Corbyn needs a fat-cat scandal, a Conservative minister enriching him/herself, before he can really differentiate himself and break through.
Surely all Corbyn has to do is wait for more resignations or for more Boris gaffs? I am expecting it to get really bumpy for the Brexiteers once we get 12 months away from the WTO exit and stuff with long lead times become a problem that all the Will eat cake and still have it lies cannot survive.
We are heading for Canada style FTA, not WTO terms
Really? When? March 2018? Because we need it by then.
March 2019 you mean? Actually given the 2 year transition period May has proposed not even then. All we need is some moves towards one by then.
We leave in March 2019, we need a deal agreed way before then.
No we don't and we won't, we start a transition deal for 2 years in all likelihood in April 2019 given we are accepting continued free movement and ECJ jurisdiction in that period.
A FTA will take a number of years to negotiate, the main thing is to get started on it.
Er, we do. Agreeing a transitional deal will still be agreeing a deal. And anything agreed has to be signed off by the European parliament and the member states. Even the UK parliament might need a say. That brings the deadline forward a long way from 29th March 2019. The final deal will clearly take much longer to do, which may mean a series of transitional ones - each largely dictated by the EU27.
As long as we accept ECJ jurisdiction and free movement for the 2 year transition period we will get that transition period, there is nothing else to discuss on that.
The final FTA deal will be negotiated before and during that time.
I think Corbyn would get a solid 38-39% in another GE, provided May isn't leading the Tories.
I'm not sure how many direct Tory to Labour switchers he'd attract to get himself across the line.
What can he offer them?
Nothing - he is a marxist
He's offering me an immediate 10% payrise, while the Tories are offering to outsource my job to the AA and turn our Fire Stations into supermarkets. Whilst both offers are absolute bollox, the Corbyn one at least looks appealing on paper. That's how he'll get into number 10.
You are not going to fall for Corbyn's funny money are you
Faced with two absurd propositions, surely most people would take the more attractive one?
And have Marxists and the Unions running the Country
I’d agree but sadly you have to be pushing 50 to meaningfully remember how crap the 70’s were.
Reality would be confronted in the same way a fly confronts a windscreen on the motorway and realises it’s made a mistake as its rear end passes through its brains, but if you’re 25 you probably don’t see it.
Standards of living for most people improved hugely in the 1970s. That is not happening now.
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
I expect the polls will continue to show things pretty level. Corbyn is the Tory firewall. No matter how bad things get - and this is now comfortably the worst government of my lifetime - Corbyn and co will ensure the Tories have a fighting chance.
The Eden 1955-1957 government, the Heath 1970-1974 government, the Wilson/Callaghan 1994-1979 government, the Brown 2007-2010 governments were all far worse than this one and in most of those cases the economy in a far weaker state too.
No, they weren’t. This is the weakest cabinet, led by the weakest Prime Minister at least since the war.
No it isn't, the country was in a far worse state in the 70s or even the late 2000s.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. The idea of Mrs May and her cabinet having to deal with the financial meltdown confronting Gordon Brown and co in 2008 is terrifying. They can’t even agree on what kind of post-Brexit relationship they want with the EU!
Brown of course left the lax regulations in place that allowed the Crash, bailed out every bank which asked and still left unemployment of almost 10% by 2010.
Yep - but he helped ensure the global economy did not collapse. Thank God it was him there, with Darling and Balls alongside, rather than Mrs May and her utterly dysfunctional cabinet.
No he did not, he left a massive deficit and high unemployment and a recession.
The prospect of a Corbyn government is keeping the vote shares of both Labour and the Conservatives very high through hope and fear respectively. As a Lib Dem, I feel that this is not exactly an ideal state of affairs for my party.
Clever. Theresa May today warns pro-European Tory rebels that she will not "tolerate" any attempts to undermine Brexit as she unveils plans to enshrine in law the date that Britain leaves the EU. The Government last night tabled an amendment which formally commits Britain to leaving the European Union at 11pm on 29 March, 2019 ahead of a debate and vote in the Commons next week. The amendment will effectively force pro-European MPs to publicly declare if they oppose leaving the European Union in March 2019. Writing in The Telegraph, the Prime Minister warns MPs that they must not use the passage of the EU withdrawal bill through Parliament over the next month to try to "slow down or stop" Brexit.
Will she let the DUP know whether they are voting for an all-island solution in advance?
Has there been any polling done recently in Northern Ireland?
I ask because I heard it voiced this evening that the DUP could ditch the May government at any time, once they felt their own position was under threat.
Presumably the DUP cannot avoid being contaminated by their association with this totally incompetent Conservative government.
A recent Lucid Talk poll had voters opposed to united Ireland by 55-33%.
I think Corbyn would get a solid 38-39% in another GE, provided May isn't leading the Tories.
I'm not sure how many direct Tory to Labour switchers he'd attract to get himself across the line.
What can he offer them?
Nothing - he is a marxist
He's offering me an immediate 10% payrise, while the Tories are offering to outsource my job to the AA and turn our Fire Stations into supermarkets. Whilst both offers are absolute bollox, the Corbyn one at least looks appealing on paper. That's how he'll get into number 10.
You are not going to fall for Corbyn's funny money are you
Faced with two absurd propositions, surely most people would take the more attractive one?
And have Marxists and the Unions running the Country
Even were that true, it would be a vast improvement on the current shambles!
I work in Information Governance but that of course has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the argument in question.
Perhaps, but maybe it explains the difference in viewpoints. As someone involved in business consultancy and development and who has run several businesses since the mid-90s, I understand just how far ahead most sectors have to plan, the sorts of agreements needed and the timespans they cover.
People not involved in these areas have little idea of just how complex they are and, most importantly of all the sheer length of time needed for planning, agreement and execution.
If that is die-hard Remainer rubbish then so be it.
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
As I said I would use National Insurance to pay for social care and the NHS.
Corbyn needs a fat-cat scandal, a Conservative minister enriching him/herself, before he can really differentiate himself and break through.
Surely all Corbyn has to do is wait for more resignations or for more Boris gaffs? I am expecting it to get really bumpy for the Brexiteers once we get 12 months away from the WTO exit and stuff with long lead times become a problem that all the Will eat cake and still have it lies cannot survive.
We are heading for Canada style FTA, not WTO terms
Really? When? March 2018? Because we need it by then.
March 2019 you mean? Actually given the 2 year transition period May has proposed not even then. All we need is some moves towards one by then.
We leave in March 2019, we need a deal agreed way before then.
No we don't and we won't, we start a transition deal for 2 years in all likelihood in April 2019 given we are accepting continued free movement and ECJ jurisdiction in that period.
A FTA will take a number of years to negotiate, the main thing is to get started on it.
Er, we do. Agreeing a transitional deal will still be agreeing a deal. And anything agreed has to be signed off by the European parliament and the member states. Even the UK parliament might need a say. That brings the deadline forward a long way from 29th March 2019. The final deal will clearly take much longer to do, which may mean a series of transitional ones - each largely dictated by the EU27.
As long as we accept ECJ jurisdiction and free movement for the 2 year transition period we will get that transition period, there is nothing else to discuss on that.
The final FTA deal will be negotiated before and during that time.
A transition only exists as part of a deal. It is not a right, not a given, and certainly not in the gift of Mrs May.
I think Corbyn would get a solid 38-39% in another GE, provided May isn't leading the Tories.
I'm not sure how many direct Tory to Labour switchers he'd attract to get himself across the line.
What can he offer them?
Nothing - he is a marxist
He's offering me an immediate 10% payrise, while the Tories are offering to outsource my job to the AA and turn our Fire Stations into supermarkets. Whilst both offers are absolute bollox, the Corbyn one at least looks appealing on paper. That's how he'll get into number 10.
You are not going to fall for Corbyn's funny money are you
Faced with two absurd propositions, surely most people would take the more attractive one?
And have Marxists and the Unions running the Country
I’d agree but sadly you have to be pushing 50 to meaningfully remember how crap the 70’s were.
Reality would be confronted in the same way a fly confronts a windscreen on the motorway and realises it’s made a mistake as its rear end passes through its brains, but if you’re 25 you probably don’t see it.
I am over 50 and remember how crap the 70s were but the crappiest part by far (3 day week, schedule of power cuts etc.) was while Heath was in power - which Tories conveniently forget.
No I was there with my little candle as the electricity workers and miners struck. 6-10pm power cuts in our region. What fun. The point is it was all a bit shit, exchange controls, prices and incomes policies, beer and sandwiches at no 10 etc etc.
Corbyn needs a fat-cat scandal, a Conservative minister enriching him/herself, before he can really differentiate himself and break through.
Surely all Corbyn has to do is wait for more resignations or for more Boris gaffs? I am expecting it to get really bumpy for the Brexiteers once we get 12 months away from the WTO exit and stuff with long lead times become a problem that all the Will eat cake and still have it lies cannot survive.
We are heading for Canada style FTA, not WTO terms
Really? When? March 2018? Because we need it by then.
March 2019 you mean? Actually given the 2 year transition period May has proposed not even then. All we need is some moves towards one by then.
We leave in March 2019, we need a deal agreed way before then.
No we don't and we won't, we start a transition deal for 2 years in all likelihood in April 2019 given we are accepting continued free movement and ECJ jurisdiction in that period.
A FTA will take a number of years to negotiate, the main thing is to get started on it.
Er, we do. Agreeing a transitional deal will still be agreeing a deal. And anything agreed has to be signed off by the European parliament and the member states. Even the UK parliament might need a say. That brings the deadline forward a long way from 29th March 2019. The final deal will clearly take much longer to do, which may mean a series of transitional ones - each largely dictated by the EU27.
As long as we accept ECJ jurisdiction and free movement for the 2 year transition period we will get that transition period, there is nothing else to discuss on that.
The final FTA deal will be negotiated before and during that time.
We don’t get to talk transition until the money is sorted out. And any deal will still have to be approved, so will need to be agreed way before March 2019.
I think Corbyn would get a solid 38-39% in another GE, provided May isn't leading the Tories.
I'm not sure how many direct Tory to Labour switchers he'd attract to get himself across the line.
What can he offer them?
Nothing - he is a marxist
He's offering me an immediate 10% payrise, while the Tories are offering to outsource my job to the AA and turn our Fire Stations into supermarkets. Whilst both offers are absolute bollox, the Corbyn one at least looks appealing on paper. That's how he'll get into number 10.
You are not going to fall for Corbyn's funny money are you
Faced with two absurd propositions, surely most people would take the more attractive one?
And have Marxists and the Unions running the Country
I’d agree but sadly you have to be pushing 50 to meaningfully remember how crap the 70’s were.
Reality would be confronted in the same way a fly confronts a windscreen on the motorway and realises it’s made a mistake as its rear end passes through its brains, but if you’re 25 you probably don’t see it.
I am over 50 and remember how crap the 70s were but the crappiest part by far (3 day week, schedule of power cuts etc.) was while Heath was in power - which Tories conveniently forget.
The crappest part was the winter of discontent. It was also politically the most important.
I work in Information Governance but that of course has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the argument in question.
Perhaps, but maybe it explains the difference in viewpoints. As someone involved in business consultancy and development and who has run several businesses since the mid-90s, I understand just how far ahead most sectors have to plan, the sorts of agreements needed and the timespans they cover.
People not involved in these areas have little idea of just how complex they are and, most importantly of all the sheer length of time needed for planning, agreement and execution.
If that is die-hard Remainer rubbish then so be it.
I also never once said a FTA would be negotiated in under 2 years, so I am not quite sure what your point is?
I expect the polls will continue to show things pretty level. Corbyn is the Tory firewall. No matter how bad things get - and this is now comfortably the worst government of my lifetime - Corbyn and co will ensure the Tories have a fighting chance.
The Eden 1955-1957 government, the Heath 1970-1974 government, the Wilson/Callaghan 1994-1979 government, the Brown 2007-2010 governments were all far worse than this one and in most of those cases the economy in a far weaker state too.
No, they weren’t. This is the weakest cabinet, led by the weakest Prime Minister at least since the war.
No it isn't, the country was in a far worse state in the 70s or even the late 2000s.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. The idea of Mrs May and her cabinet having to deal with the financial meltdown confronting Gordon Brown and co in 2008 is terrifying. They can’t even agree on what kind of post-Brexit relationship they want with the EU!
Brown of course left the lax regulations in place that allowed the Crash, bailed out every bank which asked and still left unemployment of almost 10% by 2010.
Yep - but he helped ensure the global economy did not collapse. Thank God it was him there, with Darling and Balls alongside, rather than Mrs May and her utterly dysfunctional cabinet.
No he did not, he left a massive deficit and high unemployment and a recession.
I think Corbyn would get a solid 38-39% in another GE, provided May isn't leading the Tories.
I'm not sure how many direct Tory to Labour switchers he'd attract to get himself across the line.
What can he offer them?
Nothing - he is a marxist
He's offering me an immediate 10% payrise, while the Tories are offering to outsource my job to the AA and turn our Fire Stations into supermarkets. Whilst both offers are absolute bollox, the Corbyn one at least looks appealing on paper. That's how he'll get into number 10.
You are not going to fall for Corbyn's funny money are you
Faced with two absurd propositions, surely most people would take the more attractive one?
And have Marxists and the Unions running the Country
I’d agree but sadly you have to be pushing 50 to meaningfully remember how crap the 70’s were.
Reality would be confronted in the same way a fly confronts a windscreen on the motorway and realises it’s made a mistake as its rear end passes through its brains, but if you’re 25 you probably don’t see it.
I am over 50 and remember how crap the 70s were but the crappiest part by far (3 day week, schedule of power cuts etc.) was while Heath was in power - which Tories conveniently forget.
The crappest part was the winter of discontent. It was also politically the most important.
You are obviously too young remember 1973/4!
Both the Heath and Wilson/Callaghan 1970s governments were pretty hopeless.
I think Corbyn would get a solid 38-39% in another GE, provided May isn't leading the Tories.
I'm not sure how many direct Tory to Labour switchers he'd attract to get himself across the line.
What can he offer them?
Nothing - he is a marxist
He's offering me an immediate 10% payrise, while the Tories are offering to outsource my job to the AA and turn our Fire Stations into supermarkets. Whilst both offers are absolute bollox, the Corbyn one at least looks appealing on paper. That's how he'll get into number 10.
You are not going to fall for Corbyn's funny money are you
Faced with two absurd propositions, surely most people would take the more attractive one?
And have Marxists and the Unions running the Country
I’d agree but sadly you have to be pushing 50 to meaningfully remember how crap the 70’s were.
Reality would be confronted in the same way a fly confronts a windscreen on the motorway and realises it’s made a mistake as its rear end passes through its brains, but if you’re 25 you probably don’t see it.
I am over 50 and remember how crap the 70s were but the crappiest part by far (3 day week, schedule of power cuts etc.) was while Heath was in power - which Tories conveniently forget.
The crappest part was the winter of discontent. It was also politically the most important.
I work in Information Governance but that of course has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the argument in question.
Perhaps, but maybe it explains the difference in viewpoints. As someone involved in business consultancy and development and who has run several businesses since the mid-90s, I understand just how far ahead most sectors have to plan, the sorts of agreements needed and the timespans they cover.
People not involved in these areas have little idea of just how complex they are and, most importantly of all the sheer length of time needed for planning, agreement and execution.
If that is die-hard Remainer rubbish then so be it.
From a purely practical point of view farmers need to know what to grow or raise in six months time.
For example I have a friend who sells a thousand lambs to French buyers each year. 70% of British lamb is exported. He could swap to other stock in time, but not in one season.
Corbyn needs a fat-cat scandal, a Conservative minister enriching him/herself, before he can really differentiate himself and break through.
Surely all Corbyn has to do is wait for more resignations or for more Boris gaffs? I am expecting it to get really bumpy for the Brexiteers once we get 12 months away from the WTO exit and stuff with long lead times become a problem that all the Will eat cake and still have it lies cannot survive.
We are heading for Canada style FTA, not WTO terms
Really? When? March 2018? Because we need it by then.
March 2019 you mean? Actually given the 2 year transition period May has proposed not even then. All we need is some moves towards one by then.
We leave in March 2019, we need a deal agreed way before then.
No we don't and we won't, we start a transition deal for 2 years in all likelihood in April 2019 given we are accepting continued free movement and ECJ jurisdiction in that period.
A FTA will take a number of years to negotiate, the main thing is to get started on it.
Er, we do. Agreeing a transitional deal will still be agreeing a deal. And anything agreed has to be signed off by the European parliament and the member states. Even the UK parliament might need a say. That brings the deadline forward a long way from 29th March 2019. The final deal will clearly take much longer to do, which may mean a series of transitional ones - each largely dictated by the EU27.
As long as we accept ECJ jurisdiction and free movement for the 2 year transition period we will get that transition period, there is nothing else to discuss on that.
The final FTA deal will be negotiated before and during that time.
We don’t get to talk transition until the money is sorted out. And any deal will still have to be approved, so will need to be agreed way before March 2019.
I think Corbyn would get a solid 38-39% in another GE, provided May isn't leading the Tories.
I'm not sure how many direct Tory to Labour switchers he'd attract to get himself across the line.
What can he offer them?
Nothing - he is a marxist
He's offering me an immediate 10% payrise, while the Tories are offering to outsource my job to the AA and turn our Fire Stations into supermarkets. Whilst both offers are absolute bollox, the Corbyn one at least looks appealing on paper. That's how he'll get into number 10.
You are not going to fall for Corbyn's funny money are you
Faced with two absurd propositions, surely most people would take the more attractive one?
And have Marxists and the Unions running the Country
I’d agree but sadly you have to be pushing 50 to meaningfully remember how crap the 70’s were.
Reality would be confronted in the same way a fly confronts a windscreen on the motorway and realises it’s made a mistake as its rear end passes through its brains, but if you’re 25 you probably don’t see it.
I am over 50 and remember how crap the 70s were but the crappiest part by far (3 day week, schedule of power cuts etc.) was while Heath was in power - which Tories conveniently forget.
No I was there with my little candle as the electricity workers and miners struck. 6-10pm power cuts in our region. What fun. The point is it was all a bit shit, exchange controls, prices and incomes policies, beer and sandwiches at no 10 etc etc.
I think you'll find the 73/74 power cuts were on a rolling schedule in every region.
How strange though that when things go badly and there's a Labour government it's their fault, but when things go badly and there's a Tory government, it's the unions' fault, or the EU's, or unpatriotic saboteurs, or indeed anyone but the Tories!
I work in Information Governance but that of course has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the argument in question.
Perhaps, but maybe it explains the difference in viewpoints. As someone involved in business consultancy and development and who has run several businesses since the mid-90s, I understand just how far ahead most sectors have to plan, the sorts of agreements needed and the timespans they cover.
People not involved in these areas have little idea of just how complex they are and, most importantly of all the sheer length of time needed for planning, agreement and execution.
If that is die-hard Remainer rubbish then so be it.
I also never once said a FTA would be negotiated in under 2 years, so I am not quite sure what your point is?
If an FTA cannot be negotiated quickly and we, as a country, need one quickly - can you really not see the problem?
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
As I said I would use National Insurance to pay for social care and the NHS.
Yes, you'd use taxes levied on many hard working families to ensure that those with property wealth could pass on more wealth to their fortunate children. It astounds me that Labour was able to campaign effectively against a progressive proposal they should have been supporting.
People paying their way is entirely Tory and the so called dementia tax was in tune with this. The problem was in the hamfisted was it was floated and the abject failure to explain the principle or practice properly.
Tremendous service from the staff who stepped in whilst the RMT decided to strike for no significant reason - the TOC have said there is no plan to move to DOO.
Bonkers. Did a quick straw poll. No support for the workers from customers. None.
Corbyn needs a fat-cat scandal, a Conservative minister enriching him/herself, before he can really differentiate himself and break through.
Surely all Corbyn has to do is wait for more resignations or for more Boris gaffs? I am expecting it to get really bumpy for the Brexiteers once we get 12 months away from the WTO exit and stuff with long lead times become a problem that all the Will eat cake and still have it lies cannot survive.
We are heading for Canada style FTA, not WTO terms
Really? When? March 2018? Because we need it by then.
March 2019 you mean? Actually given the 2 year transition period May has proposed not even then. All we need is some moves towards one by then.
We leave in March 2019, we need a deal agreed way before then.
No we don't and we won't, we start a transition deal for 2 years in all likelihood in April 2019 given we are accepting continued free movement and ECJ jurisdiction in that period.
A FTA will take a number of years to negotiate, the main thing is to get started on it.
Er, we do. Agreeing a transitional deal will still be agreeing a deal. And anything agreed has to be signed off by the European parliament and the member states. Even the UK parliament might need a say. That brings the deadline forward a long way from 29th March 2019. The final deal will clearly take much longer to do, which may mean a series of transitional ones - each largely dictated by the EU27.
As long as we accept ECJ jurisdiction and free movement for the 2 year transition period we will get that transition period, there is nothing else to discuss on that.
The final FTA deal will be negotiated before and during that time.
A transition only exists as part of a deal. It is not a right, not a given, and certainly not in the gift of Mrs May.
No deal means no transition.
No, a transition is a transition until a deal is agreed not a follow-on from a deal.
I think Corbyn would get a solid 38-39% in another GE, provided May isn't leading the Tories.
I'm not sure how many direct Tory to Labour switchers he'd attract to get himself across the line.
What can he offer them?
Nothing - he is a marxist
He's offering me an immediate 10% payrise, while the Tories are offering to outsource my job to the AA and turn our Fire Stations into supermarkets. Whilst both offers are absolute bollox, the Corbyn one at least looks appealing on paper. That's how he'll get into number 10.
You are not going to fall for Corbyn's funny money are you
Faced with two absurd propositions, surely most people would take the more attractive one?
And have Marxists and the Unions running the Country
I’d agree but sadly you have to be pushing 50 to meaningfully remember how crap the 70’s were.
Reality would be confronted in the same way a fly confronts a windscreen on the motorway and realises it’s made a mistake as its rear end passes through its brains, but if you’re 25 you probably don’t see it.
I am over 50 and remember how crap the 70s were but the crappiest part by far (3 day week, schedule of power cuts etc.) was while Heath was in power - which Tories conveniently forget.
The crappest part was the winter of discontent. It was also politically the most important.
I work in Information Governance but that of course has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the argument in question.
Perhaps, but maybe it explains the difference in viewpoints. As someone involved in business consultancy and development and who has run several businesses since the mid-90s, I understand just how far ahead most sectors have to plan, the sorts of agreements needed and the timespans they cover.
People not involved in these areas have little idea of just how complex they are and, most importantly of all the sheer length of time needed for planning, agreement and execution.
If that is die-hard Remainer rubbish then so be it.
I also never once said a FTA would be negotiated in under 2 years, so I am not quite sure what your point is?
If an FTA cannot be negotiated quickly and we, as a country, need one quickly - can you really not see the problem?
It won't be negotiated quickly but a FTA is the only viable alternative which avoids WTO terms and respects the Leave vote to end free movement.
Tremendous service from the staff who stepped in whilst the RMT decided to strike for no significant reason - the TOC have said there is no plan to move to DOO.
Bonkers. Did a quick straw poll. No support for the workers from customers. None.
Corbyn needs a fat-cat scandal, a Conservative minister enriching him/herself, before he can really differentiate himself and break through.
Surely all Corbyn has to do is wait for more resignations or for more Boris gaffs? I am expecting it to get really bumpy for the Brexiteers once we get 12 months away from the WTO exit and stuff with long lead times become a problem that all the Will eat cake and still have it lies cannot survive.
We are heading for Canada style FTA, not WTO terms
Really? When? March 2018? Because we need it by then.
March 2019 you mean? Actually given the 2 year transition period May has proposed not even then. All we need is some moves towards one by then.
We leave in March 2019, we need a deal agreed way before then.
No we don't and we won't, we start a transition deal for 2 years in all likelihood in April 2019 given we are accepting continued free movement and ECJ jurisdiction in that period.
A FTA will take a number of years to negotiate, the main thing is to get started on it.
Er, we do. Agreeing a transitional deal will still be agreeing a deal. And anything agreed has to be signed off by the European parliament and the member states. Even the UK parliament might need a say. That brings the deadline forward a long way from 29th March 2019. The final deal will clearly take much longer to do, which may mean a series of transitional ones - each largely dictated by the EU27.
As long as we accept ECJ jurisdiction and free movement for the 2 year transition period we will get that transition period, there is nothing else to discuss on that.
The final FTA deal will be negotiated before and during that time.
A transition only exists as part of a deal. It is not a right, not a given, and certainly not in the gift of Mrs May.
No deal means no transition.
No, a transition is a transition until a deal is agreed not a follow-on from a deal.
A transition is a bridge from one point to another. You can’t have a transition if you don’t know what you’re transitioning to.
I work in Information Governance but that of course has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the argument in question.
Perhaps, but maybe it explains the difference in viewpoints. As someone involved in business consultancy and development and who has run several businesses since the mid-90s, I understand just how far ahead most sectors have to plan, the sorts of agreements needed and the timespans they cover.
People not involved in these areas have little idea of just how complex they are and, most importantly of all the sheer length of time needed for planning, agreement and execution.
If that is die-hard Remainer rubbish then so be it.
From a purely practical point of view farmers need to know what to grow or raise in six months time.
For example I have a friend who sells a thousand lambs to French buyers each year. 70% of British lamb is exported. He could swap to other stock in time, but not in one season.
I think Corbyn would get a solid 38-39% in another GE, provided May isn't leading the Tories.
I'm not sure how many direct Tory to Labour switchers he'd attract to get himself across the line.
What can he offer them?
Nothing - he is a marxist
He's offering me an immediate 10% payrise, while the Tories are offering to outsource my job to the AA and turn our Fire Stations into supermarkets. Whilst both offers are absolute bollox, the Corbyn one at least looks appealing on paper. That's how he'll get into number 10.
You are not going to fall for Corbyn's funny money are you
Faced with two absurd propositions, surely most people would take the more attractive one?
And have Marxists and the Unions running the Country
I’d agree but sadly you have to be pushing 50 to meaningfully remember how crap the 70’s were.
Reality would be confronted in the same way a fly confronts a windscreen on the motorway and realises it’s made a mistake as its rear end passes through its brains, but if you’re 25 you probably don’t see it.
I am over 50 and remember how crap the 70s were but the crappiest part by far (3 day week, schedule of power cuts etc.) was while Heath was in power - which Tories conveniently forget.
The crappest part was the winter of discontent. It was also politically the most important.
You are obviously too young remember 1973/4!
Both the Heath and Wilson/Callaghan 1970s governments were pretty hopeless.
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
As I said I would use National Insurance to pay for social care and the NHS.
Yes, you'd use taxes levied on many hard working families to ensure that those with property wealth could pass on more wealth to their fortunate children. It astounds me that Labour was able to campaign effectively against a progressive proposal they should have been supporting.
People paying their way is entirely Tory and the so called dementia tax was in tune with this. The problem was in the hamfisted was it was floated and the abject failure to explain the principle or practice properly.
Hard to disagree with any of that. Hypocrisy shown by both parties during the GE on this one.
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
As I said I would use National Insurance to pay for social care and the NHS.
Yes, you'd use taxes levied on many hard working families to ensure that those with property wealth could pass on more wealth to their fortunate children. It astounds me that Labour was able to campaign effectively against a progressive proposal they should have been supporting.
People paying their way is entirely Tory and the so called dementia tax was in tune with this. The problem was in the hamfisted was it was floated and the abject failure to explain the principle or practice properly.
It’s like reforming pensions. It’s totally necessary, involves grown up decisions and financial pain for voters. It’s also a complex nuanced subject. You float green papers, consult, get a commission to report, you back the recommendations, you explain, you do it in years 1-3 of a Parliament.
You don’t launch all of that four weeks before a bloody polling day. It really ain’t hard.
The uncontrolled immigration we have had, especially from the EU, over the last decade or two is responsible for the rise in concerns over it and the pressure it puts on housing, wages at the lower end and services.
The link you provided says nothing when you actually show people how much their tax bill will go up at the end of every month and how they will lose out on most of granny's inheritance. Plus of course the Tories are putting £8 billion more into the NHS over this parliament anyway. What healthcare needs is more choice and reform not a bottomless pit of money. Where the Tories lost voters it was mainly the dementia tax which was key.
As I said before voters are always concerned about immigration no matter what. Even if immigration had been much lower, voters would still be concerned.
Re the link, so you don’t believe voters then. They obviously know when they respond that their tax bill will go up, they don’t need it to actually happen.
The dementia tax was the start of Tory campaign going all tits up, but the reasons why many did not vote Tory go beyond that. Don’t fight the 2017 GE whenever the next GE is.
Had Blair imposed transition controls in 2004 beyond the far right it would not have been a top priority for most voters.
As the poll I linked to showed most voters want inheritance tax abolished, let alone going up. The only viable way would be a specific increase in National Insurance for the NHS.
The dementia tax was a betrayal of core Tory voters.
Sure, that's how they saw it. You posted something different on the previous thread, though;
"Yet the Tories wanted to take people's house if they needed personal care for dementia, a total betrayal of core conservative principles."
The tory client vote want other people to pay for their care (if needed) and also keep their house/assets and pass them on to their kids, tax free.
The tory client vote aren't interested in conservatism, or conservative principles.
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
As I said I would use National Insurance to pay for social care and the NHS.
Yes, you'd use taxes levied on many hard working families to ensure that those with property wealth could pass on more wealth to their fortunate children. It astounds me that Labour was able to campaign effectively against a progressive proposal they should have been supporting.
People paying their way is entirely Tory and the so called dementia tax was in tune with this. The problem was in the hamfisted was it was floated and the abject failure to explain the principle or practice properly.
They are not taxes, they are really insurance paid for by working and salaried employees not families, the clue is in the title 'National INSURANCE'. That works perfectly well in Japan and the Netherlands which use social insurance to pay for social care.
Families already have to use almost all their assets including their home for residential care (beyond £23k), they should not have to do so for personal care too. The only sensible policy on that in the manifesto was to allow the level of assets to be kept to rise to £100k.
Theft of peoples' estate and private property is anything but Tory it is the very essence of socialism and for once Corbyn resisted ideology and did something sensible in opposing it. That was one area May was more socialist than even Labour was.
Corbyn needs a fat-cat scandal, a Conservative minister enriching him/herself, before he can really differentiate himself and break through.
Surely all Corbyn has to do is wait for more resignations or for more Boris gaffs? I am expecting it to get really bumpy for the Brexiteers once we get 12 months away from the WTO exit and stuff with long lead times become a problem that all the Will eat cake and still have it lies cannot survive.
We are heading for Canada style FTA, not WTO terms
Really? When? March 2018? Because we need it by then.
March 2019 you mean? Actually given the 2 year transition period May has proposed not even then. All we need is some moves towards one by then.
We leave in March 2019, we need a deal agreed way before then.
No we don't and we won't, we start a transition deal for 2 years in all likelihood in April 2019 given we are accepting continued free movement and ECJ jurisdiction in that period.
A FTA will take a number of years to negotiate, the main thing is to get started on it.
Er, we do. Agreeing a transitional deal will still be agreeing a deal. And anything agreed has to be signed off by the European parliament and the member states. Even the UK parliament might need a say. That brings the deadline forward a long way from 29th March 2019. The final deal will clearly take much longer to do, which may mean a series of transitional ones - each largely dictated by the EU27.
As long as we accept ECJ jurisdiction and free movement for the 2 year transition period we will get that transition period, there is nothing else to discuss on that.
The final FTA deal will be negotiated before and during that time.
A transition only exists as part of a deal. It is not a right, not a given, and certainly not in the gift of Mrs May.
No deal means no transition.
No, a transition is a transition until a deal is agreed not a follow-on from a deal.
A transition is a bridge from one point to another. You can’t have a transition if you don’t know what you’re transitioning to.
Corbyn needs a fat-cat scandal, a Conservative minister enriching him/herself, before he can really differentiate himself and break through.
Surely all Corbyn has to do is
We are heading for Canada style FTA, not WTO terms
Really? When? March 2018? Because we need it by then.
March 2019 you mean? Actually given the 2 year transition period May has proposed not even then. All we need is some moves towards one by then.
We leave in March 2019, we need a deal agreed way before then.
No we don't and we won't, we start a transition deal for 2 years in all likelihood in April 2019 given we are accepting continued free movement and ECJ jurisdiction in that period.
A FTA will take a number of years to negotiate, the main thing is to get started on it.
Er, we do. Agreeing a transitional deal will still be agreeing a deal. And anything agreed has to be signed off by the European parliament and the member states. Even the UK parliament might need a say. That brings the deadline forward a long way from 29th March 2019. The final deal will clearly take much longer to do, which may mean a series of transitional ones - each largely dictated by the EU27.
As long as we accept ECJ jurisdiction and free movement for the 2 year transition period we will get that transition period, there is nothing else to discuss on that.
The final FTA deal will be negotiated before and during that time.
A transition only exists as part of a deal. It is not a right, not a given, and certainly not in the gift of Mrs May.
No deal means no transition.
No, a transition is a transition until a deal is agreed not a follow-on from a deal.
Transition is part of a deal, not a path to a deal. David Davis said so a fortnight ago:
The only way to get a further 2 year period to negotiate within is to ask for a 2 year extension to A50. That may be granted (EU27 unanimity required). Whether that would be politically acceptable to the Tory right is another question
I think Corbyn would get a solid 38-39% in another GE, provided May isn't leading the Tories.
I'm not sure how many direct Tory to Labour switchers he'd attract to get himself across the line.
What can he offer them?
Nothing - he is a marxist
He's offering me an immediate 10% payrise, while the Tories are offering to outsource my job to the AA and turn our Fire Stations into supermarkets. Whilst both offers are absolute bollox, the Corbyn one at least looks appealing on paper. That's how he'll get into number 10.
You are not going to fall for Corbyn's funny money are you
Faced with two absurd propositions, surely most people would take the more attractive one?
And have Marxists and the Unions running the Country
I’d agree but sadly you have to be pushing 50 to meaningfully remember how crap the 70’s were.
Reality would be confronted in the same way a fly confronts a windscreen on the motorway and realises it’s made a mistake as its rear end passes through its brains, but if you’re 25 you probably don’t see it.
I am over 50 and remember how crap the 70s were but the crappiest part by far (3 day week, schedule of power cuts etc.) was while Heath was in power - which Tories conveniently forget.
The crappest part was the winter of discontent. It was also politically the most important.
You are obviously too young remember 1973/4!
Both the Heath and Wilson/Callaghan 1970s governments were pretty hopeless.
I work in Information Governance but that of course has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the argument in question.
Perhaps, but maybe it explains the difference in viewpoints. As someone involved in business consultancy and development and who has run several businesses since the mid-90s, I understand just how far ahead most sectors have to plan, the sorts of agreements needed and the timespans they cover.
People not involved in these areas have little idea of just how complex they are and, most importantly of all the sheer length of time needed for planning, agreement and execution.
If that is die-hard Remainer rubbish then so be it.
I also never once said a FTA would be negotiated in under 2 years, so I am not quite sure what your point is?
If an FTA cannot be negotiated quickly and we, as a country, need one quickly - can you really not see the problem?
It won't be negotiated quickly but a FTA is the only viable alternative which avoids WTO terms and respects the Leave vote to end free movement.
Yes I know - but you have already said that FTAs are not quick to negotiate so how do we avoid WTO when the first effects of it will hit in Spring 2018.
We have 5 months. What is your solution? 5 months. Get that number in your head. Any business with a 12 month planning horizon has to assume that we WTO in March 2019 and therefore it cannot depend on any 12 month horizon from March 2018 onwards
What is that business going to do?
By Sept 2018 any business on a 6 month horizon (and that is not uncommon) is going to have the same trouble. That is 10/11 months away.
The Government last night tabled an amendment which formally commits Britain to leaving the European Union at 11pm on 29 March, 2019 ahead of a debate and vote in the Commons next week.
The amendment will effectively force pro-European MPs to publicly declare if they oppose leaving the European Union in March 2019.
Writing in The Telegraph, the Prime Minister warns MPs that they must not use the passage of the EU withdrawal bill through Parliament over the next month to try to "slow down or stop" Brexit.
Boris is imploding, Damian Green is under investigation, Brexit negotiations barely merit the word... and May’s priority is a procedural device to hinder Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan?
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
As I said I would use National Insurance to pay for social care and the NHS.
Yes, you'd use taxes levied on many hard working families to ensure that those with property wealth could pass on more wealth to their fortunate children. It astounds me that Labour was able to campaign effectively against a progressive proposal they should have been supporting.
People paying their way is entirely Tory and the so called dementia tax was in tune with this. The problem was in the hamfisted was it was floated and the abject failure to explain the principle or practice properly.
They are not taxes, they are really insurance paid for by working and salaried employees not families, the clue is in the title 'National INSURANCE'. That works perfectly well in Japan and the Netherlands which use social insurance to pay for social care.
Families already have to use almost all their assets including their home for residential care (beyond £23k), they should not have to do so for personal care too. The only sensible policy on that in the manifesto was to allow the level of assets to be kept to rise to £100k.
Theft of peoples' estate and private property is anything but Tory it is the very essence of socialism and for once Corbyn resisted ideology and did something sensible in opposing it. That was one area May was more socialist than even Labour was.
So you think NI is not a tax and that people paying for some of their social care is theft? Blimey, there's no answer to that.
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
As I said I would use National Insurance to pay for social care and the NHS.
Yes, you'd use taxes levied on many hard working families to ensure that those with property wealth could pass on more wealth to their fortunate children. It astounds me that Labour was able to campaign effectively against a progressive proposal they should have been supporting.
People paying their way is entirely Tory and the so called dementia tax was in tune with this. The problem was in the hamfisted was it was floated and the abject failure to explain the principle or practice properly.
Theft of peoples' estate and private property is anything but Tory it is the very essence of socialism and for once Corbyn resisted ideology and did something sensible in opposing it. That was one area May was more socialist than even Labour was.
Except it wasn't theft, was it.
Nor was it socialist. It was a sensible way of allowing people to fund their own social care (self sufficiency). It also prevented the awful situation of families having to sell houses to fund home care whilst struggling with ill relatives.
What is the point of saving for a rainy day if you expect someone else to pay for your shelter when that day comes?
I think Corbyn would get a solid 38-39% in another GE, provided May isn't leading the Tories.
I'm not sure how many direct Tory to Labour switchers he'd attract to get himself across the line.
What can he offer them?
Nothing - he is a marxist
He's offering me an immediate 10% payrise, while the Tories are offering to outsource my job to the AA and turn our Fire Stations into supermarkets. Whilst both offers are absolute bollox, the Corbyn one at least looks appealing on paper. That's how he'll get into number 10.
You are not going to fall for Corbyn's funny money are you
Faced with two absurd propositions, surely most people would take the more attractive one?
And have Marxists and the Unions running the Country
I’d agree but sadly you have to be pushing 50 to meaningfully remember how crap the 70’s were.
Reality would be confronted in the same way a fly confronts a windscreen on the motorway and realises it’s made a mistake as its rear end passes through its brains, but if you’re 25 you probably don’t see it.
I am over 50 and remember how crap the 70s were but the crappiest part by far (3 day week, schedule of power cuts etc.) was while Heath was in power - which Tories conveniently forget.
The crappest part was the winter of discontent. It was also politically the most important.
You are obviously too young remember 1973/4!
Both the Heath and Wilson/Callaghan 1970s governments were pretty hopeless.
Tremendous service from the staff who stepped in whilst the RMT decided to strike for no significant reason - the TOC have said there is no plan to move to DOO.
Bonkers. Did a quick straw poll. No support for the workers from customers. None.
Not even the new Class 707s?
Nobody flies 707s any more Sunil. Dreamliners, 380s and 350XWBs are the in thing these days for long haul (although the A330 takes some beating at 9,000 miles range)
The uncontrolled immigration we have had, especially from the EU, over the last decade or two is responsible for the rise in concerns over it and the pressure it puts on housing, wages at the lower end and services.
The link you provided says nothing when you actually show people how much their tax bill will go up at the end of every month and how they will lose out on most of granny's inheritance. Plus of course the Tories are putting £8 billion more into the NHS over this parliament anyway. What healthcare needs is more choice and reform not a bottomless pit of money. Where the Tories lost voters it was mainly the dementia tax which was key.
As I said before voters are always concerned about immigration no matter what. Even if immigration had been much lower, voters would still be concerned.
Re the link, so you don’t believe voters then. They obviously know when they respond that their tax bill will go up, they don’t need it to actually happen.
The dementia tax was the start of Tory campaign going all tits up, but the reasons why many did not vote Tory go beyond that. Don’t fight the 2017 GE whenever the next GE is.
Had Blair imposed transition of core Tory voters.
Sure, that's how they saw it. You posted something different on the previous thread, though;
"Yet the Tories wanted to take people's house if they needed personal care for dementia, a total betrayal of core conservative principles."
The tory client vote want other people to pay for their care (if needed) and also keep their house/assets and pass them on to their kids, tax free. The tory client vote aren't interested in conservatism.
They want pork.
It was both, a betrayal of conservative voters and principles.
The 'Tory client vote' as you put it want the Tory Party to respect the oldest Tory principle of all, respect for tradition, the family and the family estate and private property. That was conservatism even before free trade and markets etc which were originally Whig and Liberal rather than Tory principles.
Even without the dementia tax and with the £100k of assets to be kept families would still have to pay all their assets beyond £100k, including their house, for residential care and inheritance tax on assets over £1 million so the idea they would even then be able to pass them on completely tax free is wrong. They just don't want to be oppressed even further by the state on the death of a loved one.
I work in Information Governance but that of course has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the argument in question.
Perhaps, but maybe it explains the difference in viewpoints. As someone involved in business consultancy and development and who has run several businesses since the mid-90s, I understand just how far ahead most sectors have to plan, the sorts of agreements needed and the timespans they cover.
People not involved in these areas have little idea of just how complex they are and, most importantly of all the sheer length of time needed for planning, agreement and execution.
If that is die-hard Remainer rubbish then so be it.
I also never once said a FTA would be negotiated in under 2 years, so I am not quite sure what your point is?
If an FTA cannot be negotiated quickly and we, as a country, need one quickly - can you really not see the problem?
It won't be negotiated quickly but a FTA is the only viable alternative which avoids WTO terms and respects the Leave vote to end free movement.
Yes I know - but you have already said that FTAs are not quick to negotiate so how do we avoid WTO when the first effects of it will hit in Spring 2018.
We have 5 months. What is your solution? 5 months. Get that number in your head. Any business with a 12 month planning horizon has to assume that we WTO in March 2019 and therefore it cannot depend on any 12 month horizon from March 2018 onwards
What is that business going to do?
By Sept 2018 any business on a 6 month horizon (and that is not uncommon) is going to have the same trouble. That is 10/11 months away.
11 months max. What are you going to do?
Well given seven of my top ten country markets are WTO already - nothing frankly, in my case.
Tremendous service from the staff who stepped in whilst the RMT decided to strike for no significant reason - the TOC have said there is no plan to move to DOO.
Bonkers. Did a quick straw poll. No support for the workers from customers. None.
Not even the new Class 707s?
Nobody flies 707s any more Sunil. Dreamliners, 380s and 350XWBs are the in thing these days for long haul (although the A330 takes some beating at 9,000 miles range)
Corbyn needs a fat-cat scandal, a Conservative minister enriching him/herself, before he can really differentiate himself and break through.
Surely all Corbyn has to do is
We are heading for Canada style FTA, not WTO terms
Really? When? March 2018? Because we need it by then.
March 2019 you mean? Actually given the 2 year transition period May has proposed not even then. All we need is some moves towards one by then.
We leave in March 2019, we need a deal agreed way before then.
No we don't and we won't, we start a transition deal for 2 years in all likelihood in April 2019 given we are accepting continued free movement and ECJ jurisdiction in that period.
A FTA will take a number of years to negotiate, the main thing is to get started on it.
Er, we do. Agreeing a transitional deal will still be agreeing a deal. And anything agreed has to be signed off by the European parliament and the member states. Even the UK parliament might need a say. That brings the deadline forward a long way from 29th March 2019. The final deal will clearly take much longer to do, which may mean a series of transitional ones - each largely dictated by the EU27.
As long as we accept ECJ before and during that time.
A transition only exists
No, a transition is a transition until a deal is agreed not a follow-on from a deal.
Transition is part of a deal, not a path to a deal. David Davis said so a fortnight ago:
The only way to get a further 2 year period to negotiate within is to ask for a 2 year extension to A50. That may be granted (EU27 unanimity required). Whether that would be politically acceptable to the Tory right is another question
There is a difference between agreeing 'the outline terms of a final relationship' in terms of a FTA as Davis says and the final signing on the dotted line of a FTA.
Tremendous service from the staff who stepped in whilst the RMT decided to strike for no significant reason - the TOC have said there is no plan to move to DOO.
Bonkers. Did a quick straw poll. No support for the workers from customers. None.
Not even the new Class 707s?
Nobody flies 707s any more Sunil. Dreamliners, 380s and 350XWBs are the in thing these days for long haul (although the A330 takes some beating at 9,000 miles range)
I work in Information Governance but that of course has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the argument in question.
Perhaps, but maybe it explains the difference in viewpoints. As someone involved in business consultancy and development and who has run several businesses since the mid-90s, I understand just how far ahead most sectors have to plan, the sorts of agreements needed and the timespans they cover.
People not involved in these areas have little idea of just how complex they are and, most importantly of all the sheer length of time needed for planning, agreement and execution.
If that is die-hard Remainer rubbish then so be it.
I also never once said a FTA would be negotiated in under 2 years, so I am not quite sure what your point is?
If an FTA cannot be negotiated quickly and we, as a country, need one quickly - can you really not see the problem?
It won't be negotiated quickly but a FTA is the only viable alternative which avoids WTO terms and respects the Leave vote to end free movement.
Yes I know - but you have already said that FTAs are not quick to negotiate so how do we avoid WTO when the first effects of it will hit in Spring 2018.
We have 5 months. What is your solution? 5 months. Get that number in your head. Any business with a 12 month planning horizon has to assume that we WTO in March 2019 and therefore it cannot depend on any 12 month horizon from March 2018 onwards
What is that business going to do?
By Sept 2018 any business on a 6 month horizon (and that is not uncommon) is going to have the same trouble. That is 10/11 months away.
11 months max. What are you going to do?
If there is a transition deal they won't hit in Spring 2018 while we negotiate a FTA and even if we did head straight to WTO terms until a FTA was agreed 'Last month, the World Bank said that, in the event of no trade deal beyond the minimal WTO terms, our trade with the EU would fall by two per cent. Since exports to the EU amount to 12.6 per cent of our total GDP, we’re talking about an overall loss of a quarter of one per cent.'
Tremendous service from the staff who stepped in whilst the RMT decided to strike for no significant reason - the TOC have said there is no plan to move to DOO.
Bonkers. Did a quick straw poll. No support for the workers from customers. None.
Not even the new Class 707s?
Nobody flies 707s any more Sunil. Dreamliners, 380s and 350XWBs are the in thing these days for long haul (although the A330 takes some beating at 9,000 miles range)
I think Corbyn would get a solid 38-39% in another GE, provided May isn't leading the Tories.
I'm not sure how many direct Tory to Labour switchers he'd attract to get himself across the line.
What can he offer them?
Nothing - he is a marxist
He's offering me an immediate 10% payrise, while the Tories are offering to outsource my job to the AA and turn our Fire Stations into supermarkets. Whilst both offers are absolute bollox, the Corbyn one at least looks appealing on paper. That's how he'll get into number 10.
You are not going to fall for Corbyn's funny money are you
Faced with two absurd propositions, surely most people would take the more attractive one?
And have Marxists and the Unions running the Country
I’d agree but sadly you have to be pushing 50 to meaningfully remember how crap the 70’s were.
Reality would be confronted in the same way a fly confronts a windscreen on the motorway and realises it’s made a mistake as its rear end passes through its brains, but if you’re 25 you probably don’t see it.
I am over 50 and remember how crap the 70s were but the crappiest part by far (3 day week, schedule of power cuts etc.) was while Heath was in power - which Tories conveniently forget.
The crappest part was the winter of discontent. It was also politically the most important.
You are obviously too young remember 1973/4!
Both the Heath and Wilson/Callaghan 1970s governments were pretty hopeless.
Tremendous service from the staff who stepped in whilst the RMT decided to strike for no significant reason - the TOC have said there is no plan to move to DOO.
Bonkers. Did a quick straw poll. No support for the workers from customers. None.
Not even the new Class 707s?
Nobody flies 707s any more Sunil. Dreamliners, 380s and 350XWBs are the in thing these days for long haul (although the A330 takes some beating at 9,000 miles range)
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
As I said I would use National Insurance to pay for social care and the NHS.
Yes, you'd use taxes levied on many hard working families to ensure that those with property wealth could pass on more wealth to their fortunate children. It astounds me that Labour was able to campaign effectively against a progressive proposal they should have been supporting.
People paying their way is entirely Tory and the so called dementia tax was in tune with this. The problem was in the hamfisted was it was floated and the abject failure to explain the principle or practice properly.
They are not taxes, they are really insurance paid for by working and salaried employees not families, the clue is in the title 'National INSURANCE'. That works perfectly well in Japan and the Netherlands which use social insurance to pay for social care.
Families already have to use almost all their assets including their home for residential care (beyond £23k), they should not have to do so for personal care too. The only sensible policy on that in the manifesto was to allow the level of assets to be kept to rise to £100k.
Theft of peoples' estate and private property is anything but Tory it is the very essence of socialism and for once Corbyn resisted ideology and did something sensible in opposing it. That was one area May was more socialist than even Labour was.
So you think NI is not a tax and that people paying for some of their social care is theft? Blimey, there's no answer to that.
National Insurance was originally set up to pay for peoples' pensions, welfare if needed and healthcare yes.
Corbyn needs a fat-cat scandal, a Conservative minister enriching him/herself, before he can really differentiate himself and break through.
Surely all Corbyn has to do is wait for more resignations or for more Boris gaffs? I am expecting it to get really bumpy for the Brexiteers once we get 12 months away from the WTO exit and stuff with long lead times become a problem that all the Will eat cake and still have it lies cannot survive.
We are heading for Canada style FTA, not WTO terms
Really? When? March 2018? Because we need it by then.
March 2019 you mean? Actually given the 2 year transition period May has proposed not even then. All we need is some moves towards one by then.
We leave in March 2019, we need a deal agreed way before then.
No we don't and we won't, we start a transition deal for 2 years in all likelihood in April 2019 given we are accepting continued free movement and ECJ jurisdiction in that period.
A FTA will take a number of years to negotiate, the main thing is to get started on it.
Er, we do. Agreeing a transitional dealal ones - each largely dictated by the EU27.
As long as we accept ECJ jurisdiction and free movement for the 2 year transition period we will get that transition period, there is nothing else to discuss on that.
The final FTA deal will be negotiated before and during that time.
A transition only exists as part of a deal. It is not a right, not a given, and certainly not in the gift of Mrs May.
No deal means no transition.
No, a transition is a transition until a deal is agreed not a follow-on from a deal.
A transition is a bridge from one point to another. You can’t have a transition if you don’t know what you’re transitioning to.
We do know, a FTA.
No, we don’t know that right now. And we certainly don’t know what kind of FTA. We need to get to a point where the EU27 are willing to agree a transition. That includes working out what happens to the Irish border. And then it all has to be approved. Time is very tight. Companies will start making big, far-reaching, irreversible decisions at the start of next year.
If there is a transition deal they won't hit in Spring 2018 while we negotiate a FTA and even if we did head straight to WTO terms until a FTA was agreed 'Last month, the World Bank said that, in the event of no trade deal beyond the minimal WTO terms, our trade with the EU would fall by two per cent. Since exports to the EU amount to 12.6 per cent of our total GDP, we’re talking about an overall loss of a quarter of one per cent.'
I think Corbyn would get a solid 38-39% in another GE, provided May isn't leading the Tories.
I'm not sure how many direct Tory to Labour switchers he'd attract to get himself across the line.
What can he offer them?
Nothing - he is a marxist
He's offering me an immediate 10% payrise, while the Tories are offering to outsource my job to the AA and turn our Fire Stations into supermarkets. Whilst both offers are absolute bollox, the Corbyn one at least looks appealing on paper. That's how he'll get into number 10.
You are not going to fall for Corbyn's funny money are you
Faced with two absurd propositions, surely most people would take the more attractive one?
And have Marxists and the Unions running the Country
I’d agree but sadly you have to be pushing 50 to meaningfully remember how crap the 70’s were.
Reality would be confronted in the same way a fly confronts a windscreen on the motorway and realises it’s made a mistake as its rear end passes through its brains, but if you’re 25 you probably don’t see it.
I am over 50 and remember how crap the 70s were but the crappiest part by far (3 day week, schedule of power cuts etc.) was while Heath was in power - which Tories conveniently forget.
The crappest part was the winter of discontent. It was also politically the most important.
You are obviously too young remember 1973/4!
Both the Heath and Wilson/Callaghan 1970s governments were pretty hopeless.
FPT - it's always struck me that Andrew Cooper would be far happier in New Labour than serving the Conservatives.
He faithfully served the Tory party for years and helped take the Tory party from opposition to government to a majority.
Vastly overrated man who wouldn't tell Cameron what he needed to hear during the referendum.
I don't think I've seen a single tweet of his that isn't Guardianista.
I rate him, I suspect he still wakes up each night feeling sick about his referendum polling and advice.
Genuine question: in the sense of not having it because it might not go to plan?
The strategy to win it.
1) They thought what won them a majority in 2015 would win them the referendum (ie the economy and Dave's leadership)
2) Not going blue on blue
3) Scheduling the referendum for when they did (they thought later would see the Parliament dominated by Brexit, oh the irony and the result might be skewed by government mid term unpopularity)
And the 'Project Fear' approach had worked very well for them in the AV referendum, with people worrying about whether changing the way they fill in a ballot paper might lead to lots of dead babies.....
Tremendous service from the staff who stepped in whilst the RMT decided to strike for no significant reason - the TOC have said there is no plan to move to DOO.
Bonkers. Did a quick straw poll. No support for the workers from customers. None.
Not even the new Class 707s?
Nobody flies 707s any more Sunil. Dreamliners, 380s and 350XWBs are the in thing these days for long haul (although the A330 takes some beating at 9,000 miles range)
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
As I said I would use National Insurance to pay for social care and the NHS.
Yes, you'd use taxes levied on many hard working families to ensure that those with property wealth could pass on more wealth to their fortunate children. It astounds me that Labour was able to campaign effectively against a progressive proposal they should have been supporting.
People paying their way is entirely Tory and the so called dementia tax was in tune with this. The problem was in the hamfisted was it was floated and the abject failure to explain the principle or practice properly.
Theft of peoples' estate and private property is anything but Tory it is the very essence of socialism and for once Corbyn resisted ideology and did something sensible in opposing it. That was one area May was more socialist than even Labour was.
Except it wasn't theft, was it.
Nor was it socialist. It was a sensible way of allowing people to fund their own social care (self sufficiency). It also prevented the awful situation of families having to sell houses to fund home care whilst struggling with ill relatives.
What is the point of saving for a rainy day if you expect someone else to pay for your shelter when that day comes?
It was a huge rise in inheritance tax on those with dementia in all but name. The only sensible thing in it was raising the assets that could be kept before liability for care costs to £100k.
Campaigning on the doorsteps in June taking peoples homes from their family to pay for personal social care was the most unpopular policy the Tories had by far, it was a complete disaster and betrayal of Tory principles and Tory voters.
National Insurance is supposed to pay for a rainy day when you need healthcare and social care etc, that is the whole reason it was created in the first place.
No, we don’t know that right now. And we certainly don’t know what kind of FTA. We need to get to a point where the EU27 are willing to agree a transition. That includes working out what happens to the Irish border. And then it all has to be approved. Time is very tight. Companies will start making big, far-reaching, irreversible decisions at the start of next year.
Apparently not.
I really need that "Rolls eyes" emoticon. I wonder if OGH can get one on an expansion pack?
I think Corbyn would get a solid 38-39% in another GE, provided May isn't leading the Tories.
I'm not sure how many direct Tory to Labour switchers he'd attract to get himself across the line.
What can he offer them?
Nothing - he is a marxist
He's offering me an immediate 10% payrise, while the Tories are offering to outsource my job to the AA and turn our Fire Stations into supermarkets. Whilst both offers are absolute bollox, the Corbyn one at least looks appealing on paper. That's how he'll get into number 10.
You are not going to fall for Corbyn's funny money are you
Faced with two absurd propositions, surely most people would take the more attractive one?
And have Marxists and the Unions running the Country
I’d agree but sadly you have to be pushing 50 to meaningfully remember how crap the 70’s were.
Reality would be confronted in the same way a fly confronts a windscreen on the motorway and realises it’s made a mistake as its rear end passes through its brains, but if you’re 25 you probably don’t see it.
I am over 50 and remember how crap the 70s were but the crappiest part by far (3 day week, schedule of power cuts etc.) was while Heath was in power - which Tories conveniently forget.
The crappest part was the winter of discontent. It was also politically the most important.
You are obviously too young remember 1973/4!
Both the Heath and Wilson/Callaghan 1970s governments were pretty hopeless.
I think Corbyn would get a solid 38-39% in another GE, provided May isn't leading the Tories.
I'm not sure how many direct Tory to Labour switchers he'd attract to get himself across the line.
What can he offer them?
Nothing - he is a marxist
He's offering me an immediate 10% payrise, while the Tories are offering to outsource my job to the AA and turn our Fire Stations into supermarkets. Whilst both offers are absolute bollox, the Corbyn one at least looks appealing on paper. That's how he'll get into number 10.
You are not going to fall for Corbyn's funny money are you
Faced with two absurd propositions, surely most people would take the more attractive one?
And have Marxists and the Unions running the Country
I’d agree but sadly you have to be pushing 50 to meaningfully remember how crap the 70’s were.
Reality would be confronted in the same way a fly confronts a windscreen on the motorway and realises it’s made a mistake as its rear end passes through its brains, but if you’re 25 you probably don’t see it.
I am over 50 and remember how crap the 70s were but the crappiest part by far (3 day week, schedule of power cuts etc.) was while Heath was in power - which Tories conveniently forget.
The crappest part was the winter of discontent. It was also politically the most important.
You are obviously too young remember 1973/4!
Both the Heath and Wilson/Callaghan 1970s governments were pretty hopeless.
Well given seven of my top ten country markets are WTO already - nothing frankly, in my case.
OK.
I guess we will start finding out in 5 months time
Well I live in that world now. Granted I’m sure I’m atypical but not do I get all the talk that the world’s going to end. It won’t. Won’t be totally smooth granted, but the four horsemen won’t be appearing.
Corbyn needs a fat-cat scandal, a Conservative minister enriching him/herself, before he can really differentiate himself and break through.
Surely all Corbyn has to do is wait for more resignations or for more Boris gaffs? I am expecting it to get really bumpy for the Brexiteers once we get 12 months away from the WTO exit and stuff with long lead times become a problem that all the Will eat cake and still have it lies cannot survive.
We are heading for Canada style FTA, not WTO terms
Really? When? March 2018? Because we need it by then.
March 2019 you mean? Actually given the 2 year transition period May has proposed not even then. All we need is some moves towards one by then.
We leave in March 2019, we need a deal agreed way before then.
No we don't and we won't, we start a transition deal for 2
Er, we do. Agreeing a transitional dealal ones - each largely dictated by the EU27.
As long as we accept ECJ jurisdiction and free movement for the 2 year transition period we will get that transition period, there is nothing else to discuss on that.
The final FTA deal will be negotiated before and during that time.
A transition only exists .
No, a transition is a transition until a deal is agreed not a follow-on from a deal.
A transition is a bridge from one point to another. You can’t have a transition if you don’t know what you’re transitioning to.
We do know, a FTA.
No, we don’t know that right now. And we certainly don’t know what kind of FTA. We need to get to a point where the EU27 are willing to agree a transition. That includes working out what happens to the Irish border. And then it all has to be approved. Time is very tight. Companies will start making big, far-reaching, irreversible decisions at the start of next year.
Yes we do know as even Barnier has agreed a Canada style FTA is where we are heading.
Christ, Question Time is bloody awful these days. Largely because of the audience just shouting and braying everytime someone says something they don't like.
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
As I said I would use National Insurance to pay for social care and the NHS.
Yes, you'd use taxes levied on many hard working families to ensure that those with property wealth could pass on more wealth to their fortunate children. It astounds me that Labour was able to campaign effectively against a progressive proposal they should have been supporting.
People paying their way is entirely Tory and the so called dementia tax was in tune with this. The problem was in the hamfisted was it was floated and the abject failure to explain the principle or practice properly.
Theft of peoples' estate and private property is anything but Tory it is the very essence of socialism and for once Corbyn resisted ideology and did something sensible in opposing it. That was one area May was more socialist than even Labour was.
Except it wasn't theft, was it.
Nor was it socialist. It was a sensible way of allowing people to fund their own social care (self sufficiency). It also prevented the awful situation of families having to sell houses to fund home care whilst struggling with ill relatives.
What is the point of saving for a rainy day if you expect someone else to pay for your shelter when that day comes?
National Insurance is supposed to pay for a rainy day when you need healthcare and social care etc, that is the whole reason it was created in the first place.
Some people are obsessed with inheritance tax, and the receipt thereof.
I don't think struggling families, for example, should be paying for my wealthy grandmother's care when she, and if needs be, us, her family, can well afford to pay for it. I would prefer that the social welfare system is protected for those who cannot afford to pay for their own care.
I think Corbyn would get a solid 38-39% in another GE, provided May isn't leading the Tories.
I'm not sure how many direct Tory to Labour switchers he'd attract to get himself across the line.
What can he offer them?
Nothing - he is a marxist
He's offering me an immediate 10% payrise, while the Tories are offering to outsource my job to the AA and turn our Fire Stations into supermarkets. Whilst both offers are absolute bollox, the Corbyn one at least looks appealing on paper. That's how he'll get into number 10.
You are not going to fall for Corbyn's funny money are you
Faced with two absurd propositions, surely most people would take the more attractive one?
And have Marxists and the Unions running the Country
I’d agree but sadly you have to be pushing 50 to meaningfully remember how crap the 70’s were.
Reality would be confronted in the same way a fly confronts a windscreen on the motorway and realises it’s made a mistake as its rear end passes through its brains, but if you’re 25 you probably don’t see it.
I am over 50 and remember how crap the 70s were but the crappiest part by far (3 day week, schedule of power cuts etc.) was while Heath was in power - which Tories conveniently forget.
The crappest part was the winter of discontent. It was also politically the most important.
You are obviously too young remember 1973/4!
Both the Heath and Wilson/Callaghan 1970s governments were pretty hopeless.
Corbyn needs a fat-cat scandal, a Conservative minister enriching him/herself, before he can really differentiate himself and break through.
Surely all Corbyn has to do is wait for more resignations or for more Boris gaffs? I am expecting it to get really bumpy for the Brexiteers once we get 12 months away from the WTO exit and stuff with long lead times become a problem that all the Will eat cake and still have it lies cannot survive.
We are heading for Canada style FTA, not WTO terms
Really? When? March 2018? Because we need it by then.
March 2019 you mean? Actually given the 2 year transition period May has proposed not even then. All we need is some moves towards one by then.
We leave in March 2019, we need a deal agreed way before then.
No we don't and we won't, we start a transition deal for 2
Er, we do. Agreeing a transitional dealal ones - each largely dictated by the EU27.
As long as we accept ECJ jurisdiction and free movement for the 2 year transition period we will get that transition period, there is nothing else to discuss on that.
The final FTA deal will be negotiated before and during that time.
A transition only exists .
No, a transition is a transition until a deal is agreed not a follow-on from a deal.
A transition is a bridge from one point to another. You can’t have a transition if you don’t know what you’re transitioning to.
We do know, a FTA.
No, we don’t knowed. Time is very tight. Companies will start making big, far-reaching, irreversible decisions at the start of next year.
Yes we do know as even Barnier has agreed a Canada style FTA is where we are heading.
We only get to discuss an FTA once the money is sorted and there is more clarity on the Irish border and citizens’ rights. The EU will want a lot more from the UK before any FTA is sorted. There is absolutely no certainty at this stage.
Thamesfield (Wandsworth) Conservative 1,910 Labour 1,101 Liberal Democrats 619 Green 275
I make that a 7.6% swing from Con to Lab since 2014. Good result for Lib Dems with more votes than 2014 on a reduced turnout, bad result for the Greens after a single candidate got 846 in 2014. I feel like Labour should be a little disappointed, the swing isn't what they would need to take the Council in May.
Tremendous service from the staff who stepped in whilst the RMT decided to strike for no significant reason - the TOC have said there is no plan to move to DOO.
Bonkers. Did a quick straw poll. No support for the workers from customers. None.
Not even the new Class 707s?
Nobody flies 707s any more Sunil. Dreamliners, 380s and 350XWBs are the in thing these days for long haul (although the A330 takes some beating at 9,000 miles range)
Christ, Question Time is bloody awful these days. Largely because of the audience just shouting and braying everytime someone says something they don't like.
Proof positive of Brecht's observation that it is time to abolish the electorate and devise a new one.
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
As I said I would use National Insurance to pay for social care and the NHS.
Yes, you'd use taxes levied on many hard working families to ensure that those with property wealth could pass on more wealth to their fortunate children. It astounds me that Labour was able to campaign effectively against a progressive proposal they should have been supporting.
People paying their way is entirely Tory and the so called dementia tax was in tune with this. The problem was in the hamfisted was it was floated and the abject failure to explain the principle or practice properly.
Theft of peoples' estate and private property is anything but Tory it is the very essence of socialism and for once Corbyn resisted ideology and did something sensible in opposing it. That was one area May was more socialist than even Labour was.
Except it wasn't theft, was it.
Nor was it socialist. It was a sensible way of allowing people to fund their own social care (self sufficiency). It also prevented the awful situation of families having to sell houses to fund home care whilst struggling with ill relatives.
What is the point of saving for a rainy day if you expect someone else to pay for your shelter when that day comes?
National Insurance is supposed to pay for a rainy day when you need healthcare and social care etc, that is the whole reason it was created in the first place.
Some people are obsessed with inheritance tax, and the receipt thereof.
I don't think struggling families, for example, should be paying for my wealthy grandmother's care when she, and if needs be, us, her family, can well afford to pay for it. I would prefer that the social welfare system is protected for those who cannot afford to pay for their own care.
The biggest disaster of May's Dementia tax fiasco is that she used her negative-Midas touch to turn good ideas to shit.
It is going to be an issue that is kicked into the long grass, when it really needs to be addressed. This is how the world is ageing:
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
As I said I would use National Insurance to pay for social care and the NHS.
Yes, you'd use taxes levied on many hard working families to ensure that those with property wealth could pass on more wealth to their fortunate children. It astounds me that Labour was able to campaign effectively against a progressive proposal they should have been supporting.
People paying their way is entirely Tory and the so called dementia tax was in tune with this. The problem was in the hamfisted was it was floated and the abject failure to explain the principle or practice properly.
Theft of peoples' estate and private property is anything but Tory it is the very essence of socialism and for once Corbyn resisted ideology and did something sensible in opposing it. That was one area May was more socialist than even Labour was.
Except it wasn't theft, was it.
Nor was it socialist. It was a sensible way of allowing people to fund their own social care (self sufficiency). It also prevented the awful situation of families having to sell houses to fund home care whilst struggling with ill relatives.
What is the point of saving for a rainy day if you expect someone else to pay for your shelter when that day comes?
National Insurance is supposed to pay for a rainy day when you need healthcare and social care etc, that is the whole reason it was created in the first place.
Some people are obsessed with inheritance tax, and the receipt thereof.
I don't think struggling families, for example, should be paying for my wealthy grandmother's care when she, and if needs be, us, her family, can well afford to pay for it. I would prefer that the social welfare system is protected for those who cannot afford to pay for their own care.
Given pensions have been screwed over the past twenty years an increased interest in inheritance and the increase BTL are the inevitable consequences.
We can’t go back in time to undo Brown’s idiotic tax from 97, or the unintended damage wrought by the 2004 Act, but we could recognise that interest rates at next to nothing have been biblically destructive and distorting.
Christ, Question Time is bloody awful these days. Largely because of the audience just shouting and braying everytime someone says something they don't like.
I gave up watching it years ago. I gave up when it got to the point when the politicians on the panel struggled to get a word in edgeways other than to give the response Dimbleby really felt they should give, at which point it was clearly no longer a forum for open debate.
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
As I said I would use National Insurance to pay for social care and the NHS.
Theft of peoples' estate and private property is anything but Tory it is the very essence of socialism and for once Corbyn resisted ideology and did something sensible in opposing it. That was one area May was more socialist than even Labour was.
Except it wasn't theft, was it.
Nor was it socialist. It was a sensible way of allowing people to fund their own social care (self sufficiency). It also prevented the awful situation of families having to sell houses to fund home care whilst struggling with ill relatives.
What is the point of saving for a rainy day if you expect someone else to pay for your shelter when that day comes?
National Insurance is supposed to pay for a rainy day when you need healthcare and social care etc, that is the whole reason it was created in the first place.
Some people are obsessed with inheritance tax, and the receipt thereof.
I don't think struggling families, for example, should be paying for my wealthy grandmother's care when she, and if needs be, us, her family, can well afford to pay for it. I would prefer that the social welfare system is protected for those who cannot afford to pay for their own care.
Given pensions have been screwed over the past twenty years an increased interest in inheritance and the increase BTL are the inevitable consequences.
We can’t go back in time to undo Brown’s idiotic tax from 97, or the unintended damage wrought by the 2004 Act, but we could recognise that interest rates at next to nothing have been biblically destructive and distorting.
I find the whole BTL system pretty disappointing, frankly. Not something I'd wish to be involved in.
Interest rates shouldn't be relied upon for an easy retur.
I fear the obsession with IHT is a consequence of the failure of our society to pass on the notion of entrepreneurship and real aspiration.
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
As I said I would use National Insurance to pay for social care and the NHS.
Yes, you'd use taxes levied on many hard working families to ensure that those with property wealth could pass on more wealth to their fortunate children. It astounds me that Labour was able to campaign effectively against a progressive proposal they should have been supporting.
People paying their way is entirely Tory and the so called dementia tax was in tune with this. The problem was in the hamfisted was it was floated and the abject failure to explain the principle or practice properly.
Theft of peoples' estate and private property is anything but Tory it is the very essence of socialism and for once Corbyn resisted ideology and did something sensible in opposing it. That was one area May was more socialist than even Labour was.
Except it wasn't theft, was it.
Nor was it socialist. It was a sensible way of allowing people to fund their own social care (self sufficiency). It also prevented the awful situation of families having to sell houses to fund home care whilst struggling with ill relatives.
What is the point of saving for a rainy day if you expect someone else to pay for your shelter when that day comes?
National Insurance is supposed to pay for a rainy day when you need healthcare and social care etc, that is the whole reason it was created in the first place.
Some people are obsessed with inheritance tax, and the receipt thereof.
I don't think struggling families, for example, should be paying for my wealthy grandmother's care when she, and if needs be, us, her family, can well afford to pay for it. I would prefer that the social welfare system is protected for those who cannot afford to pay for their own care.
It is not 'struggling families' who should be paying it or indeed families who already pay substantial amounts from their deceased relatives estate, especially for residential care who should be paying even more for it but salaried employees through National Insurance.
Relatively good result for the Tories in Wandsworth/Thamesfield.
John Locker (C) 1,910 (48.9%) Sally Warren (Lab) 1,101 (28.2%) Ryan Mercer (LD) 619 (15.9%) Di McCann (Grn) 275 (7.0%)
Pretty good result there certainly for the Tories, if they hold Wandsworth next May London Tories will breathe a big sigh of relief!
This is the best ward in Putney for the Tories so it may not be typical of the rest of the borough. I wonder what their candidate's position on Brexit was?
Comments
The final FTA deal will be negotiated before and during that time.
Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
I notice saint Gary has been deleting tweets..
People not involved in these areas have little idea of just how complex they are and, most importantly of all the sheer length of time needed for planning, agreement and execution.
If that is die-hard Remainer rubbish then so be it.
No deal means no transition.
"Despite us joining the EEC"
For example I have a friend who sells a thousand lambs to French buyers each year. 70% of British lamb is exported. He could swap to other stock in time, but not in one season.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/03/theresa-may-secretly-agrees-to-pay-50-billion-eu-divorce-bill-6899289/
How strange though that when things go badly and there's a Labour government it's their fault, but when things go badly and there's a Tory government, it's the unions' fault, or the EU's, or unpatriotic saboteurs, or indeed anyone but the Tories!
People paying their way is entirely Tory and the so called dementia tax was in tune with this. The problem was in the hamfisted was it was floated and the abject failure to explain the principle or practice properly.
Tremendous service from the staff who stepped in whilst the RMT decided to strike for no significant reason - the TOC have said there is no plan to move to DOO.
Bonkers. Did a quick straw poll. No support for the workers from customers. None.
You don’t launch all of that four weeks before a bloody polling day. It really ain’t hard.
"Yet the Tories wanted to take people's house if they needed personal care for dementia, a total betrayal of core conservative principles."
The tory client vote want other people to pay for their care (if needed) and also keep their house/assets and pass them on to their kids, tax free.
The tory client vote aren't interested in conservatism, or conservative principles.
They want pork.
Families already have to use almost all their assets including their home for residential care (beyond £23k), they should not have to do so for personal care too. The only sensible policy on that in the manifesto was to allow the level of assets to be kept to rise to £100k.
Theft of peoples' estate and private property is anything but Tory it is the very essence of socialism and for once Corbyn resisted ideology and did something sensible in opposing it. That was one area May was more socialist than even Labour was.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-davis-no-deal-brexit-uk-transition-period-conservative-theresa-may-eu-relationship-a8005196.html
The only way to get a further 2 year period to negotiate within is to ask for a 2 year extension to A50. That may be granted (EU27 unanimity required). Whether that would be politically acceptable to the Tory right is another question
We have 5 months. What is your solution? 5 months. Get that number in your head. Any business with a 12 month planning horizon has to assume that we WTO in March 2019 and therefore it cannot depend on any 12 month horizon from March 2018 onwards
What is that business going to do?
By Sept 2018 any business on a 6 month horizon (and that is not uncommon) is going to have the same trouble. That is 10/11 months away.
11 months max. What are you going to do?
She’s deluded. Genuinely last-days-of-empire deluded.
Nor was it socialist. It was a sensible way of allowing people to fund their own social care (self sufficiency). It also prevented the awful situation of families having to sell houses to fund home care whilst struggling with ill relatives.
What is the point of saving for a rainy day if you expect someone else to pay for your shelter when that day comes?
The 'Tory client vote' as you put it want the Tory Party to respect the oldest Tory principle of all, respect for tradition, the family and the family estate and private property. That was conservatism even before free trade and markets etc which were originally Whig and Liberal rather than Tory principles.
Even without the dementia tax and with the £100k of assets to be kept families would still have to pay all their assets beyond £100k, including their house, for residential care and inheritance tax on assets over £1 million so the idea they would even then be able to pass them on completely tax free is wrong. They just don't want to be oppressed even further by the state on the death of a loved one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_707
This is a 707
Totally different
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/11/daniel-hannan-coercion-might-be-working-in-catalonia-but-it-wont-work-here.html
I guess we will start finding out in 5 months time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_380
And this is a 350:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_350
Campaigning on the doorsteps in June taking peoples homes from their family to pay for personal social care was the most unpopular policy the Tories had by far, it was a complete disaster and betrayal of Tory principles and Tory voters.
National Insurance is supposed to pay for a rainy day when you need healthcare and social care etc, that is the whole reason it was created in the first place.
I really need that "Rolls eyes" emoticon. I wonder if OGH can get one on an expansion pack?
https://twitter.com/zorasuleman/status/928757840059228160
https://www.loveworldtv.co.uk/uk-will-get-canada-style-deal-with-eu-barnier/
Stella Creasy coming over very well. She is a great communicator.
I don't think struggling families, for example, should be paying for my wealthy grandmother's care when she, and if needs be, us, her family, can well afford to pay for it. I would prefer that the social welfare system is protected for those who cannot afford to pay for their own care.
So is Kirstie Allsopp.
That Chakrabortty chap, not so much.
John Locker (C) 1,910 (48.9%)
Sally Warren (Lab) 1,101 (28.2%)
Ryan Mercer (LD) 619 (15.9%)
Di McCann (Grn) 275 (7.0%)
Conservative 1,910
Labour 1,101
Liberal Democrats 619
Green 275
I make that a 7.6% swing from Con to Lab since 2014. Good result for Lib Dems with more votes than 2014 on a reduced turnout, bad result for the Greens after a single candidate got 846 in 2014. I feel like Labour should be a little disappointed, the swing isn't what they would need to take the Council in May.
How can you even think of comparing those....... slugs... to this gorgeous aircraft
or this
It is going to be an issue that is kicked into the long grass, when it really needs to be addressed. This is how the world is ageing:
https://twitter.com/aronstrandberg/status/926317346641375232
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/928765565140914177
We can’t go back in time to undo Brown’s idiotic tax from 97, or the unintended damage wrought by the 2004 Act, but we could recognise that interest rates at next to nothing have been biblically destructive and distorting.
A useful corrective to this misnomer that the Tories are failing.
Con 52%
Lab 32%
LD 13%
Greens 2.5%
UKIP 0.5%
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Putney
Interest rates shouldn't be relied upon for an easy retur.
I fear the obsession with IHT is a consequence of the failure of our society to pass on the notion of entrepreneurship and real aspiration.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/928770507759083520