She offered funding for hospitals for providing medical services to refugees, and the catch is simply that the hospitals happen to be run by the army? isn't that a bit pathetic?
She freelanced Foreign policy.
Then didn't tell anyone.
Then lied about it.
Then had a meeting with May in which she failed to disclose further pertinent details.
If Prity Patel doesn't resign it will be a miracle. Even by the shoddy standards of this government she surely has no chance of remaining in office. She should be in a race with Boris but being junior and her offence being much more serious it's bound to be her.
She won't resign and May won't sack her...
am I missing something here? She offered funding for hospitals for providing medical services to refugees, and the catch is simply that the hospitals happen to be run by the army? isn't that a bit pathetic?
She offered funding for hospitals for providing medical services to refugees, and the catch is simply that .....it is entirely at variance with the agreed policy of the FCO and therefore HMG.
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election. I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered. Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory voteshare in 34 years and the second highest number of Tory seats in 25 years. Even if she did not do as well as hoped.
By failing to call a snap election history will record Brown got the second lowest Labour voteshare since WW2 and the lowest number of Labour seats for 23 years until Ed Miliband won even fewer in 2015. Even Corbyn outperformed Brown.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
The product of a completely broken voting system. Conservatives are so stupid they cannot see the dangers involved in not getting something better in place as soon as possible. All they are interested in is grabbing power and clinging on to it. Never mind the consequences.
Incidentally, I still find it amazing that grown men are arguing about this.
May won. There is literally no doubt about that - she won the most seats, most votes and has enough support to get a Queens' speech through. That she permanently and fatally damaged her standing to achieve that victory will always overshadow it and, indeed, her.
There is a very famous saying in our language that covers this precise scenario. Can we just start using that instead of shitposting over and over and over.
Please.
It was Mohammed al Sahaf who drew up the original version of these graphs - I just posted them on Twitter
@jessicaelgot: Patel has been on a plane to Uganda while Number 10 learn from the media she still did not give them full info about her visit. Not ideal.
Or we have a Foreign policy which is no longer explicitly pro EU and anti Israel and left liberals can't stand it!
Were you really a failed Tory candidate at the last election or was that just Mark's sense of humour?
I increased the Tory voteshare in a town council by election in August relative to the 2016 local election result in the same ward even though I did not win yes and am on the list for the district elections next year, I have never stood in a general election.
Well good luck HYFUD , you always fight your corner with politeness.
Thank you though I will probably be a paper candidate in Loughton next year where the Residents Association hold sway, the 2019 Epping town council elections are what I am really focused on.
Are you still on about this garbage Ishmael. You are arguing from a point of profound ignorance and just making yourself look dumb. Give it up and move on as you do make yourself look like a flat-earther at the moment.
If Prity Patel doesn't resign it will be a miracle. Even by the shoddy standards of this government she surely has no chance of remaining in office. She should be in a race with Boris but being junior and her offence being much more serious it's bound to be her.
She won't resign and May won't sack her...
am I missing something here? She offered funding for hospitals for providing medical services to refugees, and the catch is simply that the hospitals happen to be run by the army? isn't that a bit pathetic?
She offered funding for hospitals for providing medical services to refugees, and the catch is simply that .....it is entirely at variance with the agreed policy of the FCO and therefore HMG.
OK.
I take your point that Syrian refugees are insignificant, brown people, but I'd be almost inclined to bend a rule or two if the sole purpose was to give them medical aid.
Are you still on about this garbage Ishmael. You are arguing from a point of profound ignorance and just making yourself look dumb. Give it up and move on as you do make yourself look like a flat-earther at the moment.
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election.
I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered.
Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory voteshare in 34 years and the second highest number of Tory seats in 25 years. Even if she did not do as well as hoped.
By failing to call a snap election history will record Brown got the second lowest Labour voteshare since WW2 and the lowest number of Labour seats for 23 years until Ed Miliband won even fewer in 2015. Even Corbyn outperformed Brown.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
Still bollocks and very tedious when you ignore one simple fact. CON increased vote share by 5.8% at GE17 - alas LAB went up 9.8%
Even on seats alone and completely ignoring voteshare, May got the 2nd highest number of Tory seats in 25 years
Most of this is more of a comment about the falling away of a third party challenge in England, for the first time since 1970, than it is of particular credit to either Tory or Labour.
Well that also goes for Cameron's majority in 2015 too then.
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election. I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered. Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory voteshare in 34 years and the second highest number of Tory seats in 25 years. Even if she did not do as well as hoped.
By failing to call a snap election history will record Brown got the second lowest Labour voteshare since WW2 and the lowest number of Labour seats for 23 years until Ed Miliband won even fewer in 2015. Even Corbyn outperformed Brown.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
The product of a completely broken voting system. Conservatives are so stupid they cannot see the dangers involved in not getting something better in place as soon as possible. All they are interested in is grabbing power and clinging on to it. Never mind the consequences.
That is rather the point of a political party and what 'something better' is depends on your perspective
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election.
I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered.
Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory voteshare in 34 years and the second highest number of Tory seats in 25 years. Even if she did not do as well as hoped.
By failing to call a snap election history will record Brown got the second lowest Labour voteshare since WW2 and the lowest number of Labour seats for 23 years until Ed Miliband won even fewer in 2015. Even Corbyn outperformed Brown.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
Still bollocks and very tedious when you ignore one simple fact. CON increased vote share by 5.8% at GE17 - alas LAB went up 9.8%
Even on seats alone and completely ignoring voteshare, May got the 2nd highest number of Tory seats in 25 years
Most of this is more of a comment about the falling away of a third party challenge in England, for the first time since 1970, than it is of particular credit to either Tory or Labour.
Well that also goes for Cameron's majority in 2015 too then.
It was certainly more of an achievement. Also UKIP did OK in many seats, a challenge that disappeared in 2017.
Are you still on about this garbage Ishmael. You are arguing from a point of profound ignorance and just making yourself look dumb. Give it up and move on as you do make yourself look like a flat-earther at the moment.
I 'll take that as a C, then.
No you can take it as a sigh of despair that anyone could be so wrong on a basic fact and yet apparently not realise it. I can only assume it is as a result of profound arrogance that will not let you admit you made a mistake and move on. So instead you just keep digging.
@jessicaelgot: Patel has been on a plane to Uganda while Number 10 learn from the media she still did not give them full info about her visit. Not ideal.
That she’s out of the country is possibly the only reason she’s not been fired today. Patel and Johnson both looking very vulnerable. Reshuffle later in the week, assuming no more sex pest allegations in the meantime?
Or we have a Foreign policy which is no longer explicitly pro EU and anti Israel and left liberals can't stand it!
Were you really a failed Tory candidate at the last election or was that just Mark's sense of humour?
I increased the Tory voteshare in a town council by election in August relative to the 2016 local election result in the same ward even though I did not win yes and am on the list for the district elections next year, I have never stood in a general election.
Well good luck HYFUD , you always fight your corner with politeness.
Thank you though I will probably be a paper candidate in Loughton next year where the Residents Association hold sway, the 2019 Epping town council elections are what I am really focused on.
May won. There is literally no doubt about that - she won the most seats, most votes and has enough support to get a Queens' speech through. That she permanently and fatally damaged her standing to achieve that victory will always overshadow it and, indeed, her. There is a very famous saying in our language that covers this precise scenario. Can we just start using that instead of shitposting over and over and over. Please.
Trying to guess the phrase, Mr Paris.... Tant pis? Faute de mielleur? Merde?
If Prity Patel doesn't resign it will be a miracle. Even by the shoddy standards of this government she surely has no chance of remaining in office. She should be in a race with Boris but being junior and her offence being much more serious it's bound to be her.
She won't resign and May won't sack her...
am I missing something here? She offered funding for hospitals for providing medical services to refugees, and the catch is simply that the hospitals happen to be run by the army? isn't that a bit pathetic?
She offered funding for hospitals for providing medical services to refugees, and the catch is simply that .....it is entirely at variance with the agreed policy of the FCO and therefore HMG.
OK.
I take your point that Syrian refugees are insignificant, brown people, but I'd be almost inclined to bend a rule or two if the sole purpose was to give them medical aid.
That is so utterly ridiculous a remark as to be beneath a reasonable reply.
But I will be charitable since geology and geography is clearly using up your energies. I never once said whether Ms. Patel's ideas were good or bad ones. Merely that Ministers can not go around making up Policy on the hoof. And then dissembling about what they have done.
With all the allegations about lots of people flying around at the moment, it’s sadly unsurprising to hear that someone has taken that option.
Without ever being told what the allegations were. That is the bit that flies in the face of natural justice. How can you defend yourself when you don't know what you are facing?
If Prity Patel doesn't resign it will be a miracle. Even by the shoddy standards of this government she surely has no chance of remaining in office. She should be in a race with Boris but being junior and her offence being much more serious it's bound to be her.
She won't resign and May won't sack her...
am I missing something here? She offered funding for hospitals for providing medical services to refugees, and the catch is simply that the hospitals happen to be run by the army? isn't that a bit pathetic?
She offered funding for hospitals for providing medical services to refugees, and the catch is simply that .....it is entirely at variance with the agreed policy of the FCO and therefore HMG.
OK.
I take your point that Syrian refugees are insignificant, brown people, but I'd be almost inclined to bend a rule or two if the sole purpose was to give them medical aid.
That is so utterly ridiculous a remark as to be beneath a reasonable reply.
But I will be charitable since geology and geography is clearly using up your energies. I never once said whether Ms. Patel's ideas were good or bad ones. Merely that Ministers can not go around making up Policy on the hoof. And then dissembling about what they have done.
Or maybe you disagree?
You could have added to Izzy's idiotic post that had Britain wanted to give aid to Syrian refugees there are other ways than through the Israeli army currently involved in an illegal occupation.
"Prince Charles campaigned to alter climate-change agreements without disclosing his private estate had an offshore financial interest in what he was promoting, BBC Panorama has found.
The Paradise Papers show the Duchy of Cornwall in 2007 secretly bought shares worth $113,500 in a Bermuda company that would benefit from a rule change.
The prince was a friend of a director of Sustainable Forestry Management Ltd..........."
LOL! The Guardian now wants us to be indignant because the Duchy of Cornwall "invested in land to protect it from deforestation" with, as the article puts it, "no tax advantage to the estate". The investment value was... $100K.
Are you still on about this garbage Ishmael. You are arguing from a point of profound ignorance and just making yourself look dumb. Give it up and move on as you do make yourself look like a flat-earther at the moment.
I 'll take that as a C, then.
No you can take it as a sigh of despair that anyone could be so wrong on a basic fact and yet apparently not realise it. I can only assume it is as a result of profound arrogance that will not let you admit you made a mistake and move on. So instead you just keep digging.
look: I know what Wegener said, I know how plate tectonics came along and explained what he said, and I know that these islands are on the same plate as most of europe. If I were as ignorant as you claim, how would I know that the Portugal question was a good one? This isn't about my understanding of science, it's about your failure to understand how scientific advances qualify ordinary language. There are big bits of land which are continents and little bits of land which are islands, and you can't be both, and here's John Donne to confirm that: "No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine". The discovery that islands and continents are connected to one another and move about in sync does not alter the fact that islands are still islands. (And even if it did, the political consequences would still be nil).
I am wary of "ANSWER THE QUESTION, YES OR NO," arguments, but is Portugal part of Europe or not, or is the question unfair, and why?
LOL! The Guardian now wants us to be indignant because the Duchy of Cornwall "invested in land to protect it from deforestation" with, as the article puts it, "no tax advantage to the estate".
These Paradise Papers are indeed a treasure-trove... of laughs.
I heard that that there’s been a dozen hacks from various publications working through this stuff for nearly a year - and there’s almost nothing there at all. But it cost them a fortune so they need to run with it for weeks anyway!
Queen has an indirect £3k investment in a company the Guardian doesn’t like, non-resident touring sportsman didn’t pay VAT on his plane and now Prince Charles is buying land to stop it being developed on. Where’s the news?
You are being way too charitable to Brown. The 'boom and bust' line was trotted out over and over, to all sorts of audiences, and the clear message was that Labour's stable and prudent policies would avoid the harsh economic swings of the past. He talked about continuous growth, ongoing stability, financial discipline, All this said whilst an inexorably rising spiral of credit was taking us toward the 2008 cliff edge, which Brown denied when challenged about this very possibility in advance of the event.
When challenged about this in 2008 Brown tried to claim he had always said "no more Tory boom and bust" (as if voters cared whose), but the record confirms he used this formulation sometimes but very often not.
This was the argument I had the other day. The problem is that all kinds of sources from before 2008 took Brown to mean that specific political practice, whether prefixed with 'Tory' or not. For instance, the definition given in a British Political Dictionary from 2004:
'Boom and bust. A phrase used to describe the tendency of the British economy to experience a cycle of rapid inflationary growth, often triggered by governments in advance of an election (for example Nigel Lawson's 1986 budget), followed by a recession, after interest rates have been increased to bring inflation under control, as occurred under the chancellorship of Norman Lamont in the early 1990s. Gordon Brown, New Labour's first chancellor, claimed he was breaking out of this tendency by letting the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England set interest rates on purely economic criteria. ... See also: political business cycle.'
This was how John Smith had used the term as shadow chancellor. Everybody at the time understood what Brown was talking about when he said 'boom and bust', it's only afterwards it's been reimagined to mean *any* boom and *any* recession
Nonsense. The Labour 'plan', if that's not too strong a word, was to say that the deficit could be cut with no pain to anyone. We never did find out what if anything they actually proposed to do, but they seemed to oppose every single spending cut Osborne implemented, even the most obvious and painless.
On the contrary, Labour was constantly going on about cuts and expected pain (reaction against it here: https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/06/cuts-deficit-labour-budget-obr). It's no surprise that they never drew up more concrete plans in opposition, that's just how our politics works unfortunately - we had equally little substance from the Tories before 2010, and then the plans and forecasts we did get turned out to be completely unreal.
On the Golan Heights, a piece of land captured by the IDF, which is still disputed as being illegally occupied. Quite possibly because from the top it is possible to see a long way over Syria, or in the opposite direction, over Israel.
If Prity Patel doesn't resign it will be a miracle. Even by the shoddy standards of this government she surely has no chance of remaining in office. She should be in a race with Boris but being junior and her offence being much more serious it's bound to be her.
She won't resign and May won't sack her...
am I missing something here? She offered funding for hospitals for providing medical services to refugees, and the catch is simply that the hospitals happen to be run by the army? isn't that a bit pathetic?
She offered funding for hospitals for providing medical services to refugees, and the catch is simply that .....it is entirely at variance with the agreed policy of the FCO and therefore HMG.
OK.
I take your point that Syrian refugees are insignificant, brown people, but I'd be almost inclined to bend a rule or two if the sole purpose was to give them medical aid.
That is so utterly ridiculous a remark as to be beneath a reasonable reply.
But I will be charitable since geology and geography is clearly using up your energies. I never once said whether Ms. Patel's ideas were good or bad ones. Merely that Ministers can not go around making up Policy on the hoof. And then dissembling about what they have done.
Or maybe you disagree?
You could have added to Izzy's idiotic post that had Britain wanted to give aid to Syrian refugees there are other ways than through the Israeli army currently involved in an illegal occupation.
Well, no. If you are trying to provide medical aid in a militarised zone, you have to work with what's available. It would be preferable in all sorts of ways to rely on the Red Cross or MSF or someone, but hospitals which are already there, are already there.
This was how John Smith had used the term as shadow chancellor. Everybody at the time understood what Brown was talking about when he said 'boom and bust', it's only afterwards it's been reimagined to mean *any* boom and *any* recession
And yet Brown was guilty of stoking an unsustainable boom in order to smooth his path into Downing Street. Even using your definition, he's one of the worst offenders of manipulating the economy for short-term political ends.
On the contrary, Labour was constantly going on about cuts and expected pain (reaction against it here: https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/06/cuts-deficit-labour-budget-obr). It's no surprise that they never drew up more concrete plans in opposition, that's just how our politics works unfortunately - we had equally little substance from the Tories before 2010, and then the plans and forecasts we did get turned out to be completely unreal.
The issue wasn't that they didn't draw up plans in opposition, but that they didn't draw up plans in government:
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election. I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered. Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory voteshare in 34 years and the second highest number of Tory seats in 25 years. Even if she did not do as well as hoped. By failing to call a snap election history will record Brown got the second lowest Labour voteshare since WW2 and the lowest number of Labour seats for 23 years until Ed Miliband won even fewer in 2015. Even Corbyn outperformed Brown.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
The product of a completely broken voting system. Conservatives are so stupid they cannot see the dangers involved in not getting something better in place as soon as possible. All they are interested in is grabbing power and clinging on to it. Never mind the consequences.
That is rather the point of a political party and what 'something better' is depends on your perspective
I would have thought it might mean strong and stable government, Mr FD, which worked towards a prosperous economy and and contented population. Something like that. Instead we have a gang of incompetents who are hell-bent on wrecking the economy and the social stability of the nation.
This was how John Smith had used the term as shadow chancellor. Everybody at the time understood what Brown was talking about when he said 'boom and bust', it's only afterwards it's been reimagined to mean *any* boom and *any* recession
And yet Brown was guilty of stoking an unsustainable boom in order to smooth his path into Downing Street. Even using your definition, he's one of the worst offenders of manipulating the economy for short-term political ends.
It's not *my* definition, it's *the* definition. Only after 2008 has this myth arisen that 'boom and bust' meant just the ordinary business cycle. Whether you're a fan of Brown or not, it matters if we want to know New Labour's motivations, what they thought they'd achieved and the measures they took. Continuing with this myth turns real history into a caricature.
But you'll find plenty of economists arguing that his was the right policy for the circumstances of 2008 and after - quite a different situation to what faced Maudling, Barber, Lawson, Lamont.
On the contrary, Labour was constantly going on about cuts and expected pain (reaction against it here: https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/06/cuts-deficit-labour-budget-obr). It's no surprise that they never drew up more concrete plans in opposition, that's just how our politics works unfortunately - we had equally little substance from the Tories before 2010, and then the plans and forecasts we did get turned out to be completely unreal.
The issue wasn't that they didn't draw up plans in opposition, but that they didn't draw up plans in government:
Even by New Labour standards, it was exceptionally cynical and dishonest.
And entirely within the normal boundaries of British politics, from the Tories using the windfall from privatisations and north sea oil to fund tax cuts and current spending unsustainably, to New Labour's love affair with PFI, to the long-term impact on growth of the coalition's austerity programme.
If Prity Patel doesn't resign it will be a miracle. Even by the shoddy standards of this government she surely has no chance of remaining in office. She should be in a race with Boris but being junior and her offence being much more serious it's bound to be her.
She won't resign and May won't sack her...
am I missing something here? She offered funding for hospitals for providing medical services to refugees, and the catch is simply that the hospitals happen to be run by the army? isn't that a bit pathetic?
She offered funding for hospitals for providing medical services to refugees, and the catch is simply that .....it is entirely at variance with the agreed policy of the FCO and therefore HMG.
OK.
I take your point that Syrian refugees are insignificant, brown people, but I'd be almost inclined to bend a rule or two if the sole purpose was to give them medical aid.
That is so utterly ridiculous a remark as to be beneath a reasonable reply.
But I will be charitable since geology and geography is clearly using up your energies. I never once said whether Ms. Patel's ideas were good or bad ones. Merely that Ministers can not go around making up Policy on the hoof. And then dissembling about what they have done.
Or maybe you disagree?
You could have added to Izzy's idiotic post that had Britain wanted to give aid to Syrian refugees there are other ways than through the Israeli army currently involved in an illegal occupation.
Well, no. If you are trying to provide medical aid in a militarised zone, you have to work with what's available. It would be preferable in all sorts of ways to rely on the Red Cross or MSF or someone, but hospitals which are already there, are already there.
Why not other armies involved in the occupation of Syria most dealing with many more refugees than the Israelis occupying the Golan Heights. Hezbollah for example? But as you know that's not the point
On the contrary, Labour was constantly going on about cuts and expected pain (reaction against it here: https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/06/cuts-deficit-labour-budget-obr). It's no surprise that they never drew up more concrete plans in opposition, that's just how our politics works unfortunately - we had equally little substance from the Tories before 2010, and then the plans and forecasts we did get turned out to be completely unreal.
The issue wasn't that they didn't draw up plans in opposition, but that they didn't draw up plans in government:
Even by New Labour standards, it was exceptionally cynical and dishonest.
And entirely within the normal boundaries of British politics, from the Tories using the windfall from privatisations and north sea oil to fund tax cuts and current spending unsustainably, to New Labour's love affair with PFI, to the long-term impact on growth of the coalition's austerity programme.
It is not within the normal boundaries of British politics to cancel a routine spending review because you want to be able to con voters. Trying to change the subject won't alter that, and won't alter the fact that, as I originally pointed out, Labour did NOT lay out their spending plans going in to the 2010 election.
On the Golan Heights, a piece of land captured by the IDF, which is still disputed as being illegally occupied. Quite possibly because from the top it is possible to see a long way over Syria, or in the opposite direction, over Israel.
I would have thought the answer's even simpler - the country that commands Golan commands the Jordan and the Sea of Galilee. In other words, the vast majority of fresh water in the region.
Re Winstanley, I wouldn't bother arguing. He still hasn't explained how Brown's use of the Dotcom crash as a way of showing he guaranteed economic stability shows he really meant 'Tory boom and bust'. Or read page 215 of his beloved dictionary where Bill Jones makes it clear it really was economics since 1945 and not merely Conservative governments Brown was referring too.
Some people can just be unreasonable on their pet hobby horses. At least we can talk about Brexit instead
This was how John Smith had used the term as shadow chancellor. Everybody at the time understood what Brown was talking about when he said 'boom and bust', it's only afterwards it's been reimagined to mean *any* boom and *any* recession
And yet Brown was guilty of stoking an unsustainable boom in order to smooth his path into Downing Street. Even using your definition, he's one of the worst offenders of manipulating the economy for short-term political ends.
It's not *my* definition, it's *the* definition. Only after 2008 has this myth arisen that 'boom and bust' meant just the ordinary business cycle. Whether you're a fan of Brown or not, it matters if we want to know New Labour's motivations, what they thought they'd achieved and the measures they took. Continuing with this myth turns real history into a caricature.
The phrase was actually coined by Ken Clarke. Its subsequent overuse by Brown was often mocked well before 2008 and taken to mean that he believed he could "abolish the business cycle", so whatever the definition, it's revisionism to claim that it wasn't the topic of political debate at the time.
Here's Ken Clarke's 1996 budget statement where he refers to "no return to boom and bust".
This was how John Smith had used the term as shadow chancellor. Everybody at the time understood what Brown was talking about when he said 'boom and bust', it's only afterwards it's been reimagined to mean *any* boom and *any* recession
And yet Brown was guilty of stoking an unsustainable boom in order to smooth his path into Downing Street. Even using your definition, he's one of the worst offenders of manipulating the economy for short-term political ends.
It's not *my* definition, it's *the* definition. Only after 2008 has this myth arisen that 'boom and bust' meant just the ordinary business cycle. Whether you're a fan of Brown or not, it matters if we want to know New Labour's motivations, what they thought they'd achieved and the measures they took. Continuing with this myth turns real history into a caricature.
But you'll find plenty of economists arguing that his was the right policy for the circumstances of 2008 and after - quite a different situation to what faced Maudling, Barber, Lawson, Lamont.
Would all these economists be Greek by any chance? No one sane thought we could possibly sustain a deficit of 10% of GDP. The refusal to have a spending review was so Brown could go on and on about Tory Cuts, not because anyone thought cuts were not necessary.
On the contrary, Labour was constantly going on about cuts and expected pain (reaction against it here: https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/06/cuts-deficit-labour-budget-obr). It's no surprise that they never drew up more concrete plans in opposition, that's just how our politics works unfortunately - we had equally little substance from the Tories before 2010, and then the plans and forecasts we did get turned out to be completely unreal.
The issue wasn't that they didn't draw up plans in opposition, but that they didn't draw up plans in government:
Even by New Labour standards, it was exceptionally cynical and dishonest.
And entirely within the normal boundaries of British politics, from the Tories using the windfall from privatisations and north sea oil to fund tax cuts and current spending unsustainably, to New Labour's love affair with PFI, to the long-term impact on growth of the coalition's austerity programme.
It is not within the normal boundaries of British politics to cancel a routine spending review because you want to be able to con voters.
Every government lies and hides what bad news it can get away with, New Labour was venal for sure but entirely within a proud tradition of venality.
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election. I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered. Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory ed Brown.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
The product of a completely broken voting system. Conservatives are so stupid they cannot see the dangers involved in not getting something better in place as soon as possible. All they are interested in is grabbing power and clinging on to it. Never mind the consequences.
That is rather the point of a political party and what 'something better' is depends on your perspective
I would have thought it might mean strong and stable government, Mr FD, which worked towards a prosperous economy and and contented population. Something like that. Instead we have a gang of incompetents who are hell-bent on wrecking the economy and the social stability of the nation.
There would certainly not be a 'contented population' if the vote of 17 million of them to leave the EU to restore sovereignty and gain greater control of EU immigration was thrown back in their face.
The government is aiming for a FTA with the EU in accordance with the Leave vote.
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election.
I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered.
Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory voteshare in 34 years and the second highest number of Tory seats in 25 years. Even if she did not do as well as hoped.
By failing to call a snap election history will record Brown got the second lowest Labour voteshare since WW2 and the lowest number of Labour seats for 23 years until Ed Miliband won even fewer in 2015. Even Corbyn outperformed Brown.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
Still bollocks and very tedious when you ignore one simple fact. CON increased vote share by 5.8% at GE17 - alas LAB went up 9.8%
Even on seats alone and completely ignoring voteshare, May got the 2nd highest number of Tory seats in 25 years
Do the three of you envision some time in the future when you'll have gotten bored of hurling the same statistics back and forth at each other?
This was how John Smith had used the term as shadow chancellor. Everybody at the time understood what Brown was talking about when he said 'boom and bust', it's only afterwards it's been reimagined to mean *any* boom and *any* recession
And yet Brown was guilty of stoking an unsustainable boom in order to smooth his path into Downing Street. Even using your definition, he's one of the worst offenders of manipulating the economy for short-term political ends.
It's not *my* definition, it's *the* definition. Only after 2008 has this myth arisen that 'boom and bust' meant just the ordinary business cycle. Whether you're a fan of Brown or not, it matters if we want to know New Labour's motivations, what they thought they'd achieved and the measures they took. Continuing with this myth turns real history into a caricature.
The phrase was actually coined by Ken Clarke. Its subsequent overuse by Brown was often mocked well before 2008 and taken to mean that he believed he could "abolish the business cycle", so whatever the definition, it's revisionism to claim that it wasn't the topic of political debate at the time.
Here's Ken Clarke's 1996 budget statement where he refers to "no return to boom and bust".
[deleted]
Although he did a good job as Chancellor by most metrics, it's interesting to see how preachy Clarke is in that. 'This is what you want...you may get it at some point.'
Conventional wisdom is that the Tories made a dreadful error not electing him leader, but I wonder how well that attitude would have gone down with either his backbenchers or the press.
Not that William Hague was willing to tell anyone hard truths.
This was how John Smith had used the term as shadow chancellor. Everybody at the time understood what Brown was talking about when he said 'boom and bust', it's only afterwards it's been reimagined to mean *any* boom and *any* recession
And yet Brown was guilty of stoking an unsustainable boom in order to smooth his path into Downing Street. Even using your definition, he's one of the worst offenders of manipulating the economy for short-term political ends.
It's not *my* definition, it's *the* definition. Only after 2008 has this myth arisen that 'boom and bust' meant just the ordinary business cycle. Whether you're a fan of Brown or not, it matters if we want to know New Labour's motivations, what they thought they'd achieved and the measures they took. Continuing with this myth turns real history into a caricature.
The phrase was actually coined by Ken Clarke. Its subsequent overuse by Brown was often mocked well before 2008 and taken to mean that he believed he could "abolish the business cycle", so whatever the definition, it's revisionism to claim that it wasn't the topic of political debate at the time.
Here's Ken Clarke's 1996 budget statement where he refers to "no return to boom and bust".
[deleted]
Although he did a good job as Chancellor by most metrics, it's interesting to see how preachy Clarke is in that. 'This is what you want...you may get it at some point.'
Conventional wisdom is that the Tories made a dreadful error not electing him leader, but I wonder how well that attitude would have gone down with either his backbenchers or the press.
Not that William Hague was willing to tell anyone hard truths.
At least you don't laugh or cringe as you did with Major.
This was how John Smith had used the term as shadow chancellor. Everybody at the time understood what Brown was talking about when he said 'boom and bust', it's only afterwards it's been reimagined to mean *any* boom and *any* recession
And yet Brown was guilty of stoking an unsustainable boom in order to smooth his path into Downing Street. Even using your definition, he's one of the worst offenders of manipulating the economy for short-term political ends.
It's not *my* definition, it's *the* definition. Only after 2008 has this myth arisen that 'boom and bust' meant just the ordinary business cycle. Whether you're a fan of Brown or not, it matters if we want to know New Labour's motivations, what they thought they'd achieved and the measures they took. Continuing with this myth turns real history into a caricature.
The phrase was actually coined by Ken Clarke. Its subsequent overuse by Brown was often mocked well before 2008 and taken to mean that he believed he could "abolish the business cycle", so whatever the definition, it's revisionism to claim that it wasn't the topic of political debate at the time.
Here's Ken Clarke's 1996 budget statement where he refers to "no return to boom and bust".
Whether people took it mean the ordinary business cycle before 2008 or not, I don't know - would you point me in the direction of any sources that do claim Brown was talking about the ordinary business cycle?
Everything I have seen shows clearly that when British politicians spoke of 'boom and bust' long before 2008 they meant the practice of chancellors fiddling about with interest rates to provoke a boom in the run up to elections, and that Brown thought he had ended it by having interest rates set allegedly independently from politicians. Not that he had somehow fixed the ordinary business cycle to make booms and busts of any sort impossible.
So how can this definition be Brown trying to shift the goalposts after 2008, when it's so clearly everywhere before 2008? Whether he was right or wrong, that's what he meant and his reasons for thinking so make sense. It is not possible now for something like the Maudling dash for growth, the Barber boom, the Lawson boom, leading from their decisions to cut interest rates for political reasons. The issue remaining is that Bank of England independence doesn't insulate it from politics, Brown wasn't right. But let's understand what he even meant.
Matt Frei. "Just what does Boris have to do to get sacked"?
It is comments like that from BBC journalists that annoy me. They are there to report, not offer their opinions.
Fair enough to find a politician or two to make that point and then report it - but I don't think the role of the BBC is to comment.
That's funny. Blame the BBC. Suggest you do a Google.
It is very easy to see why the BBC gets a reputation for having agendas that it likes to push when they step away from informing and educating and into the world of personal comments.
There is a world of difference between reporting an event, a story, and giving journalists a platform for their own opinions.
The BBC face this criticism from a whole range of political perspectives - so it is not just one side of a debate that thinks it is getting a raw deal. The BBC consistently brush it aside claiming journalistic integrity. But you only have to look at the 'Despite Brexit' claim made by JRM which was dismissed out of hand by Dimbleby on QT the other week - and then look at the evidence that shows JRM was absolutely right.
The BBC does a lot of good work. But it needs to focus on reporting and quality investigative journalism - and cut out the constant comments.
Matt Frei. "Just what does Boris have to do to get sacked"?
It is comments like that from BBC journalists that annoy me. They are there to report, not offer their opinions.
Fair enough to find a politician or two to make that point and then report it - but I don't think the role of the BBC is to comment.
That's funny. Blame the BBC. Suggest you do a Google.
It is very easy to see why the BBC gets a reputation for having agendas that it likes to push when they step away from informing and educating and into the world of personal comments.
There is a world of difference between reporting an event, a story, and giving journalists a platform for their own opinions.
The BBC face this criticism from a whole range of political perspectives - so it is not just one side of a debate that thinks it is getting a raw deal. The BBC consistently brush it aside claiming journalistic integrity. But you only have to look at the 'Despite Brexit' claim made by JRM which was dismissed out of hand by Dimbleby on QT the other week - and then look at the evidence that shows JRM was absolutely right.
The BBC does a lot of good work. But it needs to focus on reporting and quality investigative journalism - and cut out the constant comments.
This was how John Smith had used the term as shadow chancellor. Everybody at the time understood what Brown was talking about when he said 'boom and bust', it's only afterwards it's been reimagined to mean *any* boom and *any* recession
And
It's not *my* definition, it's *the* definition. Only after 2008 has this myth arisen that 'boom and bust' meant just the ordinary business cycle. Whether you're a fan of Brown or not, it matters if we want to know New Labour's motivations, what they thought they'd achieved and the measures they took. Continuing with this myth turns real history into a caricature.
The phrase was actually coined by Ken Clarke. Its subsequent overuse by Brown was often mocked well before 2008 and taken to mean that he believed he could "abolish the business cycle", so whatever the definition, it's revisionism to claim that it wasn't the topic of political debate at the time.
Here's Ken Clarke's 1996 budget statement where he refers to "no return to boom and bust".
Whether people took it mean the ordinary business cycle before 2008 or not, I don't know - would you point me in the direction of any sources that do claim Brown was talking about the ordinary business cycle?
Everything I have seen shows clearly that when British politicians spoke of 'boom and bust' long before 2008 they meant the practice of chancellors fiddling about with interest rates to provoke a boom in the run up to elections, and that Brown thought he had ended it by having interest rates set allegedly independently from politicians. Not that he had somehow fixed the ordinary business cycle to make booms and busts of any sort impossible.
So how can this definition be Brown trying to shift the goalposts after 2008, when it's so clearly everywhere before 2008? Whether he was right or wrong, that's what he meant and his reasons for thinking so make sense. It is not possible now for something like the Maudling dash for growth, the Barber boom, the Lawson boom, leading from their decisions to cut interest rates for political reasons. The issue remaining is that Bank of England independence doesn't insulate it from politics, Brown wasn't right. But let's understand what he even meant.
Plus, it wasn't coined by Ken Clarke in 1996 - there are plenty of references to 'boom and bust policies' on Hansard referring to monetary policy before then, before it really takes off in 1997/8.
Unwittingly, Tezza has an opportunity (she won't take) to assert her authority (she won't) and "take back control" (won't happen) of the agenda.
Tell Priti to get on the next flight home and sack her on arrival.
Since we are talking about a scandal involving Israel, May seems to have been studying Abba Eban - she never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Holyrood was evacuated today because the Inverness Courier invited MSPs to an anniversary party, with fake snow in the envelopes
If our politicians are so hopeless they can't even get a security alert over mysterious powders right, it is my considered opinion that we are stuffed.
This was how John Smith had used the term as shadow chancellor. Everybody at the time understood what Brown was talking about when he said 'boom and bust', it's only afterwards it's been reimagined to mean *any* boom and *any* recession
And
Here's Ken Clarke's 1996 budget statement where he refers to "no return to boom and bust".
Whether people took it mean the ordinary business cycle before 2008 or not, I don't know - would you point me in the direction of any sources that do claim Brown was talking about the ordinary business cycle?
Everything I have seen shows clearly that when British politicians spoke of 'boom and bust' long before 2008 they meant the practice of chancellors fiddling about with interest rates to provoke a boom in the run up to elections, and that Brown thought he had ended it by having interest rates set allegedly independently from politicians. Not that he had somehow fixed the ordinary business cycle to make booms and busts of any sort impossible.
So how can this definition be Brown trying to shift the goalposts after 2008, when it's so clearly everywhere before 2008? Whether he was right or wrong, that's what he meant and his reasons for thinking so make sense. It is not possible now for something like the Maudling dash for growth, the Barber boom, the Lawson boom, leading from their decisions to cut interest rates for political reasons. The issue remaining is that Bank of England independence doesn't insulate it from politics, Brown wasn't right. But let's understand what he even meant.
Plus, it wasn't coined by Ken Clarke in 1996 - there are plenty of references to 'boom and bust policies' on Hansard referring to monetary policy before then, before it really takes off in 1997/8.
Debating with yourself isn't a good look
Brown is a politician. He knew how most people would take his oft repeated phrases.
Besides, he was confronted in the Commons about the looming risk of bust from rapidly rising debt, and arrogantly dismissed them. He deserves no credit in the build up to the crisis, some credit for acting quickly to prevent collapse during it, and little credit for sowing the seeds that flowered into today's gross distortions.
So, today's revelations. The two most important senior foreign and diplomatic facing ministers have been found to be either utterly crap at their jobs or duplicitous or both.
So, I ask yet again, why the f*** is Rory not in Cabinet?
LOL! The Guardian now wants us to be indignant because the Duchy of Cornwall "invested in land to protect it from deforestation" with, as the article puts it, "no tax advantage to the estate".
These Paradise Papers are indeed a treasure-trove... of laughs.
I heard that that there’s been a dozen hacks from various publications working through this stuff for nearly a year - and there’s almost nothing there at all. But it cost them a fortune so they need to run with it for weeks anyway!
Queen has an indirect £3k investment in a company the Guardian doesn’t like, non-resident touring sportsman didn’t pay VAT on his plane and now Prince Charles is buying land to stop it being developed on. Where’s the news?
As far as I understand it, the Duchy of Lancaster invested an amount in two companies, one went bankrupt, the other dropped to £3k, sorry, but I don't have the original amounts to hand, perhaps someone could remind me?
Incidentally, I still find it amazing that grown men are arguing about this.
May won. There is literally no doubt about that - she won the most seats, most votes and has enough support to get a Queens' speech through. That she permanently and fatally damaged her standing to achieve that victory will always overshadow it and, indeed, her.
There is a very famous saying in our language that covers this precise scenario. Can we just start using that instead of shitposting over and over and over.
Please.
It was Mohammed al Sahaf who drew up the original version of these graphs - I just posted them on Twitter
Incidentally, I still find it amazing that grown men are arguing about this.
May won. There is literally no doubt about that - she won the most seats, most votes and has enough support to get a Queens' speech through. That she permanently and fatally damaged her standing to achieve that victory will always overshadow it and, indeed, her.
There is a very famous saying in our language that covers this precise scenario. Can we just start using that instead of shitposting over and over and over.
Please.
It was Mohammed al Sahaf who drew up the original version of these graphs - I just posted them on Twitter
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election.
I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered.
Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory voteshare in 34 years and the second highest number of Tory seats in 25 years. Even if she did not do as well as hoped.
By failing to call a snap election history will record Brown got the second lowest Labour voteshare since WW2 and the lowest number of Labour seats for 23 years until Ed Miliband won even fewer in 2015. Even Corbyn outperformed Brown.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
Still bollocks and very tedious when you ignore one simple fact. CON increased vote share by 5.8% at GE17 - alas LAB went up 9.8%
Are you still on about this garbage Ishmael. You are arguing from a point of profound ignorance and just making yourself look dumb. Give it up and move on as you do make yourself look like a flat-earther at the moment.
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election.
I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered.
Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory voteshare in 34 years and the second highest number of Tory seats in 25 years. Even if she did not do as well as hoped.
By failing to call a snap election history will record Brown got the second lowest Labour voteshare since WW2 and the lowest number of Labour seats for 23 years until Ed Miliband won even fewer in 2015. Even Corbyn outperformed Brown.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
Still bollocks and very tedious when you ignore one simple fact. CON increased vote share by 5.8% at GE17 - alas LAB went up 9.8%
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election.
I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered.
Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory voteshare in 34 years and the second highest number of Tory seats in 25 years. Even if she did not do as well as hoped.
By failing to call a snap election history will record Brown got the second lowest Labour voteshare since WW2 and the lowest number of Labour seats for 23 years until Ed Miliband won even fewer in 2015. Even Corbyn outperformed Brown.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
Still bollocks and very tedious when you ignore one simple fact. CON increased vote share by 5.8% at GE17 - alas LAB went up 9.8%
Labour lost - get over it.
SNP 35 seats, Scottish Conservatives 13. Why the big deal about Ruth Davidson? - she lost!
So, today's revelations. The two most important senior foreign and diplomatic facing ministers have been found to be either utterly crap at their jobs or duplicitous or both.
So, I ask yet again, why the f*** is Rory not in Cabinet?
Are you still on about this garbage Ishmael. You are arguing from a point of profound ignorance and just making yourself look dumb. Give it up and move on as you do make yourself look like a flat-earther at the moment.
I 'll take that as a C, then.
No you can take it as a sigh of despair that anyone could be so wrong on a basic fact and yet apparently not realise it. I can only assume it is as a result of profound arrogance that will not let you admit you made a mistake and move on. So instead you just keep digging.
look: I know what Wegener said, I know how plate tectonics came along and explained what he said, and I know that these islands are on the same plate as most of europe. If I were as ignorant as you claim, how would I know that the Portugal question was a good one? This isn't about my understanding of science, it's about your failure to understand how scientific advances qualify ordinary language. There are big bits of land which are continents and little bits of land which are islands, and you can't be both, and here's John Donne to confirm that: "No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine". The discovery that islands and continents are connected to one another and move about in sync does not alter the fact that islands are still islands. (And even if it did, the political consequences would still be nil).
I am wary of "ANSWER THE QUESTION, YES OR NO," arguments, but is Portugal part of Europe or not, or is the question unfair, and why?
Yes Portugal is part of Europe. It is also part of the European plate - a fact I suspect you are about to mistakenly deny which is a good sign of why you should not base your supposed scientific knowledge on Wikipedia.
By your criteria Staten Island is not part of the Continental US. Which is of course utter rubbish.
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election.
I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered.
Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory voteshare in 34 years and the second highest number of Tory seats in 25 years. Even if she did not do as well as hoped.
By failing to call a snap election history will record Brown got the second lowest Labour voteshare since WW2 and the lowest number of Labour seats for 23 years until Ed Miliband won even fewer in 2015. Even Corbyn outperformed Brown.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
Still bollocks and very tedious when you ignore one simple fact. CON increased vote share by 5.8% at GE17 - alas LAB went up 9.8%
Labour lost - get over it.
SNP 35 seats, Scottish Conservatives 13. Why the big deal about Ruth Davidson? - she lost!
Sadly for Sunil, politics is not quite as simple as he makes out. Look at May. This is not what success looks like. No amount of spin, stats and repetition here can cover that up.
Comments
Then didn't tell anyone.
Then lied about it.
Then had a meeting with May in which she failed to disclose further pertinent details.
I take your point that Syrian refugees are insignificant, brown people, but I'd be almost inclined to bend a rule or two if the sole purpose was to give them medical aid.
But I will be charitable since geology and geography is clearly using up your energies.
I never once said whether Ms. Patel's ideas were good or bad ones.
Merely that Ministers can not go around making up Policy on the hoof.
And then dissembling about what they have done.
Or maybe you disagree?
The Paradise Papers show the Duchy of Cornwall in 2007 secretly bought shares worth $113,500 in a Bermuda company that would benefit from a rule change.
The prince was a friend of a director of Sustainable Forestry Management Ltd..........."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901175
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/07/prince-charles-profit-best-friend-hugh-van-cutsem-offshore-firm-paradise-papers
These Paradise Papers are indeed a treasure-trove... of laughs.
I am wary of "ANSWER THE QUESTION, YES OR NO," arguments, but is Portugal part of Europe or not, or is the question unfair, and why?
I suspect not.
Queen has an indirect £3k investment in a company the Guardian doesn’t like, non-resident touring sportsman didn’t pay VAT on his plane and now Prince Charles is buying land to stop it being developed on. Where’s the news?
'Boom and bust.
A phrase used to describe the tendency of the British economy to experience a cycle of rapid inflationary growth, often triggered by governments in advance of an election (for example Nigel Lawson's 1986 budget), followed by a recession, after interest rates have been increased to bring inflation under control, as occurred under the chancellorship of Norman Lamont in the early 1990s. Gordon Brown, New Labour's first chancellor, claimed he was breaking out of this tendency by letting the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England set interest rates on purely economic criteria. ... See also: political business cycle.'
This was how John Smith had used the term as shadow chancellor. Everybody at the time understood what Brown was talking about when he said 'boom and bust', it's only afterwards it's been reimagined to mean *any* boom and *any* recession
https://citywire.co.uk/money/government-delays-spending-decisions-amid-crippling-debt/a347037
Even by New Labour standards, it was exceptionally cynical and dishonest.
Whether he was right or not is an entirely different matter. I agree entirely that New Labour was terribly short-termist, and generally agree with Tony Wood's obituary of the Blair-Brown governments: https://newleftreview.org/II/62/tony-wood-good-riddance-to-new-labour
But you'll find plenty of economists arguing that his was the right policy for the circumstances of 2008 and after - quite a different situation to what faced Maudling, Barber, Lawson, Lamont.
Re Winstanley, I wouldn't bother arguing. He still hasn't explained how Brown's use of the Dotcom crash as a way of showing he guaranteed economic stability shows he really meant 'Tory boom and bust'. Or read page 215 of his beloved dictionary where Bill Jones makes it clear it really was economics since 1945 and not merely Conservative governments Brown was referring too.
Some people can just be unreasonable on their pet hobby horses. At least we can talk about Brexit instead
Here's Ken Clarke's 1996 budget statement where he refers to "no return to boom and bust".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMlPPDWo_Fs
'Angela Merkel's forming a coalition with the Greens and the Free Democrats.'
'Jamaica?'
'Nah, the voters did!'
Well - some jokes anyway...
The government is aiming for a FTA with the EU in accordance with the Leave vote.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/27/angela-merkel-german-coalition-social-democrats
Germany has a government. It is the CDU/CSU/SPD government from before the election in September.
All government proceduere carries on as normal.
Only *new* laws cannot be proposed or voted on.
Conventional wisdom is that the Tories made a dreadful error not electing him leader, but I wonder how well that attitude would have gone down with either his backbenchers or the press.
Not that William Hague was willing to tell anyone hard truths.
Martin Schulz (SPD) is chatting to Christian Lindner (FDP) in the pub.
Lindner: We're going to form a government with Merkel
Schulz: Jamaica?
Lindner: No she called me.
(boom boom!)
Fair enough to find a politician or two to make that point and then report it - but I don't think the role of the BBC is to comment.
Everything I have seen shows clearly that when British politicians spoke of 'boom and bust' long before 2008 they meant the practice of chancellors fiddling about with interest rates to provoke a boom in the run up to elections, and that Brown thought he had ended it by having interest rates set allegedly independently from politicians. Not that he had somehow fixed the ordinary business cycle to make booms and busts of any sort impossible.
That is how the 2004 British Political Dictionary defined it. It's how the Telegraph defined it in 2006: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2946610/Economic-agenda-The-blunders-of-boom-and-bust.html
So how can this definition be Brown trying to shift the goalposts after 2008, when it's so clearly everywhere before 2008? Whether he was right or wrong, that's what he meant and his reasons for thinking so make sense. It is not possible now for something like the Maudling dash for growth, the Barber boom, the Lawson boom, leading from their decisions to cut interest rates for political reasons. The issue remaining is that Bank of England independence doesn't insulate it from politics, Brown wasn't right. But let's understand what he even meant.
There is a world of difference between reporting an event, a story, and giving journalists a platform for their own opinions.
The BBC face this criticism from a whole range of political perspectives - so it is not just one side of a debate that thinks it is getting a raw deal. The BBC consistently brush it aside claiming journalistic integrity. But you only have to look at the 'Despite Brexit' claim made by JRM which was dismissed out of hand by Dimbleby on QT the other week - and then look at the evidence that shows JRM was absolutely right.
The BBC does a lot of good work. But it needs to focus on reporting and quality investigative journalism - and cut out the constant comments.
C4 News shouldn't do it either.
Best quote of the day
If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear
George Orwell
Tell Priti to get on the next flight home and sack her on arrival.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41899034
It's time for the great British public to default on these scammers.
Take Back Control
Brown is a politician. He knew how most people would take his oft repeated phrases.
Besides, he was confronted in the Commons about the looming risk of bust from rapidly rising debt, and arrogantly dismissed them. He deserves no credit in the build up to the crisis, some credit for acting quickly to prevent collapse during it, and little credit for sowing the seeds that flowered into today's gross distortions.
So, I ask yet again, why the f*** is Rory not in Cabinet?
That may be one reason.
By your criteria Staten Island is not part of the Continental US. Which is of course utter rubbish.