That is slightly over-stating things by the Greens (quelle surprise)
At 16 you can't get married in England without parental consent. The same applies to joining the Army.
So the top two things on their list, you can't do without your parents agreeing.
Can’t pilot a glider without parental consent either, if under 18.
3/5 they’ve got wrong.
As well as vote, you can’t buy cigarettes, alcohol or knives, enter a nightclub, a sex shop or a bookmakers, or sign a contact or take out a mortgage until you’re 18.
Isn't joining the Army the odd one out ? Why are 16 year olds even considered ?
I flew the votes at 16 idea past PB some some months ago and was astonished by the general hostility to the idea. It's in situ and completely uncontroversial in Scotland with even the Conservatives on board.
You cannot vote but you can die for your country!
If Kim gets his ICBMs, there won't be an age bar on that...
I flew the votes at 16 idea past PB some some months ago and was astonished by the general hostility to the idea. It's in situ and completely uncontroversial in Scotland with even the Conservatives on board.
Even when I was 16 (I'm now 30) I didn't like the idea. That the point was conceded for indyref makes it hard to resist though. If it is to happen we need consistency, as my problem is we tell people there are things they cannot do as they are not adults, like buy alcohol, but we say they can vote earlier? Casting a vote requires, or implies, more maturity than that needed to buy some whiskey.
I'm aware the situation is presently inconsistent already, but I would resist any change until we decide if 16 year olds are adult or not. If they are adult enough to vote, there are other things we need to let them do, in my opinion. Decide if we accept 16 years can be masters of their own destinies or if society thinks they need to be restricted from various rights.
I'd prefer not to lower the voting age as I think that goes against our general societal approach toward them, but I won't object if it happens if we actually treat them like adults, not children with votes.
I flew the votes at 16 idea past PB some some months ago and was astonished by the general hostility to the idea. It's in situ and completely uncontroversial in Scotland with even the Conservatives on board.
You cannot vote but you can die for your country!
If Kim gets his ICBMs, there won't be an age bar on that...
And, for some reason, he will attack the UK and leave aside everyone else. Maybe, in his mind, we are not that important ?
If I may point out to the Green Party that 5 year olds spending their pocket money on chocolate or ice cream or crisps pay tax.
Ice cream isn't exempt?!
More seriously the arguments are superficially very convincing.
How about 16 to vote in Local & Devolved - then 18 for GE
I don't understand the logic - if you're old enough to vote you're old enough to vote regardless if the type, that's why even though I don't agree with it I think the case has been lost already and 16 year olds will get it.
That is slightly over-stating things by the Greens (quelle surprise)
At 16 you can't get married in England without parental consent. The same applies to joining the Army.
So the top two things on their list, you can't do without your parents agreeing.
Can’t pilot a glider without parental consent either, if under 18.
3/5 they’ve got wrong.
As well as vote, you can’t buy cigarettes, alcohol or knives, enter a nightclub, a sex shop or a bookmakers, or sign a contact or take out a mortgage until you’re 18.
Isn't joining the Army the odd one out ? Why are 16 year olds even considered ?
The get them while they're young principle?
They've raised the maximum age you can join the army I think, I've no problrm raising the minimum if it enables a consistent approach.
If I may point out to the Green Party that 5 year olds spending their pocket money on chocolate or ice cream or crisps pay tax.
Ice cream isn't exempt?!
More seriously the arguments are superficially very convincing.
How about 16 to vote in Local & Devolved - then 18 for GE
I don't understand the logic - if you're old enough to vote you're old enough to vote regardless if the type, that's why even though I don't agree with it I think the case has been lost already and 16 year olds will get it.
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
I chaired a meeting on this recently, a sort of focus group of local party members. One of the questions was to list a set of 'distinctive and enduring core priorities' for the party. I deliberately didn't leave much time for the question, because I wanted people to come up with the first things that struck them. The ones the group chose were:
Freedom, Capitalism/Free markets, Equality of opportunity, Responsibility, Sound finances, Choice, Fairness, Justice, Respect for law, (Free) Enterprise, Support for home ownership
I flew the votes at 16 idea past PB some some months ago and was astonished by the general hostility to the idea. It's in situ and completely uncontroversial in Scotland with even the Conservatives on board.
You cannot vote but you can die for your country!
Except under 18s don't go and fight on the front line. It is all army training.
Personally I would prefer everybody in education / vocational training until 18, then can join the army if they want.
That's an extraordinarily low turnout, isn't it? Must be a lot of armchair members in Wales (or out-of-date lists?)
Yes the very low turnout was my first thought too. I suspect name recognition was a factor. They had to amend the Constitution earlier in the year to allow the contest to proceed. As Kirsty Williams is the only elected parliamentarian in Wales she was the only one eligible to stand. But she had just resigned the role.
If I may point out to the Green Party that 5 year olds spending their pocket money on chocolate or ice cream or crisps pay tax.
Ice cream isn't exempt?!
More seriously the arguments are superficially very convincing.
How about 16 to vote in Local & Devolved - then 18 for GE
I don't understand the logic - if you're old enough to vote you're old enough to vote regardless if the type, that's why even though I don't agree with it I think the case has been lost already and 16 year olds will get it.
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
The things they are supposed to stand for (small state, individual responsibility) are very much out of favour right now and have been since 2008.
Individual responsibility is always in favour. After all, look at the debate we've been having on sexual harassment. Aren't we all saying that men are - and should be - responsible for their actions not blame it on a general culture or everyone else doing it?
What isn't in favour is the sort of individual responsibility which is purely focused on being responsible for yourself and not on helping or being responsible for your neighbour. I would argue that looking out for others is part of what individual responsibility is about, that you don't walk on by when someone needs your help.
Re small state, maybe the Tories should be focusing on a competent and efficient state?
But Mr Meeks is right, it is hard to know what the Tories really stand for. Bringing on a new generation is one way of getting them to do the hard thinking about what Conservatism should be about for new generations.
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
I chaired a meeting on this recently, a sort of focus group of local party members. One of the questions was to list a set of 'distinctive and enduring core priorities' for the party. I deliberately didn't leave much time for the question, because I wanted people to come up with the first things that struck them. The ones the group chose were:
Freedom, Capitalism/Free markets, Equality of opportunity, Responsibility, Sound finances, Choice, Fairness, Justice, Respect for law, (Free) Enterprise, Support for home ownership
Most of those should be seen in the light, as @Ishmael_Z noted earlier this week, of asking whether anyone would want the opposite, which rules out most of them.
We are talking about what type of country do people want to live in that the Cons can bring about and which distinguishes them from the other parties.
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
I chaired a meeting on this recently, a sort of focus group of local party members. One of the questions was to list a set of 'distinctive and enduring core priorities' for the party. I deliberately didn't leave much time for the question, because I wanted people to come up with the first things that struck them. The ones the group chose were:
Freedom, Capitalism/Free markets, Equality of opportunity, Responsibility, Sound finances, Choice, Fairness, Justice, Respect for law, (Free) Enterprise, Support for home ownership
Most of those should be seen in the light, as @Ishmael_Z noted earlier this week, of asking whether anyone would want the opposite, which rules out most of them.
We are talking about what type of country do people want to live in that the Cons can bring about and which distinguishes them from the other parties.
Arguably Corbyn's Labour is not in favour of capitalism / free markets or free enterprise or, possibly, sound finances. Or choice. Marxists tend to think that property is theft. So maybe your point is not quite made out......
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
I chaired a meeting on this recently, a sort of focus group of local party members. One of the questions was to list a set of 'distinctive and enduring core priorities' for the party. I deliberately didn't leave much time for the question, because I wanted people to come up with the first things that struck them. The ones the group chose were:
Freedom, Capitalism/Free markets, Equality of opportunity, Responsibility, Sound finances, Choice, Fairness, Justice, Respect for law, (Free) Enterprise, Support for home ownership
Most of those should be seen in the light, as @Ishmael_Z noted earlier this week, of asking whether anyone would want the opposite, which rules out most of them.
We are talking about what type of country do people want to live in that the Cons can bring about and which distinguishes them from the other parties.
Many people DO want the opposite of that list. They want government controlled businesses, equality of outcome (not opportunity), spend-spend-spend, and their version of 'fairness' with restriction of freedom on those they disagree with.
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
I chaired a meeting on this recently, a sort of focus group of local party members. One of the questions was to list a set of 'distinctive and enduring core priorities' for the party. I deliberately didn't leave much time for the question, because I wanted people to come up with the first things that struck them. The ones the group chose were:
Freedom, Capitalism/Free markets, Equality of opportunity, Responsibility, Sound finances, Choice, Fairness, Justice, Respect for law, (Free) Enterprise, Support for home ownership
Most of those should be seen in the light, as @Ishmael_Z noted earlier this week, of asking whether anyone would want the opposite, which rules out most of them.
We are talking about what type of country do people want to live in that the Cons can bring about and which distinguishes them from the other parties.
I disagree. I think if you asked a group of Labour or LibDem activists the same question you'd get a very different set of responses. Yes, it might be that few people would actively disagree with those aims (although as has just been pointed out, some might), but it is the question of whether they are priorities which distinguishes the parties.
That's an extraordinarily low turnout, isn't it? Must be a lot of armchair members in Wales (or out-of-date lists?)
Yes the very low turnout was my first thought too. I suspect name recognition was a factor. They had to amend the Constitution earlier in the year to allow the contest to proceed. As Kirsty Williams is the only elected parliamentarian in Wales she was the only one eligible to stand. But she had just resigned the role.
It does sound like a bit of a non-job - so it is hardly surprising that no-one was bothered.
That's an extraordinarily low turnout, isn't it? Must be a lot of armchair members in Wales (or out-of-date lists?)
Yes the very low turnout was my first thought too. I suspect name recognition was a factor. They had to amend the Constitution earlier in the year to allow the contest to proceed. As Kirsty Williams is the only elected parliamentarian in Wales she was the only one eligible to stand. But she had just resigned the role.
Ms Dodds received 587 votes, with Ms Evans getting 519. Turnout was 35.3%.
That means that there were roughly 3130 Lib Dem members in Wales- thats not a lot really.
An interesting header cyclefree though I was a little surprised you didn't include Benjamin Netanyahu's hand on Theresa May's bottom outside Downing St yesterday. Whether he's not au fait with the political climate here or whether he was just being his boorish self is impossible to know but Theresa managed what Ladsom couldn't which was to keep her dignity.
It's an interesting header by Cyclefree but Gavin Williamson ticks nearly all of the suggested boxes. He's 41, only entered parliament 7 years ago, sits for a Staffordshire seat, went to a comprehensive school then a northern redbrick University and study Social Science. Superficially he is exactly the sort of demographic and fresh face Ms Cyclefree thinks should be promoted. He has been and has gone down like the Hindenberg is some quarters. So clearly demographic change alone isn't enough.
Ah, but this was not the promotion many were looking for. (Happy to reserve judgment myself!)
A very good header, @Cyclefree. We ought to be able to appeal to the younger generation who have grown up in a world full of technological innovation, new marketplaces and multiple careers. They're not hungering for 1970s style unionised jobs-for-life. True, Brexit is a cultural complication: we need to reassure people that we aren't seeking to re-enact the 1950s either.
But we have to communicate properly using the right people. The working assumption was that there would have been a relatively substantial reshuffle, post-May winning a 50+ majority. It can't be postponed much longer, but the present unedifying spectacle may need to be played out first.
For this Parliament, Brexit - which is unfathomable to large numbers of the u30s - is going to be a recurring, dominant news story.
I don’t see a way around that - short of some kind of new free trade and movement deal with Aus/Can/USA!
I chaired a meeting on this recently, a sort of focus group of local party members. One of the questions was to list a set of 'distinctive and enduring core priorities' for the party. I deliberately didn't leave much time for the question, because I wanted people to come up with the first things that struck them. The ones the group chose were:
Freedom, Capitalism/Free markets, Equality of opportunity, Responsibility, Sound finances, Choice, Fairness, Justice, Respect for law, (Free) Enterprise, Support for home ownership
As a non-Conservative, I don't have a problem with anything on that list and I suspect most LD and the majority of Labour supporters wouldn't either.
It's a question of degree - there are those who would, for example, prioritise having a roof over their head over actual home ownership while notions of "fairness" and "justice" can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean.
Rank the list by priority and you might get different responses but to assume somehow that only Conservatives "believe" in these things and members of other parties don't is nonsensical. The application of these principles will differ as will their priority but not the principles themselves.
If I were masterminding the Conservatives' strategy for the next few years, I think I'd major on "making sure that good work is fairly rewarded".
Ruth Davidson’s speech others linked to a while back would be a great start.
But why would the Tories feel the need to reinvent themselves when they are in power? I think it probably takes a defeat to make a political party change.
It's an interesting header by Cyclefree but Gavin Williamson ticks nearly all of the suggested boxes. He's 41, only entered parliament 7 years ago, sits for a Staffordshire seat, went to a comprehensive school then a northern redbrick University and study Social Science. Superficially he is exactly the sort of demographic and fresh face Ms Cyclefree thinks should be promoted. He has been and has gone down like the Hindenberg is some quarters. So clearly demographic change alone isn't enough.
Ah, but this was not the promotion many were looking for. (Happy to reserve judgment myself!)
A very good header, @Cyclefree. We ought to be able to appeal to the younger generation who have grown up in a world full of technological innovation, new marketplaces and multiple careers. They're not hungering for 1970s style unionised jobs-for-life. True, Brexit is a cultural complication: we need to reassure people that we aren't seeking to re-enact the 1950s either.
But we have to communicate properly using the right people. The working assumption was that there would have been a relatively substantial reshuffle, post-May winning a 50+ majority. It can't be postponed much longer, but the present unedifying spectacle may need to be played out first.
For this Parliament, Brexit - which is unfathomable to large numbers of the u30s - is going to be a recurring, dominant news story.
I don’t see a way around that - short of some kind of new free trade and movement deal with Aus/Can/USA!
Well naturally whatever deal we strike will make a huge difference. But in the meantime we could do better in terms of explaining what free movement actually means [I think there is still a lot of confusion on this score], and that the right to travel etc. will be unaffected.
I would hope that a deal could actually retain some elements of free movement e.g. with respect to students, and skilled employment in some sectors and/or possibly based on e.g. jobs paying >£35k ?
Cocky of Cameron not to use it in the EU referendum. Obviously thought he would win anyway.
Tactically, a big row about the franchise (particularly relating to EU citizens) would have brought to the fore some important issues much earlier and given the campaigns a different complexion, even if ultimately they'd stuck to the current GE format.
But Cameron always avoided anything that would have required him to challenge the ultras on the backbenches. That was his - and the country's - undoing.
As a non-Conservative, I don't have a problem with anything on that list and I suspect most LD and the majority of Labour supporters wouldn't either.
You have to look at what's not there. For example, if you asked a group of Labour or LibDem activists the same question, I imagine that things like 'Ending discrimination' or 'Tackling climate change' or 'Protecting the NHS' or 'Reducing inequality' would appear high on the list.
As a non-Conservative, I don't have a problem with anything on that list and I suspect most LD and the majority of Labour supporters wouldn't either.
You have to look at what's not there. For example, if you asked a group of Labour or LibDem activists the same question, I imagine that things like 'Ending discrimination' or 'Tackling climate change' or 'Protecting the NHS' or 'Reducing inequality' would appear high on the list.
Yes I think all of those would appear pretty high on a list of priorities for Labour activists.
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
The things they are supposed to stand for (small state, individual responsibility) are very much out of favour right now and have been since 2008.
Individual responsibility is always in favour. After all, look at the debate we've been having on sexual harassment. Aren't we all saying that men are - and should be - responsible for their actions not blame it on a general culture or everyone else doing it?
What isn't in favour is the sort of individual responsibility which is purely focused on being responsible for yourself and not on helping or being responsible for your neighbour. I would argue that looking out for others is part of what individual responsibility is about, that you don't walk on by when someone needs your help.
Re small state, maybe the Tories should be focusing on a competent and efficient state?
But Mr Meeks is right, it is hard to know what the Tories really stand for. Bringing on a new generation is one way of getting them to do the hard thinking about what Conservatism should be about for new generations.
I absolutely believe that the Government should have acted as they did with the banks in the GFC.
But that was an example of the State absolving individuals from responsibility. Banks are supposed to be allowed to go bust which should motivate customers to demand prudent behaviour. Before and since that had not been the case.
As for small state, it is saying that individuals know how to spend their money better than governments. I'm not sure there is too much of that around now either.
And maybe people are right that not everyone would agree with that list. But the Cons have to appeal to the large minority perhaps even majority of Labour voters who would see little controversial or unique in it.
An interesting header cyclefree though I was a little surprised you didn't include Benjamin Netanyahu's hand on Theresa May's bottom outside Downing St yesterday. Whether he's not au fait with the political climate here or whether he was just being his boorish self is impossible to know but Theresa managed what Ladsom couldn't which was to keep her dignity.
I had no idea he did such a thing.
Not really sure he's relevant to the Non-Reshuffle, though.......
It's an interesting header by Cyclefree but Gavin Williamson ticks nearly all of the suggested boxes. He's 41, only entered parliament 7 years ago, sits for a Staffordshire seat, went to a comprehensive school then a northern redbrick University and study Social Science. Superficially he is exactly the sort of demographic and fresh face Ms Cyclefree thinks should be promoted. He has been and has gone down like the Hindenberg is some quarters. So clearly demographic change alone isn't enough.
Ah, but this was not the promotion many were looking for. (Happy to reserve judgment myself!)
A very good header, @Cyclefree. We ought to be able to appeal to the younger generation who have grown up in a world full of technological innovation, new marketplaces and multiple careers. They're not hungering for 1970s style unionised jobs-for-life. True, Brexit is a cultural complication: we need to reassure people that we aren't seeking to re-enact the 1950s either.
But we have to communicate properly using the right people. The working assumption was that there would have been a relatively substantial reshuffle, post-May winning a 50+ majority. It can't be postponed much longer, but the present unedifying spectacle may need to be played out first.
For this Parliament, Brexit - which is unfathomable to large numbers of the u30s - is going to be a recurring, dominant news story.
I don’t see a way around that - short of some kind of new free trade and movement deal with Aus/Can/USA!
Well naturally whatever deal we strike will make a huge difference. But in the meantime we could do better in terms of explaining what free movement actually means [I think there is still a lot of confusion on this score], and that the right to travel etc. will be unaffected.
I would hope that a deal could actually retaining some elements of free movement e.g. with respect to students, and skilled employment some sectors and/or possibly based on e.g. jobs paying >£35k ?
My generation really aren’t that fussed about immigrants IMO. That’s why we don’t get it. And There is no way TM will retain FoM for students - she has been absolutely resolute in keeping them in her target - I have absolutely no idea why. >35k is a bad idea tactically I suspect.. It plays into the idea that rich people (35k is a lot to a lot of people in this country) get special privileges.
It's an interesting header by Cyclefree but Gavin Williamson ticks nearly all of the suggested boxes. He's 41, only entered parliament 7 years ago, sits for a Staffordshire seat, went to a comprehensive school then a northern redbrick University and study Social Science. Superficially he is exactly the sort of demographic and fresh face Ms Cyclefree thinks should be promoted. He has been and has gone down like the Hindenberg is some quarters. So clearly demographic change alone isn't enough.
Ah, but this was not the promotion many were looking for. (Happy to reserve judgment myself!)
A very good header, @Cyclefree. We ought to be able to appeal to the younger generation who have grown up in a world full of technological innovation, new marketplaces and multiple careers. They're not hungering for 1970s style unionised jobs-for-life. True, Brexit is a cultural complication: we need to reassure people that we aren't seeking to re-enact the 1950s either.
But we have to communicate properly using the right people. The working assumption was that there would have been a relatively substantial reshuffle, post-May winning a 50+ majority. It can't be postponed much longer, but the present unedifying spectacle may need to be played out first.
For this Parliament, Brexit - which is unfathomable to large numbers of the u30s - is going to be a recurring, dominant news story.
I don’t see a way around that - short of some kind of new free trade and movement deal with Aus/Can/USA!
Well naturally whatever deal we strike will make a huge difference. But in the meantime we could do better in terms of explaining what free movement actually means [I think there is still a lot of confusion on this score], and that the right to travel etc. will be unaffected.
I would hope that a deal could actually retain some elements of free movement e.g. with respect to students, and skilled employment in some sectors and/or possibly based on e.g. jobs paying >£35k ?
The point on “Free Movement” in the EU sense is being willfully misinterpreted by many who should know better, as was the case with debt and deficit a few years ago. It refers only to the issuance of NI numbers to allow working and the entitlement to state services and benefits, is nothing whatsoever to do with borders, passport checks or rights to visit countries.
It's an interesting header by Cyclefree but Gavin Williamson ticks nearly all of the suggested boxes. He's 41, only entered parliament 7 years ago, sits for a Staffordshire seat, went to a comprehensive school then a northern redbrick University and study Social Science. Superficially he is exactly the sort of demographic and fresh face Ms Cyclefree thinks should be promoted. He has been and has gone down like the Hindenberg is some quarters. So clearly demographic change alone isn't enough.
Ah, but this was not the promotion many were looking for. (Happy to reserve judgment myself!)
A very good header, @Cyclefree. We ought to be able to appeal to the younger generation who have grown up in a world full of technological innovation, new marketplaces and multiple careers. They're not hungering for 1970s style unionised jobs-for-life. True, Brexit is a cultural complication: we need to reassure people that we aren't seeking to re-enact the 1950s either.
But we have to communicate properly using the right people. The working assumption was that there would have been a relatively substantial reshuffle, post-May winning a 50+ majority. It can't be postponed much longer, but the present unedifying spectacle may need to be played out first.
For this Parliament, Brexit - which is unfathomable to large numbers of the u30s - is going to be a recurring, dominant news story.
I don’t see a way around that - short of some kind of new free trade and movement deal with Aus/Can/USA!
Well naturally whatever deal we strike will make a huge difference. But in the meantime we could do better in terms of explaining what free movement actually means [I think there is still a lot of confusion on this score], and that the right to travel etc. will be unaffected.
I would hope that a deal could actually retaining some elements of free movement e.g. with respect to students, and skilled employment some sectors and/or possibly based on e.g. jobs paying >£35k ?
My generation really aren’t that fussed about immigrants IMO. That’s why we don’t get it. And There is no way TM will retain FoM for students - she has been absolutely resolute in keeping them in her target - I have absolutely no idea why. >35k is a bad idea tactically I suspect.. It plays into the idea that rich people (35k is a lot to a lot of people in this country) get special privileges.
While many of my generation may not be hungering for ‘1970s style jobs for life’ we sure as hell are looking for job security.
Brexit is more than just a cultural complication: it will dominate our politics for years to come.
I think flexibility more than security. We want to be able to go travelling for 3-6 months and then come back to a job. We want the ability to work abroad - but not especially in the EU. Aus/US/Can are more popular asI see it.
It's an interesting header by Cyclefree but Gavin Williamson ticks nearly all of the suggested boxes. He's 41, only entered parliament 7 years ago, sits for a Staffordshire seat, went to a comprehensive school then a northern redbrick University and study Social Science. Superficially he is exactly the sort of demographic and fresh face Ms Cyclefree thinks should be promoted. He has been and has gone down like the Hindenberg is some quarters. So clearly demographic change alone isn't enough.
Ah, but this was not the promotion many were looking for. (Happy to reserve judgment myself!)
A very good header, @Cyclefree. We ought to be able to appeal to the younger generation who have grown up in a world full of technological innovation, new marketplaces and multiple careers. They're not hungering for 1970s style unionised jobs-for-life. True, Brexit is a cultural complication: we need to reassure people that we aren't seeking to re-enact the 1950s either.
But we have to communicate properly using the right people. The working assumption was that there would have been a relatively substantial reshuffle, post-May winning a 50+ majority. It can't be postponed much longer, but the present unedifying spectacle may need to be played out first.
For this Parliament, Brexit - which is unfathomable to large numbers of the u30s - is going to be a recurring, dominant news story.
I don’t see a way around that - short of some kind of new free trade and movement deal with Aus/Can/USA!
Well naturally whatever deal we strike will make a huge difference. But in the meantime we could do better in terms of explaining what free movement actually means [I think there is still a lot of confusion on this score], and that the right to travel etc. will be unaffected.
I would hope that a deal could actually retain some elements of free movement e.g. with respect to students, and skilled employment in some sectors and/or possibly based on e.g. jobs paying >£35k ?
Good to know I'd make the cut by a hundred quid xD
Well naturally whatever deal we strike will make a huge difference. But in the meantime we could do better in terms of explaining what free movement actually means [I think there is still a lot of confusion on this score], and that the right to travel etc. will be unaffected.
I would hope that a deal could actually retaining some elements of free movement e.g. with respect to students, and skilled employment some sectors and/or possibly based on e.g. jobs paying >£35k ?
My generation really aren’t that fussed about immigrants IMO. That’s why we don’t get it. And There is no way TM will retain FoM for students - she has been absolutely resolute in keeping them in her target - I have absolutely no idea why. >35k is a bad idea tactically I suspect.. It plays into the idea that rich people (35k is a lot to a lot of people in this country) get special privileges.
Lots of people are fussed about immigration: that's why the referendum was won. We need something that addresses their concerns without going full-on Fortress Britain.
£35k is just a suggestion - but whatever the idea, if presented right it ought to play into the idea that we are open to the best but that we won't let open-door immigration drive down wages for the poorest.
I'm not clear as to on what terms the EU would want to allow UK citizens to work in Europe.
That is slightly over-stating things by the Greens (quelle surprise)
At 16 you can't get married in England without parental consent. The same applies to joining the Army.
So the top two things on their list, you can't do without your parents agreeing.
Can’t pilot a glider without parental consent either, if under 18.
3/5 they’ve got wrong.
As well as vote, you can’t buy cigarettes, alcohol or knives, enter a nightclub, a sex shop or a bookmakers, or sign a contact or take out a mortgage until you’re 18.
I thought it was 16 to pilot a glider. Have they changed the rules recently? (By recently I mean in the last 15 years).
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
That is fairly easy , as on here PB 95% are anti Corbyn , whatever he says or does. So that in their eyes is enough However taking that the voters agree with you for granted and repeating your mantras to the already converted in an echo chamber is a risky strategy.Especially when so many are excluded from owning property.
That is slightly over-stating things by the Greens (quelle surprise)
At 16 you can't get married in England without parental consent. The same applies to joining the Army.
So the top two things on their list, you can't do without your parents agreeing.
Can’t pilot a glider without parental consent either, if under 18.
3/5 they’ve got wrong.
As well as vote, you can’t buy cigarettes, alcohol or knives, enter a nightclub, a sex shop or a bookmakers, or sign a contact or take out a mortgage until you’re 18.
I thought it was 16 to pilot a glider. Have they changed the rules recently? (By recently I mean in the last 15 years).
You can go solo at 16, but need parental consent if under 18.
Also lots of “Child Safeguarding” stuff at clubs that didn’t use to be there - CRB checks for instructors and designated people in charge of children etc. A “Child” is under 18 in all this legislation.
Well naturally whatever deal we strike will make a huge difference. But in the meantime we could do better in terms of explaining what free movement actually means [I think there is still a lot of confusion on this score], and that the right to travel etc. will be unaffected.
I would hope that a deal could actually retaining some elements of free movement e.g. with respect to students, and skilled employment some sectors and/or possibly based on e.g. jobs paying >£35k ?
My generation really aren’t that fussed about immigrants IMO. That’s why we don’t get it. And There is no way TM will retain FoM for students - she has been absolutely resolute in keeping them in her target - I have absolutely no idea why. >35k is a bad idea tactically I suspect.. It plays into the idea that rich people (35k is a lot to a lot of people in this country) get special privileges.
Lots of people are fussed about immigration: that's why the referendum was won. We need something that addresses their concerns without going full-on Fortress Britain.
£35k is just a suggestion - but whatever the idea, if presented right it ought to play into the idea that we are open to the best but that we won't let open-door immigration drive down wages for the poorest.
I'm not clear as to on what terms the EU would want to allow UK citizens to work in Europe.
Yes I agree - lots of (older) people are fussed about immigration - that’s the bind you are in. I am not convinced their concerns can be addressed by falling immigration - we know that lots of them don’t even live in areas where there is much immigration.
Wages for the poorest are minimum wage. Just keep raising it! I wouldn’t be surprised if unskilled migration was more popular than skilled tbh.
I would have thought that a "not Corbyn" vote would be very fruitful at the next election -and I have no doubt that this is why the Tories are still polling 40% of the vote in the polls.
She also promoted Gavin Williamson to Defence Secretary, and this is actually a breakthrough. For the first time someone outside the Old Farts Club of Johnson, Davies, Rudd and Hammond is being thought of as a possible successor to May.
While many of my generation may not be hungering for ‘1970s style jobs for life’ we sure as hell are looking for job security.
Brexit is more than just a cultural complication: it will dominate our politics for years to come.
I think flexibility more than security. We want to be able to go travelling for 3-6 months and then come back to a job. We want the ability to work abroad - but not especially in the EU. Aus/US/Can are more popular asI see it.
I don’t know about the travelling part. No one I know seriously expects to be able to take 3 to 6 months off like that and still have a job. I disagree that flexibility is more important than security. Many of young people’s concerns are economic - related to the cost of living and getting on the property ladder. By the time people reach their early to mid thirties they will care less about traveling and more about having enough money to pay bills and save for a deposit on a house. For that you need job security.
Sure, there are people who want to work aboard. Though in my experience people were not too happy about FoM ending for that reason. I don’t see Canada and Australia mentioned that much at all. America used to be, until Trump was elected.
Yes I agree - lots of (older) people are fussed about immigration - that’s the bind you are in. I am not convinced their concerns can be addressed by falling immigration - we know that lots of them don’t even live in areas where there is much immigration.
All very interesting, except Gavin Williamson, a Yorkshire comprehensive educated 41 year old graduate of Bradford University with a Staffordshire seat and Labour voting parents who worked in manufacturing and who May made Defence Secretary this week on paper seems exactly the type of fresh face Cyclefree is asking for.
I would have thought that a "not Corbyn" vote would be very fruitful at the next election -and I have no doubt that this is why the Tories are still polling 40% of the vote in the polls.
She also promoted Gavin Williamson to Defence Secretary, and this is actually a breakthrough. For the first time someone outside the Old Farts Club of Johnson, Davies, Rudd and Hammond is being thought of as a possible successor to May.
Agreed regarding the new Defence Secretary.Also with May been in charge through the current reverberations , I think she will be seen in a better and fairer light.
Interesting development for Trump re-election chances: no 2nd term for Yellen and appointment of Jerome Powell, who, the Telegraph suggests, might let the US economy "run hot" in the run-up to 2020. Boom times and inflation further down the track?
All very interesting, except Gavin Williamson, a Yorkshire comprehensive educated 41 year old graduate of Bradford University with a Staffordshire seat and Labour voting parents who worked in manufacturing and who May made Defence Secretary this week on paper seems exactly the type of fresh face Cyclefree is asking for.
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
That is fairly easy , as on here PB 95% are anti Corbyn , whatever he says or does. So that in their eyes is enough However taking that the voters agree with you for granted and repeating your mantras to the already converted in an echo chamber is a risky strategy.Especially when so many are excluded from owning property.
Jeremy Corbyn may well not be Labour's leader at the next election. It's very dangerous for Conservatives to assume that he will be. His aims have never seemed to turn particularly on his personal ambition.
On your second point, the Conservatives should be focussing on rewarding good work. If they come up with policies that make hard workers feel that they aren't being taken for a ride, they can look relevant again.
But they seem to prefer demonising anyone who might be sceptical about Brexit.
All very interesting, except Gavin Williamson, a Yorkshire comprehensive educated 41 year old graduate of Bradford University with a Staffordshire seat and Labour voting parents who worked in manufacturing and who May made Defence Secretary this week on paper seems exactly the type of fresh face Cyclefree is asking for.
I answered that below. More than one change is needed. And Defence does not really provide the incumbent with the opportunity to reach out to possible voters.
Whatever Mr Williamson's merits or otherwise, this move has been seen as either Mrs May putting her favourite in pole position or Mr W manoeuvring himself into pole position by exploiting a weak PM. Either way it's not really the fresh thinking that I think the Tories should be doing if they want to have a hope of being listened to.
I flew the votes at 16 idea past PB some some months ago and was astonished by the general hostility to the idea. It's in situ and completely uncontroversial in Scotland with even the Conservatives on board.
You cannot vote but you can die for your country!
Um no. You cannot be deployed to a war zone or on any form of active service if you are under 18. Nor can you legally drink in a pub, buy cigarettes, drive a car, marry without parental consent, gamble, sign a contract or serve on a jury - amongst many other things.
If you would be happy having a 16 year old sit in judgement upon you in a court of law then good luck to you. I wouldn't.
“When I discovered it wasn’t just me but my entire circle were out of touch with millions of people I genuinely felt ashamed… this was the only opportunity millions of people were ever going to have to say to the people who run this place ‘you’re not listening to us’, it was a massive wake up call to everybody… I take my hat off to them, they have thrown all the cards up in the air… it was the right thing to do.”
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
That is fairly easy , as on here PB 95% are anti Corbyn , whatever he says or does. So that in their eyes is enough However taking that the voters agree with you for granted and repeating your mantras to the already converted in an echo chamber is a risky strategy.Especially when so many are excluded from owning property.
Jeremy Corbyn may well not be Labour's leader at the next election. It's very dangerous for Conservatives to assume that he will be. His aims have never seemed to turn particularly on his personal ambition.
On your second point, the Conservatives should be focussing on rewarding good work. If they come up with policies that make hard workers feel that they aren't being taken for a ride, they can look relevant again.
But they seem to prefer demonising anyone who might be sceptical about Brexit.
The Tories will be so hit by the UC changes to working tax credits that nothing they do about rewarding hard work will make the blind difference in comparison.
That no one in Cabinet seems to be able to smell what a political disaster they are heading towards on this, sums things up nicely.
Jacqui Smith from Chief Whip to Home Secretary. I'll never forget her husband's expense claim for porn.
The odious David Waddington from Chief Whip to Home Secretary, responsible for one of the worst miscarriages of justice, and had a chance to fix it, but didn't
"Germaine Greer can no longer be called a feminist
Eve Hodgson argues that the exclusionary views of this once-prolific voice of second-wave radical feminism should result in her exclusion from the movement"
“When I discovered it wasn’t just me but my entire circle were out of touch with millions of people I genuinely felt ashamed… this was the only opportunity millions of people were ever going to have to say to the people who run this place ‘you’re not listening to us’, it was a massive wake up call to everybody… I take my hat off to them, they have thrown all the cards up in the air… it was the right thing to do.”
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
That is fairly easy , as on here PB 95% are anti Corbyn , whatever he says or does. So that in their eyes is enough However taking that the voters agree with you for granted and repeating your mantras to the already converted in an echo chamber is a risky strategy.Especially when so many are excluded from owning property.
Jeremy Corbyn may well not be Labour's leader at the next election. It's very dangerous for Conservatives to assume that he will be. His aims have never seemed to turn particularly on his personal ambition.
On your second point, the Conservatives should be focussing on rewarding good work. If they come up with policies that make hard workers feel that they aren't being taken for a ride, they can look relevant again.
But they seem to prefer demonising anyone who might be sceptical about Brexit.
The Tories will be so hit by the UC changes to working tax credits that nothing they do about rewarding hard work will make the blind difference in comparison.
That no one in Cabinet seems to be able to smell what a political disaster they are heading towards on this, sums things up nicely.
And that is in part because not enough of them have any idea of what it is like to be out of work or without savings etc. How could anyone think that waiting 6 weeks for payment was a good idea? People with jobs get paid monthly, for heaven's sake. Why should the poor - who almost by definition have no cushion to tide them over - have to wait even longer? Did no-one with any common sense or even an inkling of what real life is like say, hang on a moment, this is nonsense and will lead to difficulties? No-one at all?
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
That is fairly easy , as on here PB 95% are anti Corbyn , whatever he says or does. So that in their eyes is enough However taking that the voters agree with you for granted and repeating your mantras to the already converted in an echo chamber is a risky strategy.Especially when so many are excluded from owning property.
Jeremy Corbyn may well not be Labour's leader at the next election. It's very dangerous for Conservatives to assume that he will be. His aims have never seemed to turn particularly on his personal ambition.
On your second point, the Conservatives should be focussing on rewarding good work. If they come up with policies that make hard workers feel that they aren't being taken for a ride, they can look relevant again.
But they seem to prefer demonising anyone who might be sceptical about Brexit.
The Tories will be so hit by the UC changes to working tax credits that nothing they do about rewarding hard work will make the blind difference in comparison.
That no one in Cabinet seems to be able to smell what a political disaster they are heading towards on this, sums things up nicely.
This supposed 'disaster' for the Tories which has been attacked by Labour for weeks today saw the Tories halve the Labour lead with Mori to just 2%.
Longer term most voters support the principle of UC and a welfare system that makes sure work pays.
"Germaine Greer can no longer be called a feminist
Eve Hodgson argues that the exclusionary views of this once-prolific voice of second-wave radical feminism should result in her exclusion from the movement"
All very interesting, except Gavin Williamson, a Yorkshire comprehensive educated 41 year old graduate of Bradford University with a Staffordshire seat and Labour voting parents who worked in manufacturing and who May made Defence Secretary this week on paper seems exactly the type of fresh face Cyclefree is asking for.
I answered that below. More than one change is needed. And Defence does not really provide the incumbent with the opportunity to reach out to possible voters.
Whatever Mr Williamson's merits or otherwise, this move has been seen as either Mrs May putting her favourite in pole position or Mr W manoeuvring himself into pole position by exploiting a weak PM. Either way it's not really the fresh thinking that I think the Tories should be doing if they want to have a hope of being listened to.
So you accept the main change this week was an appointment of someone with exactly the type of background you wanted and in what way does Defence not affect voters as any other department? After all the nation is nothing without national security. Really it seems your whole article has fallen down at the first hurdle interesting though it is.
Wales’s cabinet secretary for communities and children has stepped down amid allegations about his “personal conduct”.
Carl Sargeant, the assembly member for Alyn and Deeside, said in a statement that he had met the first minister, Carwyn Jones, on Friday and been told that allegations had been made against him.
All very interesting, except Gavin Williamson, a Yorkshire comprehensive educated 41 year old graduate of Bradford University with a Staffordshire seat and Labour voting parents who worked in manufacturing and who May made Defence Secretary this week on paper seems exactly the type of fresh face Cyclefree is asking for.
I answered that below. More than one change is needed. And Defence does not really provide the incumbent with the opportunity to reach out to possible voters.
Whatever Mr Williamson's merits or otherwise, this move has been seen as either Mrs May putting her favourite in pole position or Mr W manoeuvring himself into pole position by exploiting a weak PM. Either way it's not really the fresh thinking that I think the Tories should be doing if they want to have a hope of being listened to.
So you accept the main change this week was an appointment of someone with exactly the type of background you wanted and in what way does Defence not affect voters as any other department? After all the nation is nothing without national security. Really it seems your whole article has fallen down at the first hurdle interesting though it is.
"But however fearful she may have been of instigating a reshuffle, when presented with the opportunity for one, why the craven timidity? "
Defence, important as it is, does not give the incumbent the opportunity to speak to possible voters about their every day concerns. We are not at war nor are we likely to be. (I hope). Terrorism is an issue, of course, but that is as much an issue for the Home Office as it is for Defence.
I think the Tories are being complacent, need fresh thinking and new people. I have no idea whether GW will bring any fresh thinking at all. But one man, even someone from a comprehensive, is hardly the answer to the hole the Tories are in. They just don't seem, to me anyway, realise how much of a hole they are in.
“When I discovered it wasn’t just me but my entire circle were out of touch with millions of people I genuinely felt ashamed… this was the only opportunity millions of people were ever going to have to say to the people who run this place ‘you’re not listening to us’, it was a massive wake up call to everybody… I take my hat off to them, they have thrown all the cards up in the air… it was the right thing to do.”
An outburst of anger because ‘you’re not listening to us’ is all very well. It's a pity it's damaged the country so much.
It's also not obviously a correct analysis. This twitter thread (which really should have been worked into a proper article) is one of this week's must-reads:
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
That is fairly easy , as on here PB 95% are anti Corbyn , whatever he says or does. So that in their eyes is enough However taking that the voters agree with you for granted and repeating your mantras to the already converted in an echo chamber is a risky strategy.Especially when so many are excluded from owning property.
Jeremy Corbyn may well not be Labour's leader at the next election. It's very dangerous for Conservatives to assume that he will be. His aims have never seemed to turn particularly on his personal ambition.
On your second point, the Conservatives should be focussing on rewarding good work. If they come up with policies that make hard workers feel that they aren't being taken for a ride, they can look relevant again.
But they seem to prefer demonising anyone who might be sceptical about Brexit.
The Tories will be so hit by the UC changes to working tax credits that nothing they do about rewarding hard work will make the blind difference in comparison.
That no one in Cabinet seems to be able to smell what a political disaster they are heading towards on this, sums things up nicely.
This supposed 'disaster' for the Tories which has been attacked by Labour for weeks today saw the Tories halve the Labour lead with Mori to just 2%.
Longer term most voters support the principle of UC and a welfare system that makes sure work pays.
But they don't support a minimum wage that's just enough and benefits which are lower, say only 75% of the minimum wage. If you can just survive on the minimum wage, by definition you can't survive on benefits which are lower than that.
35 years ago, the unemployed paid an effective marginal tax rate of up to 95%. Today, they may pay 92%, i.e. they still lose benefit if they go out to work.
Rich people riot at the thought that their marginal tax rate might be increased from 47%. UC is said to give an effective marginal tax rate of 63%.
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
That is fairly easy , as on here PB 95% are anti Corbyn , whatever he says or does. So that in their eyes is enough However taking that the voters agree with you for granted and repeating your mantras to the already converted in an echo chamber is a risky strategy.Especially when so many are excluded from owning property.
Jeremy Corbyn may well not be Labour's leader at the next election. It's very dangerous for Conservatives to assume that he will be. His aims have never seemed to turn particularly on his personal ambition.
On your second point, the Conservatives should be focussing on rewarding good work. If they come up with policies that make hard workers feel that they aren't being taken for a ride, they can look relevant again.
But they seem to prefer demonising anyone who might be sceptical about Brexit.
The Tories will be so hit by the UC changes to working tax credits that nothing they do about rewarding hard work will make the blind difference in comparison.
That no one in Cabinet seems to be able to smell what a political disaster they are heading towards on this, sums things up nicely.
This supposed 'disaster' for the Tories which has been attacked by Labour for weeks today saw the Tories halve the Labour lead with Mori to just 2%.
Longer term most voters support the principle of UC and a welfare system that makes sure work pays.
It matters not one jot that Lab has been on about it for weeks. What will matter is when 1,000s and 1,000s of people find their working tax credit is being cut. They wont notice until it actually hits.
edit: indeed, I'm not even convinced that many people on WTC even know it is being rolled into UC.
It's also not obviously a correct analysis. This twitter thread (which really should have been worked into a proper article) is one of this week's must-reads
That is really fascinating analysis. Perhaps the reason why the standard narrative is so persistent is that to Tories used to having no resonance at all in the north or 'left behind' areas, it's a novelty to find an issue that cuts across all social classes. Compared to their usual priorities it feels like a solidly working class concern, even though in absolute terms it isn't.
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
That is fairly easy , as on here PB 95% are anti Corbyn , whatever he says or does. So that in their eyes is enough However taking that the voters agree with you for granted and repeating your mantras to the already converted in an echo chamber is a risky strategy.Especially when so many are excluded from owning property.
Jeremy Corbyn may well not be Labour's leader at the next election. It's very dangerous for Conservatives to assume that he will be. His aims have never seemed to turn particularly on his personal ambition.
On your second point, the Conservatives should be focussing on rewarding good work. If they come up with policies that make hard workers feel that they aren't being taken for a ride, they can look relevant again.
But they seem to prefer demonising anyone who might be sceptical about Brexit.
The Tories will be so hit by the UC changes to working tax credits that nothing they do about rewarding hard work will make the blind difference in comparison.
That no one in Cabinet seems to be able to smell what a political disaster they are heading towards on this, sums things up nicely.
This supposed 'disaster' for the Tories which has been attacked by Labour for weeks today saw the Tories halve the Labour lead with Mori to just 2%.
Longer term most voters support the principle of UC and a welfare system that makes sure work pays.
But they don't support a minimum wage that's just enough and benefits which are lower, say only 75% of the minimum wage. If you can just survive on the minimum wage, by definition you can't survive on benefits which are lower than that.
35 years ago, the unemployed paid an effective marginal tax rate of up to 95%. Today, they may pay 92%, i.e. they still lose benefit if they go out to work.
Rich people riot at the thought that their marginal tax rate might be increased from 47%. UC is said to give an effective marginal tax rate of 63%.
“When I discovered it wasn’t just me but my entire circle were out of touch with millions of people I genuinely felt ashamed… this was the only opportunity millions of people were ever going to have to say to the people who run this place ‘you’re not listening to us’, it was a massive wake up call to everybody… I take my hat off to them, they have thrown all the cards up in the air… it was the right thing to do.”
An outburst of anger because ‘you’re not listening to us’ is all very well. It's a pity it's damaged the country so much.
It's also not obviously a correct analysis. This twitter thread (which really should have been worked into a proper article) is one of this week's must-reads:
"Germaine Greer can no longer be called a feminist
Eve Hodgson argues that the exclusionary views of this once-prolific voice of second-wave radical feminism should result in her exclusion from the movement"
She really does appear to have become public enemy no 1 among certain sections of the movement.
The more they attack her, the more right she is in her thinking. There is much about Greer's thinking that I dislike - but she has a more coherent world view than her current detractors.
@Rottenborough You are spot on about this. Gordon Brown's evil genius was to extend benefit payments to a huge chunk of the working poor in such a way those workers think of it as part of their wages. As WTC claimants start to migrate to UC they'll be hit by a double whammy. Firstly they'll experience being treated like a welfare claimant by the DWP. Secondly they'll experience the WTC cut Osborne used UC as a Trojan Horse for. Millions plural of in work Tabloid readers will be put through the sausage grinder with politically explosive results.
The 55p phone line and 6 week wait as distractions. They've always been part of the UC experience. We are talking about them now because migration is just starting to hit folk who ( sadly ) matter in elections and who don't think of themselves as benefit claimants even though they are. It's a time bomb and ( most ) PB Tories are being wilfully blind to what is coming down the tracks and now arriving in the Brexit parliament where they've no majority.
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
That is fairly easy , as on here PB 95% are anti Corbyn , whatever he says or does. So that in their eyes is enough However taking that the voters agree with you for granted and repeating your mantras to the already converted in an echo chamber is a risky strategy.Especially when so many are excluded from owning property.
Jeremy Corbyn may well not be Labour's leader at the next election. It's very dangerous for Conservatives to assume that he will be. His aims have never seemed to turn particularly on his personal ambition.
On your second point, the Conservatives should be focussing on rewarding good work. If they come up with policies that make hard workers feel that they aren't being taken for a ride, they can look relevant again.
But they seem to prefer demonising anyone who might be sceptical about Brexit.
The Tories will be so hit by the UC changes to working tax credits that nothing they do about rewarding hard work will make the blind difference in comparison.
That no one in Cabinet seems to be able to smell what a political disaster they are heading towards on this, sums things up nicely.
This supposed 'disaster' for the Tories which has been attacked by Labour for weeks today saw the Tories halve the Labour lead with Mori to just 2%.
Longer term most voters support the principle of UC and a welfare system that makes sure work pays.
It matters not one jot that Lab has been on about it for weeks. What will matter is when 1,000s and 1,000s of people find their working tax credit is being cut. They wont notice until it actually hits.
edit: indeed, I'm not even convinced that many people on WTC even know it is being rolled into UC.
Of course it matters what rubbish and it is already being trialled.
Of course longer term UC will end the scandal whereby those reliant on benefits will lose all of them if tgey do any work less than 16 hours a week. Longer term the more the Tories get the welfare dependent onto work the better for them. Corbyn comfortably won DEs last time who UC is most aimed at.
All very interesting, except Gavin Williamson, a Yorkshire comprehensive educated 41 year old graduate of Bradford University with a Staffordshire seat and Labour voting parents who worked in manufacturing and who May made Defence Secretary this week on paper seems exactly the type of fresh face Cyclefree is asking for.
I answered that below. More than one change is needed. And Defence does not really provide the incumbent with the opportunity to reach out to possible voters.
Whatever Mr Williamson's merits or otherwise, this move has been seen as either Mrs May putting her favourite in pole position or Mr W manoeuvring himself into pole position by exploiting a weak PM. Either way it's not really the fresh thinking that I think the Tories should be doing if they want to have a hope of being listened to.
So you accept the main change this week was an appointment of someone with exactly the type of background you wanted and in what way does Defence not affect voters as any other department? After all the nation is nothing without national security. Really it seems your whole article has fallen down at the first hurdle interesting though it is.
"But however fearful she may have been of instigating a reshuffle, when presented with the opportunity for one, why the craven timidity? "
Defence, important as it is, does not give the incumbent the opportunity to speak to possible voters about their every day concerns. We are not at war nor are we likely to be. (I hope). Terrorism is an issue, of course, but that is as much an issue for the Home Office as it is for Defence.
I think the Tories are being complacent, need fresh thinking and new people. I have no idea whether GW will bring any fresh thinking at all. But one man, even someone from a comprehensive, is hardly the answer to the hole the Tories are in. They just don't seem, to me anyway, realise how much of a hole they are in.
We are still at war against ISIS of course it is a concern.
You just cannot admit your entire argument that May needed new ministers with a provincial and state educated background has been taken up by May this week with the appointment of Williamson.
Instead you are reduced to arguing about 'what a hole the Tories are in' despite May adopting the main solution you argued for in your article. Absurd!
The Conservatives need to ask themselves what they stand for. Right now I can honestly say that I have no idea what they stand for other than hating the EU.
That is fairly easy , as on here PB 95% are anti Corbyn , whatever he says or does. So that in their eyes is enough However taking that the voters agree with you for granted and repeating your mantras to the already converted in an echo chamber is a risky strategy.Especially when so many are excluded from owning property.
Jeremy Corbyn may well not be Labour's leader at the next election. It's very dangerous for Conservatives to assume that he will be. His aims have never seemed to turn particularly on his personal ambition.
On your second point, the Conservatives should be focussing on rewarding good work. If they come up with policies that make hard workers feel that they aren't being taken for a ride, they can look relevant again.
But they seem to prefer demonising anyone who might be sceptical about Brexit.
The Tories will be so hit by the UC changes to working tax credits that nothing they do about rewarding hard work will make the blind difference in comparison.
That no one in Cabinet seems to be able to smell what a political disaster they are heading towards on this, sums things up nicely.
This supposed 'disaster' for the Tories which has been attacked by Labour for weeks today saw the Tories halve the Labour lead with Mori to just 2%.
Longer term most voters support the principle of UC and a welfare system that makes sure work pays.
But they don't support a minimum wage that's just enough and benefits which are lower, say only 75% of the minimum wage. If you can just survive on the minimum wage, by definition you can't survive on benefits which are lower than that.
35 years ago, the unemployed paid an effective marginal tax rate of up to 95%. Today, they may pay 92%, i.e. they still lose benefit if they go out to work.
Rich people riot at the thought that their marginal tax rate might be increased from 47%. UC is said to give an effective marginal tax rate of 63%.
The Tories (and to be fair the LDs) both increased the minimum wage and introduced a living wage and took the lowest paid out of tax. Yet more hypocrisy from the left!
Imagine this was May - the wolves would already be tearing at her throat.
Labourites don't seem to care.
I suspect most of them do - they are just scared to come out against the leadership.
If true, what does that say about Labour? People too scared to criticise the leadership over theme ignoring the fact that they were about to appoint to the Shadow Cabinet someone who had been reprimanded over sexual harassment? Where are their values and principles? Where is their courage?
@Rottenborough You are spot on about this. Gordon Brown's evil genius was to extend benefit payments to a huge chunk of the working poor in such a way those workers think of it as part of their wages. As WTC claimants start to migrate to UC they'll be hit by a double whammy. Firstly they'll experience being treated like a welfare claimant by the DWP. Secondly they'll experience the WTC cut Osborne used UC as a Trojan Horse for. Millions plural of in work Tabloid readers will be put through the sausage grinder with politically explosive results.
The 55p phone line and 6 week wait as distractions. They've always been part of the UC experience. We are talking about them now because migration is just starting to hit folk who ( sadly ) matter in elections and who don't think of themselves as benefit claimants even though they are. It's a time bomb and ( most ) PB Tories are being wilfully blind to what is coming down the tracks and now arriving in the Brexit parliament where they've no majority.
What utter rubbish.
It was Brown who left in place the scandal where those on benefits would lose all of them if they did any part time work under 16 hours a week. Something UC is finally going to address to help people let down by the Labour Party which is supposed to represent them
All very interesting, except Gavin Williamson, a Yorkshire comprehensive educated 41 year old graduate of Bradford University with a Staffordshire seat and Labour voting parents who worked in manufacturing and who May made Defence Secretary this week on paper seems exactly the type of fresh face Cyclefree is asking for.
I answered that below. More than one change is needed. And Defence does not really provide the incumbent with the opportunity to reach out to possible voters.
Whatever Mr Williamson's merits or otherwise, this move has been seen as either Mrs May putting her favourite in pole position or Mr W manoeuvring himself into pole position by exploiting a weak PM. Either way it's not really the fresh thinking that I think the Tories should be doing if they want to have a hope of being listened to.
So you accept the main change this week was an appointment of someone with exactly the type of background you wanted and in what way does Defence not affect voters as any other department? After all the nation is nothing without national security. Really it seems your whole article has fallen down at the first hurdle interesting though it is.
"But however fearful she may have been of instigating a reshuffle, when presented with the opportunity for one, why the craven timidity? "
Defence, important as it is, does not give the incumbent the opportunity to speak to possible voters about their every day concerns. We are not at war nor are we likely to be. (I hope). Terrorism is an issue, of course, but that is as much an issue for the Home Office as it is for Defence.
I think the Tories are being complacent, need fresh thinking and new people. I have no idea whether GW will bring any fresh thinking at all. But one man, even someone from a comprehensive, is hardly the answer to the hole the Tories are in. They just don't seem, to me anyway, realise how much of a hole they are in.
We are still at war against ISIS of course it is a concern.
You just cannot admit your entire argument that May needed new ministers with a provincial and state educated background has been taken up by May this week with the appointment of Williamson.
Instead you are reduced to arguing about 'what a hole the Tories are in' despite May adopting the main solution you argued for in your article. Absurd!
Comments
I'm aware the situation is presently inconsistent already, but I would resist any change until we decide if 16 year olds are adult or not. If they are adult enough to vote, there are other things we need to let them do, in my opinion. Decide if we accept 16 years can be masters of their own destinies or if society thinks they need to be restricted from various rights.
I'd prefer not to lower the voting age as I think that goes against our general societal approach toward them, but I won't object if it happens if we actually treat them like adults, not children with votes.
https://twitter.com/adrianmasters84/status/926394898772889601
They've raised the maximum age you can join the army I think, I've no problrm raising the minimum if it enables a consistent approach.
thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/im-too-dirty-to-be-a-minister-but-just-dirty-enough-to-be-an-mp-says-fallon-20171102138412
Freedom, Capitalism/Free markets, Equality of opportunity, Responsibility, Sound finances, Choice, Fairness, Justice, Respect for law, (Free) Enterprise, Support for home ownership
Personally I would prefer everybody in education / vocational training until 18, then can join the army if they want.
What isn't in favour is the sort of individual responsibility which is purely focused on being responsible for yourself and not on helping or being responsible for your neighbour. I would argue that looking out for others is part of what individual responsibility is about, that you don't walk on by when someone needs your help.
Re small state, maybe the Tories should be focusing on a competent and efficient state?
But Mr Meeks is right, it is hard to know what the Tories really stand for. Bringing on a new generation is one way of getting them to do the hard thinking about what Conservatism should be about for new generations.
We are talking about what type of country do people want to live in that the Cons can bring about and which distinguishes them from the other parties.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/the-mash-guide-to-the-best-bonfire-effigies-of-2017-20171103138548
Many people DO want the opposite of that list. They want government controlled businesses, equality of outcome (not opportunity), spend-spend-spend, and their version of 'fairness' with restriction of freedom on those they disagree with.
That means that there were roughly 3130 Lib Dem members in Wales- thats not a lot really.
I don’t see a way around that - short of some kind of new free trade and movement deal with Aus/Can/USA!
It's a question of degree - there are those who would, for example, prioritise having a roof over their head over actual home ownership while notions of "fairness" and "justice" can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean.
Rank the list by priority and you might get different responses but to assume somehow that only Conservatives "believe" in these things and members of other parties don't is nonsensical. The application of these principles will differ as will their priority but not the principles themselves.
But why would the Tories feel the need to reinvent themselves when they are in power?
I think it probably takes a defeat to make a political party change.
I would hope that a deal could actually retain some elements of free movement e.g. with respect to students, and skilled employment in some sectors and/or possibly based on e.g. jobs paying >£35k ?
Brexit is more than just a cultural complication: it will dominate our politics for years to come.
But that was an example of the State absolving individuals from responsibility. Banks are supposed to be allowed to go bust which should motivate customers to demand prudent behaviour. Before and since that had not been the case.
As for small state, it is saying that individuals know how to spend their money better than governments. I'm not sure there is too much of that around now either.
And maybe people are right that not everyone would agree with that list. But the Cons have to appeal to the large minority perhaps even majority of Labour voters who would see little controversial or unique in it.
Not really sure he's relevant to the Non-Reshuffle, though.......
And There is no way TM will retain FoM for students - she has been absolutely resolute in keeping them in her target - I have absolutely no idea why.
>35k is a bad idea tactically I suspect..
It plays into the idea that rich people (35k is a lot to a lot of people in this country) get special privileges.
http://commentcentral.co.uk/different-forms-of-a-no-deal/
The point on “Free Movement” in the EU sense is being willfully misinterpreted by many who should know better, as was the case with debt and deficit a few years ago. It refers only to the issuance of NI numbers to allow working and the entitlement to state services and benefits, is nothing whatsoever to do with borders, passport checks or rights to visit countries.
We want to be able to go travelling for 3-6 months and then come back to a job.
We want the ability to work abroad - but not especially in the EU. Aus/US/Can are more popular asI see it.
£35k is just a suggestion - but whatever the idea, if presented right it ought to play into the idea that we are open to the best but that we won't let open-door immigration drive down wages for the poorest.
I'm not clear as to on what terms the EU would want to allow UK citizens to work in Europe.
Also lots of “Child Safeguarding” stuff at clubs that didn’t use to be there - CRB checks for instructors and designated people in charge of children etc. A “Child” is under 18 in all this legislation.
I can't imagine it would exactly cost the Treasury a mountain of lost revenue.
I am not convinced their concerns can be addressed by falling immigration - we know that lots of them don’t even live in areas where there is much immigration.
Wages for the poorest are minimum wage. Just keep raising it!
I wouldn’t be surprised if unskilled migration was more popular than skilled tbh.
She also promoted Gavin Williamson to Defence Secretary, and this is actually a breakthrough. For the first time someone outside the Old Farts Club of Johnson, Davies, Rudd and Hammond is being thought of as a possible successor to May.
Sure, there are people who want to work aboard. Though in my experience people were not too happy about FoM ending for that reason. I don’t see Canada and Australia mentioned that much at all. America used to be, until Trump was elected.
https://twitter.com/BobbyIpsosMORI/status/920574373131628545
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/926492915626663939
On your second point, the Conservatives should be focussing on rewarding good work. If they come up with policies that make hard workers feel that they aren't being taken for a ride, they can look relevant again.
But they seem to prefer demonising anyone who might be sceptical about Brexit.
Whatever Mr Williamson's merits or otherwise, this move has been seen as either Mrs May putting her favourite in pole position or Mr W manoeuvring himself into pole position by exploiting a weak PM. Either way it's not really the fresh thinking that I think the Tories should be doing if they want to have a hope of being listened to.
If you would be happy having a 16 year old sit in judgement upon you in a court of law then good luck to you. I wouldn't.
“When I discovered it wasn’t just me but my entire circle were out of touch with millions of people I genuinely felt ashamed… this was the only opportunity millions of people were ever going to have to say to the people who run this place ‘you’re not listening to us’, it was a massive wake up call to everybody… I take my hat off to them, they have thrown all the cards up in the air… it was the right thing to do.”
https://order-order.com/2017/11/03/pestos-brexit-conversion/
That no one in Cabinet seems to be able to smell what a political disaster they are heading towards on this, sums things up nicely.
Jacqui Smith from Chief Whip to Home Secretary. I'll never forget her husband's expense claim for porn.
The odious David Waddington from Chief Whip to Home Secretary, responsible for one of the worst miscarriages of justice, and had a chance to fix it, but didn't
Eve Hodgson argues that the exclusionary views of this once-prolific voice of second-wave radical feminism should result in her exclusion from the movement"
https://www.varsity.co.uk/comment/13829
https://order-order.com/2017/11/03/fifth-november-massacre/
They say Sunday papers are gearing up...
Longer term most voters support the principle of UC and a welfare system that makes sure work pays.
http://www.cityam.com/267228/brexit-one-year-impact-pound-ftse-and-economy
Carl Sargeant, the assembly member for Alyn and Deeside, said in a statement that he had met the first minister, Carwyn Jones, on Friday and been told that allegations had been made against him.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/03/carl-sargeant-welsh-communities-secretary-quits-over-allegations-about-personal-conduct
Defence, important as it is, does not give the incumbent the opportunity to speak to possible voters about their every day concerns. We are not at war nor are we likely to be. (I hope). Terrorism is an issue, of course, but that is as much an issue for the Home Office as it is for Defence.
I think the Tories are being complacent, need fresh thinking and new people. I have no idea whether GW will bring any fresh thinking at all. But one man, even someone from a comprehensive, is hardly the answer to the hole the Tories are in. They just don't seem, to me anyway, realise how much of a hole they are in.
https://twitter.com/marwood_lennox/status/925759368154570752
35 years ago, the unemployed paid an effective marginal tax rate of up to 95%. Today, they may pay 92%, i.e. they still lose benefit if they go out to work.
Rich people riot at the thought that their marginal tax rate might be increased from 47%. UC is said to give an effective marginal tax rate of 63%.
edit: indeed, I'm not even convinced that many people on WTC even know it is being rolled into UC.
Labourites don't seem to care.
https://twitter.com/marwood_lennox/status/925760600755658752
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/trump-justice-department-clinton/544928/
Some time back he demanded the execution of five black kids who turned out to be innocent (and has, of course, never apologised):
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/17/central-park-five-donald-trump-jogger-rape-case-new-york
The man is a thug and a scofflaw.
The 55p phone line and 6 week wait as distractions. They've always been part of the UC experience. We are talking about them now because migration is just starting to hit folk who ( sadly ) matter in elections and who don't think of themselves as benefit claimants even though they are. It's a time bomb and ( most ) PB Tories are being wilfully blind to what is coming down the tracks and now arriving in the Brexit parliament where they've no majority.
Of course longer term UC will end the scandal whereby those reliant on benefits will lose all of them if tgey do any work less than 16 hours a week. Longer term the more the Tories get the welfare dependent onto work the better for them. Corbyn comfortably won DEs last time who UC is most aimed at.
You just cannot admit your entire argument that May needed new ministers with a provincial and state educated background has been taken up by May this week with the appointment of Williamson.
Instead you are reduced to arguing about 'what a hole the Tories are in' despite May adopting the main solution you argued for in your article. Absurd!
May is a wounded beast, and every stagger attracts hyena interest.
Lets see what happens over the weekend. Anything could come out
The Irish passport office must be turning a healthy surplus these days.
It was Brown who left in place the scandal where those on benefits would lose all of them if they did any part time work under 16 hours a week. Something UC is finally going to address to help people let down by the Labour Party which is supposed to represent them