The BBC says the Sunday Times reports the budget may include cancellation of student loans. If so, there will need to be some industrial strength reverse ferreting from Tories who warned it would cost elebenty squillion pounds when Jeremy Corbyn mentioned the possibility. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-41625390
I just don't see how we could possibly afford that. But a pretty much permanent freeze on the level of loans and a much more generous interest rate and repayment regime would be possible. The challenge then would be to ensure that University level education remains adequately funded going forward, the challenge the fees were supposed to address in the first place.
The Tories will still keep tuition fees, unlike Corbyn Labour and there have also been moves to link fees closer to the graduate earning premium as well as reducing the burden of loans.
TSE, as a hardcore Leaver I agree that Cameron would be a good to great Foreign Secretary. I also agree that it won't happen.
I also don't see how Cameron can be Foreign Secretary when he is neither in the Commons or the Lords now?
Not like there’s recent precedent for something like that.
Oh wait.
Boris returned to the Commons at the 2015 general election, I see no evidence Cameron has any desire too, he is quite happy leading the life of a country squire in Oxfordshire and working with his national citizenship service and charity work
Home was a former PM who became Foreign Secretary but he was still MP for Kinross and Western Perthshire at the time
I was thinking of Peter Mandelson, neither an MP nor a peer when he was brought into the cabinet by Gordon Brown in 2008, who then ennobled Mandy.
Yep, Shami Chakrabarti is in the Shadow Cabinet, she wasn't elected by anybody.
There are always unelected Lords in the Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet.
TSE, as a hardcore Leaver I agree that Cameron would be a good to great Foreign Secretary. I also agree that it won't happen.
I also don't see how Cameron can be Foreign Secretary when he is neither in the Commons or the Lords now?
Not like there’s recent precedent for something like that.
Oh wait.
Boris returned to the Commons at the 2015 general election, I see no evidence Cameron has any desire too, he is quite happy leading the life of a country squire in Oxfordshire and working with his national citizenship service and charity work
Home was a former PM who became Foreign Secretary but he was still MP for Kinross and Western Perthshire at the time
I was thinking of Peter Mandelson, neither an MP nor a peer when he was brought into the cabinet by Gordon Brown in 2008, who then ennobled Mandy.
Yep, Shami Chakrabarti is in the Shadow Cabinet, she wasn't elected by anybody.
There are always unelected Lords in the Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet.
Your point is? Ah, there isn't one.
My point is I'm rather fond of democracy.
I understand you don't care for it, but I'm happy to side with the electorate.
Robert Kennedy used to tell a story about all the mail he received from LBJ after he because Senator of New York being addressed "R Kennedy, SOB". I suspect your post is similar.
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
The days when the tories could sell themselves as the party of a prosperous future are now behind us. It's a laughable proposition while they are willfully damaging the country's economy just because some people are scared the European Court will ban Union Jack underpants.
Their only hope now is to outspend Corbyn.
When the Conservatives chose to spend vast sums on Brexit, they forfeited any claim to fiscal responsibility. Quite how they retrieve the position is hard to see.
Not sure what you mean by that. I don't see what money they've spent on Brexit.
The wilful economic damage caused by their insistence on leaving the single market.
Something also backed by Corbyn you mean? Only the LDs and SNP want to stay in the single market, both the Tories and Corbyn Labour do not
What Corbyn supports is irrelevant to the point here. You can’t claim to be fiscal responsibility when pursuing the economic insanity of hard brexit.
No what Corbyn supports is very relevant as as long as Corbyn Labour backs hard Brexit it has no grounds to attack the Tories for being 'fiscally irresponsible' by also backing hard Brexit.
The key to this market is working out the price for Boris Johnson leaving the role. This could happen in one of four ways.
1) He jumps. 2) He is pushed. 3) Someone else (e.g. Philip Hammond) jumps or is pushed and he is moved into that role. 4) Theresa May is replaced and he occupies a different role in the new government.
There are only a few weeks to go before the end of the year but those weeks look likely to be eventful. The Conservatives look unstable at present. Evens looks about right to me for the sum of these possibilities.
If he goes, he will be replaced by a heavyweight. So most of the options given can be scored out on that basis. Michael Gove, Damian Green and perhaps Sajid Javid look fair value. I'd choose the latter. He's an experienced Cabinet minister, not a headbanger and would represent a fresh start with EU opposite numbers, confounding many Brussels stereotypes about the UK. But would the headbangers accept him?
Me, I'm not betting on this, mind.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The BBC says the Sunday Times reports the budget may include cancellation of student loans. If so, there will need to be some industrial strength reverse ferreting from Tories who warned it would cost elebenty squillion pounds when Jeremy Corbyn mentioned the possibility. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-41625390
I just don't see how we could possibly afford that. But a pretty much permanent freeze on the level of loans and a much more generous interest rate and repayment regime would be possible. The challenge then would be to ensure that University level education remains adequately funded going forward, the challenge the fees were supposed to address in the first place.
The Tories will still keep tuition fees, unlike Corbyn Labour and there have also been moves to link fees closer to the graduate earning premium as well as reducing the burden of loans.
Yes, that's the way I see it too. Its just that the level of the burden has become crushing for far too many people and needs to be addressed. Personally, I would like to see grants introduced for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, even if they only offset some of the fees.
The BBC says the Sunday Times reports the budget may include cancellation of student loans. If so, there will need to be some industrial strength reverse ferreting from Tories who warned it would cost elebenty squillion pounds when Jeremy Corbyn mentioned the possibility. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-41625390
I just don't see how we could possibly afford that. But a pretty much permanent freeze on the level of loans and a much more generous interest rate and repayment regime would be possible. The challenge then would be to ensure that University level education remains adequately funded going forward, the challenge the fees were supposed to address in the first place.
The Tories will still keep tuition fees, unlike Corbyn Labour and there have also been moves to link fees closer to the graduate earning premium as well as reducing the burden of loans.
Yes, that's the way I see it too. Its just that the level of the burden has become crushing for far too many people and needs to be addressed. Personally, I would like to see grants introduced for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, even if they only offset some of the fees.
Yes, an expansion of the bursary system and more grants for those from disadvantaged backgrounds would be good
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
The days when the tories could sell themselves as the party of a prosperous future are now behind us. It's a laughable proposition while they are willfully damaging the country's economy just because some people are scared the European Court will ban Union Jack underpants.
Their only hope now is to outspend Corbyn.
When the Conservatives chose to spend vast sums on Brexit, they forfeited any claim to fiscal responsibility. Quite how they retrieve the position is hard to see.
I think they forfeited that claim when they chose to spend vast sums on Overseas Aid, TLP, H2B and HS2.
Britain was already spending vast sums on the EU, irrespective of Brexit.
TSE, as a hardcore Leaver I agree that Cameron would be a good to great Foreign Secretary. I also agree that it won't happen.
I also don't see how Cameron can be Foreign Secretary when he is neither in the Commons or the Lords now?
Not like there’s recent precedent for something like that.
Oh wait.
Boris returned to the Commons at the 2015 general election, I see no evidence Cameron has any desire too, he is quite happy leading the life of a country squire in Oxfordshire and working with his national citizenship service and charity work
Home was a former PM who became Foreign Secretary but he was still MP for Kinross and Western Perthshire at the time
I was thinking of Peter Mandelson, neither an MP nor a peer when he was brought into the cabinet by Gordon Brown in 2008, who then ennobled Mandy.
Yep, Shami Chakrabarti is in the Shadow Cabinet, she wasn't elected by anybody.
There are always unelected Lords in the Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet.
Your point is? Ah, there isn't one.
My point is I'm rather fond of democracy.
I understand you don't care for it, but I'm happy to side with the electorate.
I'd be more than willing to bin the HoL if there was a decent proposal for something with which to replace it.
But in the absence of that, erecting flimsy straw men to make, well, make no point at all is wilfully dim, even if I recognise that is par for your course.
The BBC says the Sunday Times reports the budget may include cancellation of student loans. If so, there will need to be some industrial strength reverse ferreting from Tories who warned it would cost elebenty squillion pounds when Jeremy Corbyn mentioned the possibility. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-41625390
I just don't see how we could possibly afford that. But a pretty much permanent freeze on the level of loans and a much more generous interest rate and repayment regime would be possible. The challenge then would be to ensure that University level education remains adequately funded going forward, the challenge the fees were supposed to address in the first place.
How about the government removes itself from the process and leaves it to between the universities and their students what should be the fees.
Or the government gives every teeneager an 'education and training fund' to be used to pay for further education and training.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
It won't happen while they're in government. The bridges are burned.
By far the most boring part of it has been being a Tory MP. Unless that is made more interesting for him I fear he will be off doing something else all too soon.
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
The days when the tories could sell themselves as the party of a prosperous future are now behind us. It's a laughable proposition while they are willfully damaging the country's economy just because some people are scared the European Court will ban Union Jack underpants.
Their only hope now is to outspend Corbyn.
When the Conservatives chose to spend vast sums on Brexit, they forfeited any claim to fiscal responsibility. Quite how they retrieve the position is hard to see.
I think they forfeited that claim when they chose to spend vast sums on Overseas Aid, TLP, H2B and HS2.
Britain was already spending vast sums on the EU, irrespective of Brexit.
In the same way that if you think education is expensive try ignorance, if you think the EU is expensive try Brexit.
TSE, as a hardcore Leaver I agree that Cameron would be a good to great Foreign Secretary. I also agree that it won't happen.
I also don't see how Cameron can be Foreign Secretary when he is neither in the Commons or the Lords now?
Not like there’s recent precedent for something like that.
Oh wait.
Boris returned to the Commons at the 2015 general election, I see no evidence Cameron has any desire too, he is quite happy leading the life of a country squire in Oxfordshire and working with his national citizenship service and charity work
Home was a former PM who became Foreign Secretary but he was still MP for Kinross and Western Perthshire at the time
I was thinking of Peter Mandelson, neither an MP nor a peer when he was brought into the cabinet by Gordon Brown in 2008, who then ennobled Mandy.
Yep, Shami Chakrabarti is in the Shadow Cabinet, she wasn't elected by anybody.
There are always unelected Lords in the Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet.
Your point is? Ah, there isn't one.
My point is I'm rather fond of democracy.
I understand you don't care for it, but I'm happy to side with the electorate.
I'd be more than willing to bin the HoL if there was a decent proposal for something with which to replace it.
But in the absence of that, erecting flimsy straw men to make, well, make no point at all is wilfully dim, even if I recognise that is par for your course.
Haha!
It always amuses me when when dopes get embarrassed on forums.
You may agree with unelected people sitting in cabinet, I don't. Ho hum.
The BBC says the Sunday Times reports the budget may include cancellation of student loans. If so, there will need to be some industrial strength reverse ferreting from Tories who warned it would cost elebenty squillion pounds when Jeremy Corbyn mentioned the possibility. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-41625390
I just don't see how we could possibly afford that. But a pretty much permanent freeze on the level of loans and a much more generous interest rate and repayment regime would be possible. The challenge then would be to ensure that University level education remains adequately funded going forward, the challenge the fees were supposed to address in the first place.
How about the government removes itself from the process and leaves it to between the universities and their students what should be the fees.
Or the government gives every teeneager an 'education and training fund' to be used to pay for further education and training.
Universities are publically funded institutions of strategic importance to the country. There is no way that the government can simply remove itself from the process. And we can't afford to give everyone a fund, there is no money left. I would not be against the idea that those doing multi-year apprenticeships for high skilled jobs should have access to funds on the same generous terms as students though. We need more and better alternatives to arts degrees which do so little to boost the earning capacity of the recipients (ducks).
The BBC says the Sunday Times reports the budget may include cancellation of student loans. If so, there will need to be some industrial strength reverse ferreting from Tories who warned it would cost elebenty squillion pounds when Jeremy Corbyn mentioned the possibility. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-41625390
I just don't see how we could possibly afford that. But a pretty much permanent freeze on the level of loans and a much more generous interest rate and repayment regime would be possible. The challenge then would be to ensure that University level education remains adequately funded going forward, the challenge the fees were supposed to address in the first place.
How about the government removes itself from the process and leaves it to between the universities and their students what should be the fees.
Or the government gives every teeneager an 'education and training fund' to be used to pay for further education and training.
Universities are publically funded institutions of strategic importance to the country. There is no way that the government can simply remove itself from the process. And we can't afford to give everyone a fund, there is no money left. I would not be against the idea that those doing multi-year apprenticeships for high skilled jobs should have access to funds on the same generous terms as students though. We need more and better alternatives to arts degrees which do so little to boost the earning capacity of the recipients (ducks).
The creative sector of the economy actually brings in a lot of revenue, we need some arts graduates but probably not as many as we have at the moment.
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
The days when the tories could sell themselves as the party of a prosperous future are now behind us. It's a laughable proposition while they are willfully damaging the country's economy just because some people are scared the European Court will ban Union Jack underpants.
Their only hope now is to outspend Corbyn.
When the Conservatives chose to spend vast sums on Brexit, they forfeited any claim to fiscal responsibility. Quite how they retrieve the position is hard to see.
I think they forfeited that claim when they chose to spend vast sums on Overseas Aid, TLP, H2B and HS2.
Britain was already spending vast sums on the EU, irrespective of Brexit.
In the same way that if you think education is expensive try ignorance, if you think the EU is expensive try Brexit.
I much prefer your insulting posts to your considered and well researched thread headers, far more entertaining!
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
It won't happen while they're in government. The bridges are burned.
They need to start whilst in government focussing on housing, especially for first time buyers, student loans and giving better rights to those in casual work. If they don't they will have nothing to say to the next generation other than we told you so and that is rarely welcomed.
The BBC says the Sunday Times reports the budget may include cancellation of student loans. If so, there will need to be some industrial strength reverse ferreting from Tories who warned it would cost elebenty squillion pounds when Jeremy Corbyn mentioned the possibility. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-41625390
I just don't see how we could possibly afford that. But a pretty much permanent freeze on the level of loans and a much more generous interest rate and repayment regime would be possible. The challenge then would be to ensure that University level education remains adequately funded going forward, the challenge the fees were supposed to address in the first place.
How about the government removes itself from the process and leaves it to between the universities and their students what should be the fees.
Or the government gives every teeneager an 'education and training fund' to be used to pay for further education and training.
Universities are publically funded institutions of strategic importance to the country. There is no way that the government can simply remove itself from the process. And we can't afford to give everyone a fund, there is no money left. I would not be against the idea that those doing multi-year apprenticeships for high skilled jobs should have access to funds on the same generous terms as students though. We need more and better alternatives to arts degrees which do so little to boost the earning capacity of the recipients (ducks).
The creative sector of the economy actually brings in a lot of revenue, we need some arts graduates but probably not as many as we have at the moment.
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
The days when the tories could sell themselves as the party of a prosperous future are now behind us. It's a laughable proposition while they are willfully damaging the country's economy just because some people are scared the European Court will ban Union Jack underpants.
Their only hope now is to outspend Corbyn.
When the Conservatives chose to spend vast sums on Brexit, they forfeited any claim to fiscal responsibility. Quite how they retrieve the position is hard to see.
I think they forfeited that claim when they chose to spend vast sums on Overseas Aid, TLP, H2B and HS2.
Britain was already spending vast sums on the EU, irrespective of Brexit.
In the same way that if you think education is expensive try ignorance, if you think the EU is expensive try Brexit.
I much prefer your insulting posts to your considered and well researched thread headers, far more entertaining!
In your case I'd say you've tried ignorance enough and could usefully start experimenting with alternatives.
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
The days when the tories could sell themselves as the party of a prosperous future are now behind us. It's a laughable proposition while they are willfully damaging the country's economy just because some people are scared the European Court will ban Union Jack underpants.
Their only hope now is to outspend Corbyn.
When the Conservatives chose to spend vast sums on Brexit, they forfeited any claim to fiscal responsibility. Quite how they retrieve the position is hard to see.
I think they forfeited that claim when they chose to spend vast sums on Overseas Aid, TLP, H2B and HS2.
Britain was already spending vast sums on the EU, irrespective of Brexit.
In the same way that if you think education is expensive try ignorance, if you think the EU is expensive try Brexit.
I much prefer your insulting posts to your considered and well researched thread headers, far more entertaining!
In your case I'd say you've tried ignorance enough and could usefully start experimenting with alternatives.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
The BBC says the Sunday Times reports the budget may include cancellation of student loans. If so, there will need to be some industrial strength reverse ferreting from Tories who warned it would cost elebenty squillion pounds when Jeremy Corbyn mentioned the possibility. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-41625390
I just don't see how we could possibly afford that. But a pretty much permanent freeze on the level of loans and a much more generous interest rate and repayment regime would be possible. The challenge then would be to ensure that University level education remains adequately funded going forward, the challenge the fees were supposed to address in the first place.
How about the government removes itself from the process and leaves it to between the universities and their students what should be the fees.
Or the government gives every teeneager an 'education and training fund' to be used to pay for further education and training.
Universities are publically funded institutions of strategic importance to the country. There is no way that the government can simply remove itself from the process. And we can't afford to give everyone a fund, there is no money left. I would not be against the idea that those doing multi-year apprenticeships for high skilled jobs should have access to funds on the same generous terms as students though. We need more and better alternatives to arts degrees which do so little to boost the earning capacity of the recipients (ducks).
The creative sector of the economy actually brings in a lot of revenue, we need some arts graduates but probably not as many as we have at the moment.
I was expecting much worse abuse than that.
I will leave you to face the fury of Hampstead later!
Starmer also confirms Labour opposes any second referendum on leaving the EU and Labour will support the UK leaving the EU in March 2019 but it is about what happens after.
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
The days when the tories could sell themselves as the party of a prosperous future are now behind us. It's a laughable proposition while they are willfully damaging the country's economy just because some people are scared the European Court will ban Union Jack underpants.
Their only hope now is to outspend Corbyn.
When the Conservatives chose to spend vast sums on Brexit, they forfeited any claim to fiscal responsibility. Quite how they retrieve the position is hard to see.
I think they forfeited that claim when they chose to spend vast sums on Overseas Aid, TLP, H2B and HS2.
Britain was already spending vast sums on the EU, irrespective of Brexit.
In the same way that if you think education is expensive try ignorance, if you think the EU is expensive try Brexit.
Says the man who predicted an immediate recession after the Leave vote.
You did have an elegant turn of phrase though. IIRC it was dark cloaks, skeletal fingers and voices of doom speaking in block capitals.
Meanwhile the stock markets are at record heights (with consequential boost to my finances) and rather less happily we have so much business at my job I'm going to have to do a couple of hours of work on a Sunday.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
And their grandparents are, or should be, too. It’s obvious to me, and I think it’s getting through to some of our friends.
But if you rule it out and the EU want £100bn, what then?
Edited extra bit: Mr. L, you're spot on about housing.
The alternative is to withdraw article 50 and come up with a 10 to 15 year plan to disengage Britain from the EU. There is no reason Britain shouldn't be able to survive and even thrive outside of the EU. The problem is trying to run the leave project too quickly. But of course, if you run it over several general elections the probability is that people will swing back to supporting remaining in.
Some posters appear to be under the impression that Labour's 'No to No Deal' position is claiming to be based on the realities of the negotiations, rather than just playing politics to make things even more awkward for Tezzie.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
TBH they don't even have to do that. Cameron and Osborne promised to match Labour spending. It didn't stop them doing a 180 a couple of hears hence.
Indeed, Labour and John Smith were staunch supporters of the UK joining the ERM, when that when that went mammary glands up, he didn't take a hit, and slaughtered the government.
'The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government.'
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
But if you rule it out and the EU want £100bn, what then?
Edited extra bit: Mr. L, you're spot on about housing.
The alternative is to withdraw article 50 and come up with a 10 to 15 year plan to disengage Britain from the EU. There is no reason Britain shouldn't be able to survive and even thrive outside of the EU. The problem is trying to run the leave project too quickly. But of course, if you run it over several general elections the probability is that people will swing back to supporting remaining in.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
But if you rule it out and the EU want £100bn, what then?
Edited extra bit: Mr. L, you're spot on about housing.
The alternative is to withdraw article 50 and come up with a 10 to 15 year plan to disengage Britain from the EU. There is no reason Britain shouldn't be able to survive and even thrive outside of the EU. The problem is trying to run the leave project too quickly. But of course, if you run it over several general elections the probability is that people will swing back to supporting remaining in.
But if you rule it out and the EU want £100bn, what then?
Edited extra bit: Mr. L, you're spot on about housing.
The alternative is to withdraw article 50 and come up with a 10 to 15 year plan to disengage Britain from the EU. There is no reason Britain shouldn't be able to survive and even thrive outside of the EU. The problem is trying to run the leave project too quickly. But of course, if you run it over several general elections the probability is that people will swing back to supporting remaining in.
Why would the EU agree to that?
It would piss them off mightily. And that is obviously bad. But I thought leavers were rebels who didn't care about that kind of thing.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
Social Care is a total mess. I really don't see why May doesn't announce a Royal Commission and get on with solving this in a cross-party manner.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie before the next general election. So ultimately Labour will have to have come to a firm position before the country next goes to the polls. Brexit goes 'wrong' because the government refuses to pay 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU by the end of March 2019 and the Tories simply tell Labour 'you are either with us or with paying 50 to 100 billion of taxpayers money to the EU'
"Larry Flynt, the pornography publisher, is offering "up to $10 million" to anyone who produces information that leads to President Donald Trump's impeachment and removal from office."
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
And their grandparents are, or should be, too. It’s obvious to me, and I think it’s getting through to some of our friends.
Am I right in thnking that the £9k only started in 2012/13 ?
If so it was only after the 2015 GE that graduates started seeing the full debt situation.
And as the number of affected graduates has grown since then and the number of their parents and grandparents saw the ever increasing debt levels an electoral timebomb was set running.
The Conservatives are rather fortunate they were made aware of this now - by 2020 it would have been much larger.
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
The days when the tories could sell themselves as the party of a prosperous future are now behind us. It's a laughable proposition while they are willfully damaging the country's economy just because some people are scared the European Court will ban Union Jack underpants.
Their only hope now is to outspend Corbyn.
When the Conservatives chose to spend vast sums on Brexit, they forfeited any claim to fiscal responsibility. Quite how they retrieve the position is hard to see.
Not sure what you mean by that. I don't see what money they've spent on Brexit.
The wilful economic damage caused by their insistence on leaving the single market.
You state a hypothetical situation as fact. Their insistence is based on what the electorate (remember them?) instructed them to do.
Sorry, remind me of the referendum where we voted to leave he single market?
The BBC says the Sunday Times reports the budget may include cancellation of student loans. If so, there will need to be some industrial strength reverse ferreting from Tories who warned it would cost elebenty squillion pounds when Jeremy Corbyn mentioned the possibility. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-41625390
I just don't see how we could possibly afford that. But a pretty much permanent freeze on the level of loans and a much more generous interest rate and repayment regime would be possible. The challenge then would be to ensure that University level education remains adequately funded going forward, the challenge the fees were supposed to address in the first place.
The Tories will still keep tuition fees, unlike Corbyn Labour and there have also been moves to link fees closer to the graduate earning premium as well as reducing the burden of loans.
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
The days when the tories could sell themselves as the party of a prosperous future are now behind us. It's a laughable proposition while they are willfully damaging the country's economy just because some people are scared the European Court will ban Union Jack underpants.
Their only hope now is to outspend Corbyn.
When the Conservatives chose to spend vast sums on Brexit, they forfeited any claim to fiscal responsibility. Quite how they retrieve the position is hard to see.
Corbyn also backs Brexit and May tried fiscal responsibility last time, probably too much, she should have eased back a little on the austerity rhetoric and gone harder on tax cuts and Labour's tax rise plans rather than proposing the disastrous dementia tax
Labour don't need to claim fiscal responsibility. From their viewpoint it's enough for the Conservatives to lose the right to make that claim.
This is perhaps the most pervasive effect of Brexit on the Tories. There's obviously been a cultural backlash, but it's more that in pursuing it, even at the people's instruction, they've lost the right to pose as responsible caretakers of the economy who'll keep things ticking over while people get on with their lives. That was always the Tories' greatest attraction and their founding Burkean principle - but of course the Brexiteers forgot that and demanded revolution without stopping to think that they rarely turn out how you'd like as the destruction of the status quo creates a Year 0 where anything goes. Lots of voters who endorsed Cameron because he was "getting on with the job" have now reluctantly embraced Corbyn because if we're not concerned about fiscal responsibility any more, you might as well go for the guy who a) didn't cause this mess and b) would be spending on you out of altruism. Even if it's true it's difficult to argue the point that his socialism would be a unique economic disaster when you appear to be intent on enacting one yourself.
Getting rid of austerity won't help tackle that, it'll just appear to confirm Corbyn's right. The only way the Tories can get back on track is by delivering the sunlit uplands promised by Brexiteers - a feat that may well be logically as well as practically impossible.
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
BODMAS still applies, it hasn't been superseded.
Morning all,
Who is telling him the answer is 9?
My son' maths teacher. And the reason is indeed the application of BODMAS. You deal with the brackets first so that becomes 3 but you then start from the left so you do the 6/2 first before the multiplication.
But I am pretty sure that when I was at school you also dealt with the factor outside the brackets next giving the 6 before the division.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
Social Care is a total mess. I really don't see why May doesn't announce a Royal Commission and get on with solving this in a cross-party manner.
Because, as a Civil Servant just said on R5... "This year we are mostly doing Brexit."
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
I disagree, assets over £100 000 would still be liable for care costs under the Tories plans (including the home if they needed residential care) it was including the home for personal care costs that was the problem.
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
The days when the tories could sell themselves as the party of a prosperous future are now behind us. It's a laughable proposition while they are willfully damaging the country's economy just because some people are scared the European Court will ban Union Jack underpants.
Their only hope now is to outspend Corbyn.
Or to reinforce the point that seven years later we are still all living with the legacy of Gordon Brown, and that Jeremy Corbyn would make Gordon Brown look like a miser in comparison.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
Social Care is a total mess. I really don't see why May doesn't announce a Royal Commission and get on with solving this in a cross-party manner.
Have we not done that already? We had a Royal Commission in 1999 and the Dilnot Commission in 2010. But a party manifesto was probably the worst possible place to move something like this forward.
By far the most boring part of it has been being a Tory MP. Unless that is made more interesting for him I fear he will be off doing something else all too soon.
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
The days when the tories could sell themselves as the party of a prosperous future are now behind us. It's a laughable proposition while they are willfully damaging the country's economy just because some people are scared the European Court will ban Union Jack underpants.
Their only hope now is to outspend Corbyn.
When the Conservatives chose to spend vast sums on Brexit, they forfeited any claim to fiscal responsibility. Quite how they retrieve the position is hard to see.
Corbyn also backs Brexit and May tried fiscal responsibility last time, probably too much, she should have eased back a little on the austerity rhetoric and gone harder on tax cuts and Labour's tax rise plans rather than proposing the disastrous dementia tax
Labour don't need to claim fiscal responsibility. From their viewpoint it's enough for the Conservatives to lose the right to make that claim.
This is perhaps the most pervasive effect of Brexit on the Tories. There's obviously been a cultural backlash, but it's more that in pursuing it, even at the people's instruction, they've lost the right to pose as responsible caretakers of the economy who'll keep things ticking over while people get on with their lives. That was always the Tories' greatest attraction and their founding Burkean principle - but of course the Brexiteers forgot that and demanded revolution without stopping to think that they rarely turn out how you'd like as the destruction of the status quo creates a Year 0 where anything goes. Lots of voters who endorsed Cameron because he was "getting on with the job" have now reluctantly embraced Corbyn because if we're not concerned about fiscal responsibility any more, you might as well go for the guy who a) didn't cause this mess and b) would be spending on you out of altruism. Even if it's true it's difficult to argue the point that his socialism would be a unique economic disaster when you appear to be intent on enacting one yourself.
Getting rid of austerity won't help tackle that, it'll just appear to confirm Corbyn's right. The only way the Tories can get back on track is by delivering the sunlit uplands promised by Brexiteers - a feat that may well be logically as well as practically impossible.
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
BODMAS still applies, it hasn't been superseded.
Morning all,
Who is telling him the answer is 9?
My son' maths teacher. And the reason is indeed the application of BODMAS. You deal with the brackets first so that becomes 3 but you then start from the left so you do the 6/2 first before the multiplication.
But I am pretty sure that when I was at school you also dealt with the factor outside the brackets next giving the 6 before the division.
I think you have to remember there is an implicit "*" between the first "2" and the "(". So applying BODMAS, the 6/2 is done before the multiplication by (1+2) and the answer is 9.
All Labour needs to do is make clear that it would not do what the government is doing. If Brexit goes wrong that's the only requirement.
Logically impossible, if Labour attack the Tories for agreeing no deal because the EU is demanding too much money the Tories will simply ask Labour how much they are willing to pay the EU then
Nope, what is being said now is for consumption later. Brexit goes wrong - Labour says we were saying back in 2017 the government was messing the negotiation up.
We are leaving the EU by April 2019 ie before the next general election. So ultimately Labour will have to have come to a firm position before the country next goes to the polls. Brexit goes 'wrong' because the government refuses to pay 50 to 100 billion euros to the EU by the end of March 2019 and the Tories simply tell Labour 'you are either with us or with paying 50 to 100 billion of taxpayers money to the EU'
Yep - Labour says we will do a deal with the EU to mitigate the effects of this disastrous Brexit that has already cost the economy much more than what we were being asked to pay. The Tories say we won't do that. I am not sure Labour will be too worried about that.
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
BODMAS still applies, it hasn't been superseded.
Morning all,
Who is telling him the answer is 9?
My son' maths teacher. And the reason is indeed the application of BODMAS. You deal with the brackets first so that becomes 3 but you then start from the left so you do the 6/2 first before the multiplication.
But I am pretty sure that when I was at school you also dealt with the factor outside the brackets next giving the 6 before the division.
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
The days when the tories could sell themselves as the party of a prosperous future are now behind us. It's a laughable proposition while they are willfully damaging the country's economy just because some people are scared the European Court will ban Union Jack underpants.
Their only hope now is to outspend Corbyn.
When the Conservatives chose to spend vast sums on Brexit, they forfeited any claim to fiscal responsibility. Quite how they retrieve the position is hard to see.
Not sure what you mean by that. I don't see what money they've spent on Brexit.
The wilful economic damage caused by their insistence on leaving the single market.
Something also backed by Corbyn you mean? Only the LDs and SNP want to stay in the single market, both the Tories and Corbyn Labour do not
What Corbyn supports is irrelevant to the point here.
it's relevant if he c supports the same policy since you have to judge relative positions - neither may be fiscally responsible, but both will claim to be, who is the least full of crap.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
snip.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
Social Care is a total mess. I really don't see why May doesn't announce a Royal Commission and get on with solving this in a cross-party manner.
Have we not done that already? We had a Royal Commission in 1999 and the Dilnot Commission in 2010. But a party manifesto was probably the worst possible place to move something like this forward.
Yep. One can only assume they thought they would get sign-off for their major change because May was about to get a landslide no matter what they said, or perhaps that no one would notice the measure in the manifesto.
Very perplexing. It's put back the issue for years.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
I disagree, assets over £100 000 would still be liable for care costs under the Tories plans (including the home if they needed residential care) it was including the home for personal care costs that was the problem.
Why should the State pay for personal care to increase the inheritance? I accept that there might be some exclusions and some deferrals until after death but I really don't see why these costs incurred in life are not the first call on someone's wealth.
But if you rule it out and the EU want £100bn, what then?
Edited extra bit: Mr. L, you're spot on about housing.
The alternative is to withdraw article 50 and come up with a 10 to 15 year plan to disengage Britain from the EU. There is no reason Britain shouldn't be able to survive and even thrive outside of the EU. The problem is trying to run the leave project too quickly. But of course, if you run it over several general elections the probability is that people will swing back to supporting remaining in.
Why would the EU agree to that?
It would piss them off mightily. And that is obviously bad. But I thought leavers were rebels who didn't care about that kind of thing.
But it's not in our power to unilaterally withdraw A50. So, the agreement of each of the 27 States would be needed.
TSE, as a hardcore Leaver I agree that Cameron would be a good to great Foreign Secretary. I also agree that it won't happen.
I also don't see how Cameron can be Foreign Secretary when he is neither in the Commons or the Lords now?
Not like there’s recent precedent for something like that.
Oh wait.
Boris returned to the Commons at the 2015 general election, I see no evidence Cameron has any desire too, he is quite happy leading the life of a country squire in Oxfordshire and working with his national citizenship service and charity work
Home was a former PM who became Foreign Secretary but he was still MP for Kinross and Western Perthshire at the time
It would be a hell of a change in direction from him, and given he left in the first place there's no sign he'd want to get involved in such a difficult situation.
By far the most boring part of it has been being a Tory MP. Unless that is made more interesting for him I fear he will be off doing something else all too soon.
Useless as an MP regardless, typical Tory.
Goes without saying Malcolm. Even although he is a Scot.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
Social Care is a total mess. I really don't see why May doesn't announce a Royal Commission and get on with solving this in a cross-party manner.
Because, as a Civil Servant just said on R5... "This year we are mostly doing Brexit."
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
"Tony Blair explained his priorities in three words: education, education, education, I can do it in three letters: NHS."
People believe that they've already paid for the social care through their NI contributions.
What the Conservatives should have done was put social care under the NHS and, very publicly, increase NHS funding (without mentioning its extra responsibilities).
To pay for the extra funding increase taxes on property or a levy on unpopular businesses.
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
The days when the tories could sell themselves as the party of a prosperous future are now behind us. It's a laughable proposition while they are willfully damaging the country's economy just because some people are scared the European Court will ban Union Jack underpants.
Their only hope now is to outspend Corbyn.
When the Conservatives chose to spend vast sums on Brexit, they forfeited any claim to fiscal responsibility. Quite how they retrieve the position is hard to see.
Corbyn also backs Brexit and May tried fiscal responsibility last time, probably too much, she should have eased back a little on the austerity rhetoric and gone harder on tax cuts and Labour's tax rise plans rather than proposing the disastrous dementia tax
Labour don't need to claim fiscal responsibility. From their viewpoint it's enough for the Conservatives to lose the right to make that claim.
This is perhaps the most pervasive effect of Brexit on the Tories. There's obviously been a cultural backlash, but it's more that in pursuing it, even at the people's instruction, they've lost the right to pose as responsible caretakers of the economy who'll keep things ticking over while people get on with their lives. That was always the Tories' greatest attraction and their founding Burkean principle - but of course the Brexiteers forgot that and demanded revolution without stopping to think that they rarely turn out how you'd like as the destruction of the status quo creates a Year 0 where anything goes. Lots of voters who endorsed Cameron because he was "getting on with the job" have now reluctantly embraced Corbyn because if we're not concerned about fiscal responsibility any more, you might as well go for the guy who a) didn't cause this mess and b) would be spending on you out of altruism. Even if it's true it's difficult to argue the point that his socialism would be a unique economic disaster when you appear to be intent on enacting one yourself.
Getting rid of austerity won't help tackle that, it'll just appear to confirm Corbyn's right. The only way the Tories can get back on track is by delivering the sunlit uplands promised by Brexiteers - a feat that may well be logically as well as practically impossible.
As it happens, the Conservatives do still have a big lead over Labour on the economy.
And, millions of voters are very keen on Brexit. You win some voters, and you lose others.
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
BODMAS still applies, it hasn't been superseded.
Morning all,
Who is telling him the answer is 9?
My son' maths teacher. And the reason is indeed the application of BODMAS. You deal with the brackets first so that becomes 3 but you then start from the left so you do the 6/2 first before the multiplication.
But I am pretty sure that when I was at school you also dealt with the factor outside the brackets next giving the 6 before the division.
Excel says 9.
I don't think there is any doubt that 9 is the right answer. I am relieved that others also thought it was 1.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
Dementia is a lottery. The cost of dealing with it should be shared, just as the costs of dealing with cancer or heart disease are shared. But what the Tories proposed was a huge leap forward and could have been the basis of a constructive debate that ended with concrete, workable measures involving taxation of all properties, not just those of the afflicted. Of course, if the Tories had not scuppered Burnham's plans in 2010 with their Death Tax it would not have been an issue in 2017.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
snip
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
I disagree, assets over £100 000 would still be liable for care costs under the Tories plans (including the home if they needed residential care) it was including the home for personal care costs that was the problem.
Why should the State pay for personal care to increase the inheritance? I accept that there might be some exclusions and some deferrals until after death but I really don't see why these costs incurred in life are not the first call on someone's wealth.
That's not how we view health spending. So why draw the line for care? The most expensive care is for people who have serious illnesses like dementia.
This is why we need a serious public debate about the way forward.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
That said, I think the prospect of getting lots of votes from it is small - like Labour spending more money on defence, you can get some polite acknowledgements that you're not as bad as they thought, but most of the people involved are too entrenched in thinking you're basically rubbish. The Tories have a cultural problem in addressing younger people - unhappiness over tuiton fees is an expression of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
Your first sentence is harsh, but on the second and third, Agreed. And now nothing will happen at all.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea truly pathetic.
I disagree, assets overproblem.
Why should the State pay for personal care to increase the inheritance? I accept that there might be some exclusions and some deferrals until after death but I really don't see why these costs incurred in life are not the first call on someone's wealth.
You can take the moral high ground if you like but inheritance tax and the dementia tax were deeply unpopular with the voters, especially with the high value of house prices at least inheritance ensures some of that benefit filters down to the younger generation. That was why the Tories got a big boost after cutting the former and a big hit by proposing the latter.
Funding care beyond the assets already provided should be by social insurance/national insurance as it is in Japan and the Netherlands or by encouraging insurance provision secured against the value of the home as an option
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
BODMAS still applies, it hasn't been superseded.
Morning all,
Who is telling him the answer is 9?
My son' maths teacher. And the reason is indeed the application of BODMAS. You deal with the brackets first so that becomes 3 but you then start from the left so you do the 6/2 first before the multiplication.
But I am pretty sure that when I was at school you also dealt with the factor outside the brackets next giving the 6 before the division.
I think it is ambiguous because of the punctuation; if xy is a legitimate way of writing x multiplied by y, then 2(1+2) is 6: from the layout, because they aren't using proper notation, we don't know if all of 2(1+2), or only 2, is below the line represented by /
They need to win the battle of ideas, and show their way is the best way for young people to own their own homes, get decent jobs and have a prosperous future.
The days when the tories could sell themselves as the party of a prosperous future are now behind us. It's a laughable proposition while they are willfully damaging the country's economy just because some people are scared the European Court will ban Union Jack underpants.
Their only hope now is to outspend Corbyn.
When the Conservatives chose to spend vast sums on Brexit, they forfeited any claim to fiscal responsibility. Quite how they retrieve the position is hard to see.
Corbyn also backs Brexit and May tried fiscal responsibility last time, probably too much, she should have eased back a little on the austerity rhetoric and gone harder on tax cuts and Labour's tax rise plans rather than proposing the disastrous dementia tax
Labour don't need to claim fiscal responsibility. From their viewpoint it's enough for the Conservatives to lose the right to make that claim.
This is perhaps the most pervasive effect of Brexit on the Tories. There's obviously been a cultural backlash, but it's more that in pursuing it, even at the people's instruction, they've lost the right to pose as responsible caretakers of the economy who'll keep things ticking over while people get on with their lives. That was always the Tories' greatest attraction and their founding Burkean principle - but of course the Brexiteers forgot that and demanded revolution without stopping to think that they rarely turn out how you'd like as the destruction of the status quo creates a Year 0 where anything goes. Lots of voters who endorsed Cameron because he was "getting on with the job" have now reluctantly embraced Corbyn because if we're not concerned about fiscal responsibility any more, you might as well go for the guy who a) didn't cause this mess and b) would be spending on you out of altruism. Even if it's true it's difficult to argue the point that his socialism would be a unique economic disaster when you appear to be intent on enacting one yourself.
Getting rid of austerity won't help tackle that, ssible.
As it happens, the Conservatives do still have a big lead over Labour on the economy.
And, millions of voters are very keen on Brexit. You win some voters, and you lose others.
We're due a recession - the economic lead won't last through another one.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
"Tony Blair explained his priorities in three words: education, education, education, I can do it in three letters: NHS."
People believe that they've already paid for the social care through their NI contributions.
What the Conservatives should have done was put social care under the NHS and, very publicly, increase NHS funding (without mentioning its extra responsibilities).
To pay for the extra funding increase taxes on property or a levy on unpopular businesses.
People believe all kinds of weird things Richard. Some people even believe we should be in the EU, even now. But that doesn't make it true.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple of it but not the main issue.
The situation is so bad with the Tories and young people that they will have to do a lot even to get some sort of a hearing. It will not pay dividends in the short term but if the party is to survive in the long run it needs to start. The longest journeys etc.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea truly pathetic.
I disagree, assets overproblem.
Why should the State pay for personal care to increase the inheritance? I accept that there might be some exclusions and some deferrals until after death but I really don't see why these costs incurred in life are not the first call on someone's wealth.
You can take the moral high ground if you like but inheritance tax and the dementia tax were deeply unpopular with the voters, especially with the high value of house prices at least inheritance ensures some of that benefit filters down to the younger generation. That was why the Tories got a big boost after cutting the former and a big hit by proposing the latter.
Funding care beyond the assets already provided should be by social insurance/national insurance as it is in Japan and the Netherlands or by encouraging insurance provision secured against the value of the home as an option
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
I disagree, assets over £100 000 would still be liable for care costs under the Tories plans (including the home if they needed residential care) it was including the home for personal care costs that was the problem.
Why should the State pay for personal care to increase the inheritance? I accept that there might be some exclusions and some deferrals until after death but I really don't see why these costs incurred in life are not the first call on someone's wealth.
Why then should people who work have to pay to keep people who don't, by your logic everyone should pay their own way. Have to say it would be significantly cheaper to buy really good cover for life compared to the sums I have paid to the government for supposed cover.
This analysis looks right to me, which makes 8-1 for Boris value - he might well go, but do we really know that a reshuffle is imminent? There is a case against it (it would be portrayed as TM's last roll of the dice) and May's record is not one of swift, decisive action. Like Alasatir I think it works out at about 1-1, not 8-1.
But things are so unstable that I'm not betting on it either.
On tuition fees, the obvious simple remedy would be to lower the outrageous interest rate. Presumably the Student Loan Company would need to be compensated for that (?), but it would look fair and be simple to accomplsh.
The political problem for the Tories isn't "young" people, it is their parents.
Their parents are annoyed that their kids are getting treated like shit to buy votes from wrinklies. And so they should be.
Their parents were annoyed at the dementia tax which stuffed the inheritance they were set to get following Osborne's IHT cut
I still find the idea that the State should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a persons care so they can leave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the next generation who chose not to look after their parent themselves morally obscene. The underlying principle of the dementia tax was to my mind unimpeachable. The way it was introduced, explained, justified and run away from truly pathetic.
I disagree, assets over £100 000 would still be liable for care costs under the Tories plans (including the home if they needed residential care) it was including the home for personal care costs that was the problem.
Why should the State pay for personal care to increase the inheritance? I accept that there might be some exclusions and some deferrals until after death but I really don't see why these costs incurred in life are not the first call on someone's wealth.
Why then should people who work have to pay to keep people who don't, by your logic everyone should pay their own way. Have to say it would be significantly cheaper to buy really good cover for life compared to the sums I have paid to the government for supposed cover.
If they have large amounts of capital we don't give them benefits until that capital is exhausted. It is the elderly we are treating differently. The State is there to cover needs not inheritance pots.
Comments
I understand you don't care for it, but I'm happy to side with the electorate.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/15/fiercest-of-enemies-best-of-friends-cross-party-pals-parliament-mps
Britain was already spending vast sums on the EU, irrespective of Brexit.
Yes, sorry, misread the header. In that case, I definitely wouldn't bet!
But in the absence of that, erecting flimsy straw men to make, well, make no point at all is wilfully dim, even if I recognise that is par for your course.
Or the government gives every teeneager an 'education and training fund' to be used to pay for further education and training.
By far the most boring part of it has been being a Tory MP. Unless that is made more interesting for him I fear he will be off doing something else all too soon.
It always amuses me when when dopes get embarrassed on forums.
You may agree with unelected people sitting in cabinet, I don't. Ho hum.
Good luck with that!
No deal is not a good result.
But if you rule it out and the EU want £100bn, what then?
Edited extra bit: Mr. L, you're spot on about housing.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/919491560420577281
You did have an elegant turn of phrase though. IIRC it was dark cloaks, skeletal fingers and voices of doom speaking in block capitals.
Meanwhile the stock markets are at record heights (with consequential boost to my finances) and rather less happily we have so much business at my job I'm going to have to do a couple of hours of work on a Sunday.
My son has drawn my attention to the following sum:
6/2(1+2) = X
When I were a lad X=1 because you would deal with the brackets and the multiple of the brackets first so it ends up 6/6.
Now, apparently, the answer is 9 by having 6/2 multiply the 3 from the brackets.
I have seen over the years that there are several highly competent and qualified mathematicians on here. Has this changed and if so when?
'The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government.'
Who is telling him the answer is 9?
"Larry Flynt, the pornography publisher, is offering "up to $10 million" to anyone who produces information that leads to President Donald Trump's impeachment and removal from office."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/14/porn-publisher-larry-flynt-offers-10-million-dirt-impeach-donald/
If so it was only after the 2015 GE that graduates started seeing the full debt situation.
And as the number of affected graduates has grown since then and the number of their parents and grandparents saw the ever increasing debt levels an electoral timebomb was set running.
The Conservatives are rather fortunate they were made aware of this now - by 2020 it would have been much larger.
Getting rid of austerity won't help tackle that, it'll just appear to confirm Corbyn's right. The only way the Tories can get back on track is by delivering the sunlit uplands promised by Brexiteers - a feat that may well be logically as well as practically impossible.
But I am pretty sure that when I was at school you also dealt with the factor outside the brackets next giving the 6 before the division.
"This year we are mostly doing Brexit."
So applying BODMAS, the 6/2 is done before the multiplication by (1+2) and the answer is 9.
Very perplexing. It's put back the issue for years.
People believe that they've already paid for the social care through their NI contributions.
What the Conservatives should have done was put social care under the NHS and, very publicly, increase NHS funding (without mentioning its extra responsibilities).
To pay for the extra funding increase taxes on property or a levy on unpopular businesses.
And, millions of voters are very keen on Brexit. You win some voters, and you lose others.
This is why we need a serious public debate about the way forward.
Funding care beyond the assets already provided should be by social insurance/national insurance as it is in Japan and the Netherlands or by encouraging insurance provision secured against the value of the home as an option
As others say, the issue here is really the lack of brackets which causes needless ambiguity.