and Mogg both have an instantly recognisable image, a cartoon style - Mr Cripes and Mr Likes His Nanny. Neither image is realistic but who's talking about reality? It's worth recalling the role of wrestling in building Trump's successful cartoon image in the US.
I'm still happy with my investment in Davis-Rudd-Mogg-Johnson.
a. Theresa May
b. Gordon Strachan
That's not the point. My point is that *he's* being played.
Many Remainer journalists have also tried to play Dominic Cummings, for similar reasons, but have so far failed.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/08/theresa-may-tory-party-ruth-davidson
Would you like me to list all the times 'Hard/WTO Brexit' was called Project Fear?
On topic, it's an interesting question - the events of September 1992 are hailed by many as having been hugely positive for the economy in the medium and longer term and there's plenty of evidence to support it but the political impact of 16/9/92 was awful.
The perception was the Government has lost control of the situation (which, in a way, they had). The unprecedented hiking of interest rates to defend sterling would have looked good if it had succeeded but the sight of Lamont (and some bloke behind him) coming out of the Treasury in the evening and basically admitting control had been lost was politically shattering.
In truth, the route to the 1997 rout started from that point even though as many would argue, the economic consequences handed Brown and Blair an extremely good legacy.
Government is about management and good management is looking as though you are in control of events. The moment it looks as though events are controlling you is the time to start worrying. Does May look in control of events ? Just about - for now.
More lies and spin from the leave campaign. It says we can keep all the good stuff without any of the stuff we don't like.
And it's not true.
If they do hold through one more election, see off Corbyn, see Corbyn replaced by someone who appears more plausible/less scary, and don't manage to renew their reputation in Government... well, the electorate seem more swingy than ever. It could end up being really bad for them.
(If that happens and Brexit goes bad as well but they cling on - just - for one more term - God only knows what'll happen after that)
Take your time...
The Conservatives' bigger problem is that they are consumed by Brexit. It's a second order problem. If they want to be treated seriously, they're going to have to start talking with real passion about the subjects that really matter. That's why they're not seeming very competent.
This was extensively trailed at the time.
You constantly asserting "lies" and "spin" doesn't make it true.
Brexit is shit, and they are determined to blame
a. people who warned against it
b. people who voted against it.
You won! Suck it up!!
There are three reasons why the May government is weak and precarious:
1. The PM's personal authority has been shot to pieces by her catastrophic blunder on calling, and then completely screwing up, the election.
2. The party is divided on the central issue facing the government, and in any case that issue may be completely intractable, meaning that even if the government were 100% competent on it, there's no guarantee that the results would be be successful.
3. The parliamentary numbers mean that the government can be held to ransom by any rag-tag coalition of the disaffected, the principled, the cynical, and the calculating, and that it is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the DUP.
The key point here is that changing leader won't change the parliamentary arithmetic, so it won't help with item 3. Indeed, no doubt if there were a change of leader, the DUP - never ones to miss an opportunity - would be sidling up with a request for more pork from the barrel in return for transferring their support to the new leader.
Neither is it likely that a change of leader will help with item 2; if anything, the uneasy and unstable truce which exists would be blown up by the leadership contest.
So the only reason for changing leader now is potentially item 1. In normal circumstances that might be a powerful reason, but the distraction would be very damaging to the Brexit talks, and any new leader would rapidly be hobbled by exactly the same problems 2 and 3 that Theresa May faces. We would swap one weak and precarious PM for another. It's not as though there is an outstanding candidate who, by sheer force of personality and political authority, could impose discipline and purpose on parliament.
In summary, we are stuffed, and just have to hope that we can get through Brexit and then execute a transition in time to be able to fight a competent campaign next time.
My suspicion would be that Dave thought he'd win so no need to plan.
But to me it was grossly irresponsible to call a referendum and then only plan for one outcome - and I think it's undeniable that it has wasted a lot of time.
It doesn't bother me: your tears are music for my soul.
Perhaps you should go and have a cup of tea, and a nice lie-down, before you give yourself a hernia.
https://twitter.com/iandunt/status/917317907620691969
https://twitter.com/iandunt/status/917318180758020097
https://twitter.com/iandunt/status/917318430881132544
Even now the Government hasn't got a fucking clue. What exactly should the civil service have planned for before the vote, given they can't plan for it now...
I never expected us to be better off in the short term. I did expect that we would prioritise Trade though, in order to avoid a cliff edge.
The No Dealers are Crazies
Why would I want to debate it again with you? It's a total waste of my time.
Better luck next time...