Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)
That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
Dick Taverne and Eddie Milne were brief exceptions to that rule. Dave Nellist came close to hanging on in Coventry in 1992 after being deselected. Further back Desmond Donnelly polled nearly 12,000 votes as an Independent in Pembroke in 1970.
They’ll be pitching themselves at the majority who think it’s a wrong decision and/or the still greater majority who are now Brexit pessimists.
“Accepting Brexit” means different things to different people. Some lunatics on here still believe that it requires a customs union despite the fact only one in six know what a customs union is. A politician who articulated a positive vision for constructive engagement with the EU would find a ready audience.
But it’s not going to happen. As of now, the choices are ultra-destructive no-deal Brexit, Remain and Mayan Brexit. All three would be catastrophic for Britain in diffferent ways. None would resolve Britain’s relationship with the EU.
You have said yourself that Brexit needs to be allowed to happen. We also agree that the EU are not going to put a fence across Ireland no matter what has been said by Varakdar and Barnier in recent months.
My personal view is that a managed exit to WTO terms from an 18 month implementation period is doable if both sides agree now or shortly that there’s not going to be a deal. Negotiating a Canada or Japan style deal from outside is going to be easier than trying to maintain links to existing EU structures after we leave, and a negotiation from outside will be more equitable than the one-sided A50 rules. Hopefully (yes I know) politicians on all sides will want to engage with the EU once we have left, but right now there’s too many on all sides who are trying to scupper anything reasonable in persuit of their ideology.
Just over two years ago you thought the negotiations would be a walk in the park. Now you want to inflict an avoidable massive recession on Britain just to prove a point.
I don’t recall saying that the negotiations would be a walk in the park, but I certainly didn’t expect the EU to actively persue the lose-lose outcome or threaten to annex 5,460 square miles of British territory.
I do think that negotiating from WTO terms is going to result in a better long term outcome for the UK, than negotiating when the EU are threatening planes not flying and shortages of food and medicines.
There is clearly a Brexit gravitational model at work where the further the poster is from the EU, the more relaxed he is about severe economic upheaval as a result of the terms of Brexit departure.
Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)
That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
Woodcock, I do not know as well, but apart from being pro Brexit and Pro nuclear (once again quite unremarkeable positions in Labour just a few years ago) what is there to suggest that he would fit in the Tory party?
Brexit simply does not match much of the rest of politics, helped by being in many theoretical forms, from F*** Business fortress Britain, to Hannanite Swashbuckling Singapore.
Fake news. Woodcock is a Remainer. I think you are confusing him with John Mann.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
So, real wages are still down on when the Cons took power in 2010? Sure, if you want to take credit for that then go ahead.
All of these proposed “centre” parties are non-starters unless they accept Brexit is happening. Right now they all see opposition to it as an article of faith, which might put them in the centre ground in SW1 but certainly doesn’t in the wider country.
The funniest example was James Chapman’s “The Democrats”, whose first principle was to campaign to overturn the largest democratic vote in British history!
And yes, the SNP are still utterly toxic in England.
They’ll be pitching themselves at the majority who think it’s a wrong decision and/or the still greater majority who are now Brexit pessimists.
“Accepting Brexit” means different things to different people. Some lunatics on here still believe that it requires a customs union despite the fact only one in six know what a customs union is. A politician who articulated a positive vision for constructive engagement with the EU would find a ready audience.
But it’s not going to happen. As of now, the choices are ultra-destructive no-deal Brexit, Remain and Mayan Brexit. All three would be catastrophic for Britain in diffferent ways. None would resolve Britain’s relationship with the EU.
You have said yourself that Brexit needs to be allowed to happen. We also agree that the EU are not going to put a fence across Ireland no matter what has been said by Varakdar and Barnier in recent months.
My personal view is that a managed exit to WTO terms from an 18 month implementation period is doable if both sides agree now or shortly that there’s not going to be a deal. Negotiating a Canada or Japan style deal from outside is going to be easier than trying to maintain links to existing EU structures after we leave, and a negotiation from outside will be more equitable than the one-sided A50 rules. Hopefully (yes I know) politicians on all sides will want to engage with the EU once we have left, but right now there’s too many on all sides who are trying to scupper anything reasonable in persuit of their ideology.
How do you stop Ireland vetoing a deal that creates a hard border on the island of Ireland?
Whatever problems you might think that Theresa May has they are as nothing compared to the extinction of Fine Gael that would follow them accepting that.
Some awareness of the politics and history of your counterparts in a negotiation is required to reach a successful agreement.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
All of these proposed “centre” parties are non-starters unless they accept Brexit is happening. Right now they all see opposition to it as an article of faith, which might put them in the centre ground in SW1 but certainly doesn’t in the wider country.
The funniest example was James Chapman’s “The Democrats”, whose first principle was to campaign to overturn the largest democratic vote in British history!
And yes, the SNP are still utterly toxic in England.
They’ll be pitching themselves at the majority who think it’s a wrong decision and/or the still greater majority who are now Brexit pessimists.
But it’s not going to happen. As of now, the choices are ultra-destructive no-deal Brexit, Remain and Mayan Brexit. All three would be catastrophic for Britain in diffferent ways. None would resolve Britain’s relationship with the EU.
You have said yourself that Brexit needs to be allowed to happen. We also agree that the EU are not going to put a fence across Ireland no matter what has been said by Varakdar and Barnier in recent months.
My personal view is that a managed exit to WTO terms from an 18 month implementation period is doable if both sides agree now or shortly that there’s not going to be a deal. Negotiating a Canada or Japan style deal from outside is going to be easier than trying to maintain links to existing EU structures after we leave, and a negotiation from outside will be more equitable than the one-sided A50 rules. Hopefully (yes I know) politicians on all sides will want to engage with the EU once we have left, but right now there’s too many on all sides who are trying to scupper anything reasonable in persuit of their ideology.
How do you stop Ireland vetoing a deal that creates a hard border on the island of Ireland?
Whatever problems you might think that Theresa May has they are as nothing compared to the extinction of Fine Gael that would follow them accepting that.
Some awareness of the politics and history of your counterparts in a negotiation is required to reach a successful agreement.
LOL. For PB Leavers, Ireland is just a theoretical problem that can be solved by sending a construction group to build a wall in Crossmaglen and telling all parties to just suck it up.
Just over two years ago you thought the negotiations would be a walk in the park. Now you want to inflict an avoidable massive recession on Britain just to prove a point.
The genuinely patriotic Casino Royale has been silent since the Chequers implosion, which speaks volumes.
Just over two years ago you thought the negotiations would be a walk in the park. Now you want to inflict an avoidable massive recession on Britain just to prove a point.
The genuinely patriotic Casino Royale has been silent since the Chequers implosion, which speaks volumes.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
So, real wages are still down on when the Cons took power in 2010? Sure, if you want to take credit for that then go ahead.
LOL. For PB Leavers, Ireland is just a theoretical problem that can be solved by sending a construction group to build a wall in Crossmaglen and telling all parties to just suck it up.
Nobody can answer the questions on this EU hard border - how long will it take the ROI to build it and will Dublin be recompensed by the EU for the expense ?
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
Ignore the claimant count, but the ILO definition has unemployment at 1.4 m, which is higher than the 1970's but not by much.
Rates of employment among people of working age are higher than in the 1970's.
LOL. For PB Leavers, Ireland is just a theoretical problem that can be solved by sending a construction group to build a wall in Crossmaglen and telling all parties to just suck it up.
Nobody can answer the questions on this EU hard border - how long will it take the ROI to build it and will Dublin be recompensed by the EU for the expense ?
LOL. For PB Leavers, Ireland is just a theoretical problem that can be solved by sending a construction group to build a wall in Crossmaglen and telling all parties to just suck it up.
Nobody can answer the questions on this EU hard border - how long will it take the ROI to build it and will Dublin be recompensed by the EU for the expense ?
"An MP who is on maternity leave has accused the government of a breach of trust over a key House of Commons vote on Brexit.
Lib Dem Jo Swinson was "paired" with Tory chairman Brandon Lewis so she could be at home with her baby son during the Trade Bill vote.
This should mean neither MP votes so their absences cancel each other out.
But Mr Lewis did vote with the government - he has since apologised for an "honest mistake" by whips."
I am sure even you do not believe it was a Tory cock-up. He only voted on the two votes which were supposed to be close but did not vote on the others.
Basically, Tories cannot be trusted
Wasn't there a story on here a while back with Corbyn saying Labour wouldn't agree to pairing with the Tories any more? Seems clear why...
Other paired Tories apparently confirm they were pressured by whips to break the arrangement. Which I suggest paints Lewis as not an honest man.
The appropriate response should be for other MPs to refuse to pair with Lewis in future.
The appropriate response should be for an MP paired with him to vote anyway, during a close crucial vote
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
You have said yourself that Brexit needs to be allowed to happen. We also agree that the EU are not going to put a fence across Ireland no matter what has been said by Varakdar and Barnier in recent months.
My personal view is that a managed exit to WTO terms from an 18 month implementation period is doable if both sides agree now or shortly that there’s not going to be a deal. Negotiating a Canada or Japan style deal from outside is going to be easier than trying to maintain links to existing EU structures after we leave, and a negotiation from outside will be more equitable than the one-sided A50 rules. Hopefully (yes I know) politicians on all sides will want to engage with the EU once we have left, but right now there’s too many on all sides who are trying to scupper anything reasonable in persuit of their ideology.
Just over two years ago you thought the negotiations would be a walk in the park. Now you want to inflict an avoidable massive recession on Britain just to prove a point.
I don’t recall saying that the negotiations would be a walk in the park, but I certainly didn’t expect the EU to actively persue the lose-lose outcome or threaten to annex 5,460 square miles of British territory.
I do think that negotiating from WTO terms is going to result in a better long term outcome for the UK, than negotiating when the EU are threatening planes not flying and shortages of food and medicines.
There is clearly a Brexit gravitational model at work where the further the poster is from the EU, the more relaxed he is about severe economic upheaval as a result of the terms of Brexit departure.
I try my best to avoid making personal comments here, but the most removed of all from the average British person are those working in central London on high six figure salaries protected from EU immigrant competition.
For those people life is brilliant and anything that might disturb that brilliance is an existential threat, whereas for most people a shakeup of the status quo is long overdue and seen as an opportunity for future growth.
Cracking article from Martin Wolf on the US political situation. My fear is that we are going down this route here, although thankfully our Conservative party is still much more honourable and decent than the US republican party. https://www.ft.com/content/3aea8668-88e2-11e8-bf9e-8771d5404543
Paywalled for me but if I had to point to parallels between the US Republicans and our Conservatives, the obvious one is that both are filled with legislators who criticise their president or prime minister but who take no steps to remove him or her.
What is more worrying is that under Cameron's leadership (although not necessarily instigated by him) the Conservatives do seem to have adopted some practices from the Republicans, most notably around voter suppression and gerrymandering (which ironically cost Cameron the referendum and his premiership) and demonisation of opponents -- not the devil eyes thing but vetoing Gordon Brown for the IMF, for instance, which parallels Republicans refusing to consider Obama's nominated Supreme Court judge.
You can get a few articles free... this one is well worth handing out your email address for... Yes there are some parallels, but nothing the Tories have done is at the same scale/level as the Republicans IMO.
Elon’s lawyer needs to confiscate his phone, and quickly. The guy’s clearly knackered after overseeing the Tesla factory problems, he needs to take a week or two out and get some sleep.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I don't think you can easily make any sensible comparison between now and the 1970s, because of the massive change in employment demographics. In 1971 the female employment rate was about 53%, now it's about 71%. That reflects big changes in the nature of home and work.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
Im sorry but I just dont see that. I have just been speaking to an agency. They are looking for 4 plumbers for a years contract in Southampton paying £20 per hour, thats £52,000 per year for a ten hour day (They dont work ten hours, they work 8 and a half but get paid ten). They have been looking for two weeks, they cant find anyone. That is the current real world.
You have said yourself that Brexit needs to be allowed to happen. We also agree that the EU are not going to put a fence across Ireland no matter what has been said by Varakdar and Barnier in recent months.
My personal view is that a managed exit to WTO terms from an 18 month implementation period is doable if both sides agree now or shortly that there’s not going to be a deal. Negotiating a Canada or Japan style deal from outside is going to be easier than trying to maintain links to existing EU structures after we leave, and a negotiation from outside will be more equitable than the one-sided A50 rules. Hopefully (yes I know) politicians on all sides will want to engage with the EU once we have left, but right now there’s too many on all sides who are trying to scupper anything reasonable in persuit of their ideology.
Just over two years ago you thought the negotiations would be a walk in the park. Now you want to inflict an avoidable massive recession on Britain just to prove a point.
I don’t recall saying that the negotiations would be a walk in the park, but I certainly didn’t expect the EU to actively persue the lose-lose outcome or threaten to annex 5,460 square miles of British territory.
I do think that negotiating from WTO terms is going to result in a better long term outcome for the UK, than negotiating when the EU are threatening planes not flying and shortages of food and medicines.
There is clearly a Brexit gravitational model at work where the further the poster is from the EU, the more relaxed he is about severe economic upheaval as a result of the terms of Brexit departure.
I try my best to avoid making personal comments here, but the most removed of all from the average British person are those working in central London on high six figure salaries protected from EU immigrant competition.
For those people life is brilliant and anything that might disturb that brilliance is an existential threat, whereas for most people a shakeup of the status quo is long overdue and seen as an opportunity for future growth.
Anyone that says that Brexit is an opportunity for growth for the UK is either a self interested politician, a shit stirring journalist or zealot planted well and truly in la-la land
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I don't think you can easily make any sensible comparison between now and the 1970s, because of the massive change in employment demographics. In 1971 the female employment rate was about 53%, now it's about 71%. That reflects big changes in the nature of home and work.
I understand that but would suggest that the implication is that in terms of male full employment the labour market is far tougher than in the 1970s.So many people are forced to rely on Zero Hours Contracts to obtain any work at all.
Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)
That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
Agreed. I wonder if John Woodcock will join the Conservatives.
I doubt it but if he did he would get a massive majority.
Er! Not in Barrow and Furness he won't. He upset too many people. Just been checking up/ researching FB and the local papers on line. Seems to be a recurring theme of arrogance and nit picking, and not actually representing or even visiting his constituency or local party. Just a random quote from May that I quite liked to give some idea of what many in the local CLP and BLP thought (of a meeting with Cathy Smith MP) in May'18: "You know what was so different? The relaxed, friendly buzz from all there, the good humour and welcoming feel. A couple of little hitches were treated - like a couple of little hitches. And an interesting talk from Cathy Smith who unlike some could be bothered to meet the foot soldiers."
I was quite surprised at how few outright derogatory remarks there were about Woodcock and the downright silence about anything complimentary, which I put down to "he's our MP, love him or hate him, we will support him" outlook, but of the few I did find, again from May:
"I feel your MP is doing more to harm Labour than any Conservative, Lib Dem, UKIP or Green candidate could ever do"
"Spot on there and local members feel the same. Many of us loathe him but taking the next steps is a big decision"
"I am trying to help people who are affected by the many cuts to public services including the most vulnerable in our society. I tell the vulnerable a better world is out there and under Mr Corbyn we may achieve this. Then this man continually helps the Conservatives attack Mr Corbyn he is a disgrace to the Labour Party. He needs to decide who he is working for the Labour Party or the Conservatives"
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I don't think you can easily make any sensible comparison between now and the 1970s, because of the massive change in employment demographics. In 1971 the female employment rate was about 53%, now it's about 71%. That reflects big changes in the nature of home and work.
I understand that but would suggest that the implication is that in terms of male full employment the labour market is far tougher than in the 1970s.So many people are forced to rely on Zero Hours Contracts to obtain any work at all.
Do you really think that? There is so much work available
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
Im sorry but I just dont see that. I have just been speaking to an agency. They are looking for 4 plumbers for a years contract in Southampton paying £20 per hour, thats £52,000 per year for a ten hour day (They dont work ten hours, they work 8 and a half but get paid ten). They have been looking for two weeks, they cant find anyone. That is the current real world.
We need to be encouraging more kids into apprenticeships, rather than getting £50k into debt for mostly worthless degrees. Most plumbers starting at 18 will buy a house in their 20s on those numbers.
Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)
That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
Agreed. I wonder if John Woodcock will join the Conservatives.
I doubt it but if he did he would get a massive majority.
I doubt it. I stand corrected on his Brexit position, but with the shift of lead to 5% Lab lead, I think his Labour replacement would get an increased majority.
Politicians often are convinced that they have a big personal mandate, but it is rarely true. Even anti-Corbyn MPs like Liz Kendall or the scandal ridden Keith Vaz got much the same swing as national polling suggested.
It is said that a country gets the politicians it deserves. What is it that this country has done that it deserves Boris Johnson, Rees-Mogg and Corbyn . Oh, hang on.....
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
Im sorry but I just dont see that. I have just been speaking to an agency. They are looking for 4 plumbers for a years contract in Southampton paying £20 per hour, thats £52,000 per year for a ten hour day (They dont work ten hours, they work 8 and a half but get paid ten). They have been looking for two weeks, they cant find anyone. That is the current real world.
The fact of there being skills shortages in particular trades in certain areas does not contradict the general point. I am encountering this pretty well every week as a Citizens Advice voulnteer.
Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)
That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
Agreed. I wonder if John Woodcock will join the Conservatives.
I doubt it but if he did he would get a massive majority.
I doubt it. I stand corrected on his Brexit position, but with the shift of lead to 5% Lab lead, I think his Labour replacement would get an increased majority.
Politicians often are convinced that they have a big personal mandate, but it is rarely true. Even anti-Corbyn MPs like Liz Kendall or the scandal ridden Keith Vaz got much the same swing as national polling suggested.
Simon Danczuk's vote last year is a reminder of how much "personal vote" an MP usually enjoys. Woodcock maybe would get double what Danczuk did, if lucky.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
Im sorry but I just dont see that. I have just been speaking to an agency. They are looking for 4 plumbers for a years contract in Southampton paying £20 per hour, thats £52,000 per year for a ten hour day (They dont work ten hours, they work 8 and a half but get paid ten). They have been looking for two weeks, they cant find anyone. That is the current real world.
Not everyone is a trained plumber who lives in Southampton. There can easily be unemployment/underemployment in some areas and fields and unfilled vacancies in others
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
Worth noting that ILO and World Bank numbers for the UK, which use their own methodology, also have the UK at essentially full employment.
LOL. For PB Leavers, Ireland is just a theoretical problem that can be solved by sending a construction group to build a wall in Crossmaglen and telling all parties to just suck it up.
Nobody can answer the questions on this EU hard border - how long will it take the ROI to build it and will Dublin be recompensed by the EU for the expense ?
If by "Hard Border", you mean "Customs Posts", then it could be achieved with a couple of portacabins.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I don't think you can easily make any sensible comparison between now and the 1970s, because of the massive change in employment demographics. In 1971 the female employment rate was about 53%, now it's about 71%. That reflects big changes in the nature of home and work.
I understand that but would suggest that the implication is that in terms of male full employment the labour market is far tougher than in the 1970s.So many people are forced to rely on Zero Hours Contracts to obtain any work at all.
Do you really think that? There is so much work available
Yes, but no-one (understandably) wants to take a risk on employing someone who has been out of work for more than six months.
Or who doesn't have 2+ years experience doing the job being advertised.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
Im sorry but I just dont see that. I have just been speaking to an agency. They are looking for 4 plumbers for a years contract in Southampton paying £20 per hour, thats £52,000 per year for a ten hour day (They dont work ten hours, they work 8 and a half but get paid ten). They have been looking for two weeks, they cant find anyone. That is the current real world.
Not everyone is a trained plumber who lives in Southampton. There can easily be unemployment/underemployment in some areas and fields and unfilled vacancies in others
That was just one example, I can give you dozens, there is a massive shortage of labour, thats why pay rates are increasing so quickly. I know doom mongers do not want to believe it but that is the current employment situation in this country. It is truly remarkable.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
There must have been lots of people who were underemployed back in the 1970's, or shut out of the Labour market completely.
Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)
That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
Agreed. I wonder if John Woodcock will join the Conservatives.
I doubt it but if he did he would get a massive majority.
I doubt it. I stand corrected on his Brexit position, but with the shift of lead to 5% Lab lead, I think his Labour replacement would get an increased majority.
Politicians often are convinced that they have a big personal mandate, but it is rarely true. Even anti-Corbyn MPs like Liz Kendall or the scandal ridden Keith Vaz got much the same swing as national polling suggested.
Simon Danczuk's vote last year is a reminder of how much "personal vote" an MP usually enjoys. Woodcock maybe would get double what Danczuk did, if lucky.
Indeed so - and pro-nuclear disillusioned former Labour voters who switched to the Tories in 2017 might well now decide to support Woodcock thereby helping Labour.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
Im sorry but I just dont see that. I have just been speaking to an agency. They are looking for 4 plumbers for a years contract in Southampton paying £20 per hour, thats £52,000 per year for a ten hour day (They dont work ten hours, they work 8 and a half but get paid ten). They have been looking for two weeks, they cant find anyone. That is the current real world.
Not everyone is a trained plumber who lives in Southampton. There can easily be unemployment/underemployment in some areas and fields and unfilled vacancies in others
Hence the need for an ongoing supply of workers from the EU, Brexit or not. Assuming they still want to come.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
Im sorry but I just dont see that. I have just been speaking to an agency. They are looking for 4 plumbers for a years contract in Southampton paying £20 per hour, thats £52,000 per year for a ten hour day (They dont work ten hours, they work 8 and a half but get paid ten). They have been looking for two weeks, they cant find anyone. That is the current real world.
We need to be encouraging more kids into apprenticeships, rather than getting £50k into debt for mostly worthless degrees. Most plumbers starting at 18 will buy a house in their 20s on those numbers.
It is such a struggle these days to get apprentices. The must stay in education to 18 is completely to blame. In theory it is a good idea but in practice it is awful. Schools get paid for each student they keep till 18 so we now only get 5% of the apprenticeship applications that we did 10 years ago.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
The ONS disagrees with you here. The vast majority of the growth in employment since 2010 has been full time work.
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
All good points. I also think that Soubry has the right adjectives too. It would be a government of national unity to begin with. So you start with sensible MPs from all parties joining to put forward a moderate Brexit programme. They then vote no confidence in May and ask the queen to allow them to form a government. The formation of the new party follows on from that.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
Im sorry but I just dont see that. I have just been speaking to an agency. They are looking for 4 plumbers for a years contract in Southampton paying £20 per hour, thats £52,000 per year for a ten hour day (They dont work ten hours, they work 8 and a half but get paid ten). They have been looking for two weeks, they cant find anyone. That is the current real world.
We need to be encouraging more kids into apprenticeships, rather than getting £50k into debt for mostly worthless degrees. Most plumbers starting at 18 will buy a house in their 20s on those numbers.
An Irish brother-in-law of mine did a tertiary-level qualification in welding and is doing very well as a result.
It's all part of the cultural snobbishness we have in this country about people employed in work that involves getting the hands dirty, which is also seen in the obsession with grammar schools.
You have said yourself that Brexit needs to be allowed to happen. We also agree that the EU are not going to put a fence across Ireland no matter what has been said by Varakdar and Barnier in recent months.
My personal view is that a managed exit to WTO terms from an 18 month implementation period is doable if both sides agree now or shortly that there’s not going to be a deal. Negotiating a Canada or Japan style deal from outside is going to be easier than trying to maintain links to existing EU structures after we leave, and a negotiation from outside will be more equitable than the one-sided A50 rules. Hopefully (yes I know) politicians on all sides will want to engage with the EU once we have left, but right now there’s too many on all sides who are trying to scupper anything reasonable in persuit of their ideology.
Just over two years ago you thought the negotiations would be a walk in the park. Now you want to inflict an avoidable massive recession on Britain just to prove a point.
I don’t recall saying that the negotiations would be a walk in the park, but I certainly didn’t expect the EU to actively persue the lose-lose outcome or threaten to annex 5,460 square miles of British territory.
I do think that negotiating from WTO terms is going to result in a better long term outcome for the UK, than negotiating when the EU are threatening planes not flying and shortages of food and medicines.
There is clearly a Brexit gravitational model at work where the further the poster is from the EU, the more relaxed he is about severe economic upheaval as a result of the terms of Brexit departure.
I try my best to avoid making personal comments here, but the most removed of all from the average British person are those working in central London on high six figure salaries protected from EU immigrant competition.
For those people life is brilliant and anything that might disturb that brilliance is an existential threat, whereas for most people a shakeup of the status quo is long overdue and seen as an opportunity for future growth.
In an increasingly globalised world, we're all facing competition from foreigners. Legal and accounting services will be supplied by firms in Mumbai rather than Manchester.
LOL. For PB Leavers, Ireland is just a theoretical problem that can be solved by sending a construction group to build a wall in Crossmaglen and telling all parties to just suck it up.
Nobody can answer the questions on this EU hard border - how long will it take the ROI to build it and will Dublin be recompensed by the EU for the expense ?
If by "Hard Border", you mean "Customs Posts", then it could be achieved with a couple of portacabins.
actually 208 Portacabins if you want one for every border crossing...
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
All good points. I also think that Soubry has the right adjectives too. It would be a government of national unity to begin with. So you start with sensible MPs from all parties joining to put forward a moderate Brexit programme. They then vote no confidence in May and ask the queen to allow them to form a government. The formation of the new party follows on from that.
Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)
That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
Agreed. I wonder if John Woodcock will join the Conservatives.
I doubt it but if he did he would get a massive majority.
I doubt it. I stand corrected on his Brexit position, but with the shift of lead to 5% Lab lead, I think his Labour replacement would get an increased majority.
Politicians often are convinced that they have a big personal mandate, but it is rarely true. Even anti-Corbyn MPs like Liz Kendall or the scandal ridden Keith Vaz got much the same swing as national polling suggested.
Simon Danczuk's vote last year is a reminder of how much "personal vote" an MP usually enjoys. Woodcock maybe would get double what Danczuk did, if lucky.
I would have thought the fact that Danczuk was clearly a total cock may also have played a role.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
The ONS disagrees with you here. The vast majority of the growth in employment since 2010 has been full time work.
But that does not contradict my point at all. The fact that most new jobs are full time - and permanent - does not alter the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are forced to work partime - and/or on a temporary basis!
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
Im sorry but I just dont see that. I have just been speaking to an agency. They are looking for 4 plumbers for a years contract in Southampton paying £20 per hour, thats £52,000 per year for a ten hour day (They dont work ten hours, they work 8 and a half but get paid ten). They have been looking for two weeks, they cant find anyone. That is the current real world.
We need to be encouraging more kids into apprenticeships, rather than getting £50k into debt for mostly worthless degrees. Most plumbers starting at 18 will buy a house in their 20s on those numbers.
An Irish brother-in-law of mine did a tertiary-level qualification in welding and is doing very well as a result.
It's all part of the cultural snobbishness we have in this country about people employed in work that involves getting the hands dirty, which is also seen in the obsession with grammar schools.
Immigrants come because we have done a poor job in training people to do jobs that need doing.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
There must have been lots of people who were underemployed back in the 1970's, or shut out of the Labour market completely.
Involuntary part time work was much less common in the 1970s.
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
All good points. I also think that Soubry has the right adjectives too. It would be a government of national unity to begin with. So you start with sensible MPs from all parties joining to put forward a moderate Brexit programme. They then vote no confidence in May and ask the queen to allow them to form a government. The formation of the new party follows on from that.
It sounds like what the country needs.
Without being put to the people without with a GE
We had a referendum. If this is the only way its result can be implemented then I don't see the problem.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
The ONS disagrees with you here. The vast majority of the growth in employment since 2010 has been full time work.
But that does not contradict my point at all. The fact that most new jobs are full time - and permanent - does not alter the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are forced to work partime - and/or on a temporary basis!
Your knowledge of the motives of thousands of people is astounding not the less so as it backs up your basic narrative. We are all in awe.
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
All good points. I also think that Soubry has the right adjectives too. It would be a government of national unity to begin with. So you start with sensible MPs from all parties joining to put forward a moderate Brexit programme. They then vote no confidence in May and ask the queen to allow them to form a government. The formation of the new party follows on from that.
It sounds like what the country needs.
Without being put to the people without with a GE
We had a referendum. If this is the only way its result can be implemented then I don't see the problem.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
There must have been lots of people who were underemployed back in the 1970's, or shut out of the Labour market completely.
Involuntary part time work was much less common in the 1970s.
On the other hand, there were few opportunities to do jobs that fitted around other schedules.
Watching two members of Islington Labour Party from the 80s knock lumps off each other in public is like watching a wasp land on a stinging nettle. You know somebody is going to get very badly stung but you don't really care which one it is.
To be honest, I prefer Corbyn to Hodge.
Hobson’s choice: a woman who turned a blind eye to child abuse by her employees in the borough she ran and who insulted one of the survivors vs a man (the MP for the borough during the time when the abuse was taking place) who turns a blind eye to anti-semitism by his supporters.
If claimants were allowed to claim Contribution -based JSA for 12 months - rather than 6 months -as was the case in the 1970s, that alone would add significantly to the headline figures. There would be a similar impact from allowing claims from 16-18 year olds - and from students during vacations as was formerly the case.
Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)
That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
Agreed. I wonder if John Woodcock will join the Conservatives.
I doubt it but if he did he would get a massive majority.
I doubt it. I stand corrected on his Brexit position, but with the shift of lead to 5% Lab lead, I think his Labour replacement would get an increased majority.
Politicians often are convinced that they have a big personal mandate, but it is rarely true. Even anti-Corbyn MPs like Liz Kendall or the scandal ridden Keith Vaz got much the same swing as national polling suggested.
Simon Danczuk's vote last year is a reminder of how much "personal vote" an MP usually enjoys. Woodcock maybe would get double what Danczuk did, if lucky.
I would have thought the fact that Danczuk was clearly a total cock may also have played a role.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
The ONS disagrees with you here. The vast majority of the growth in employment since 2010 has been full time work.
But that does not contradict my point at all. The fact that most new jobs are full time - and permanent - does not alter the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are forced to work partime - and/or on a temporary basis!
Your knowledge of the motives of thousands of people is astounding not the less so as it backs up your basic narrative. We are all in awe.
If claimants were allowed to claim Contribution -based JSA for 12 months - rather than 6 months -as was the case in the 1970s, that alone would add significantly to the headline figures. There would be a similar impact from allowing claims from 16-18 year olds - and from students during vacations as was formerly the case.
It would increase the claimant count, but the ILO figures are the ones you use to look at unemployment numbers on a like for like basis.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
Im sorry but I just dont see that. I have just been speaking to an agency. They are looking for 4 plumbers for a years contract in Southampton paying £20 per hour, thats £52,000 per year for a ten hour day (They dont work ten hours, they work 8 and a half but get paid ten). They have been looking for two weeks, they cant find anyone. That is the current real world.
We need to be encouraging more kids into apprenticeships, rather than getting £50k into debt for mostly worthless degrees. Most plumbers starting at 18 will buy a house in their 20s on those numbers.
It is such a struggle these days to get apprentices. The must stay in education to 18 is completely to blame. In theory it is a good idea but in practice it is awful. Schools get paid for each student they keep till 18 so we now only get 5% of the apprenticeship applications that we did 10 years ago.
Interesting. I’d assumed that you’d just pick up the apprentices at 18 instead of 16, and they’d have spent the last two years doing the physics and maths bits of electrics that’d you’d have to teach them anyway?
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
All good points. I also think that Soubry has the right adjectives too. It would be a government of national unity to begin with. So you start with sensible MPs from all parties joining to put forward a moderate Brexit programme. They then vote no confidence in May and ask the queen to allow them to form a government. The formation of the new party follows on from that.
It sounds like what the country needs.
Without being put to the people without with a GE
We had a referendum. If this is the only way its result can be implemented then I don't see the problem.
I do - it would be just wrong
Democracy isn't something you have, it is something you do. We are fortunate in this country that we have two big and well organised parties able to put forward programmes of government and 4 more capable of playing a role in government. (We had 5 until UKIP imploded.) This is all good and us non-partisans should be grateful to the posters on here who give up their time to keep their particular parties on the road.
But sometimes situations arise that the normal configuration can't cope with. We have had national governments in the past in response to economic crises and wars. Brexit is a big enough deal to need a special way of handling it.
There is clearly a Brexit gravitational model at work where the further the poster is from the EU, the more relaxed he is about severe economic upheaval as a result of the terms of Brexit departure.
If claimants were allowed to claim Contribution -based JSA for 12 months - rather than 6 months -as was the case in the 1970s, that alone would add significantly to the headline figures. There would be a similar impact from allowing claims from 16-18 year olds - and from students during vacations as was formerly the case.
It would increase the claimant count, but the ILO figures are the ones you use to look at unemployment numbers on a like for like basis.
I doubt that the ILO data takes account of people working 18 hours per week who wish to be in fulltime jobs.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
On a like for like 1970s basis unemployment would still be circa 2 million before applying the many 'adjustments' made in the 1980s & 1990s.. RPI inflation at over 3% is comparable to the 1960s and the mid-1980s.
I cant see real unemployment where someone actually wants a job being anywhere near 2 million. There are currently hundreds if thousands of job vacancies in the UK. We have been permanently advertising for people here for the last year and get no applications. On the industrial estate where I work just about every business has job vacancy signs on their entrance. I have never ever known anything like this.
But several hundred thousand are underemployed - yet removed from the register because they work more than 16 hours per week. Many others have been coerced by the DWP to declare themselves 'self employed' but earn peanuts.
The ONS disagrees with you here. The vast majority of the growth in employment since 2010 has been full time work.
But that does not contradict my point at all. The fact that most new jobs are full time - and permanent - does not alter the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are forced to work partime - and/or on a temporary basis!
Your knowledge of the motives of thousands of people is astounding not the less so as it backs up your basic narrative. We are all in awe.
I am sure you will get used to it.
Oh the sheer idiocy of it regularly brightens my day.
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
All good points. I also think that Soubry has the right adjectives too. It would be a government of national unity to begin with. So you start with sensible MPs from all parties joining to put forward a moderate Brexit programme. They then vote no confidence in May and ask the queen to allow them to form a government. The formation of the new party follows on from that.
It sounds like what the country needs.
Without being put to the people without with a GE
We had a referendum. If this is the only way its result can be implemented then I don't see the problem.
I do - it would be just wrong
Democracy isn't something you have, it is something you do. We are fortunate in this country that we have two big and well organised parties able to put forward programmes of government and 4 more capable of playing a role in government. (We had 5 until UKIP imploded.) This is all good and us non-partisans should be grateful to the posters on here who give up their time to keep their particular parties on the road.
But sometimes situations arise that the normal configuration can't cope with. We have had national governments in the past in response to economic crises and wars. Brexit is a big enough deal to need a special way of handling it.
Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)
That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
Dick Taverne and Eddie Milne were brief exceptions to that rule. Dave Nellist came close to hanging on in Coventry in 1992 after being deselected. Further back Desmond Donnelly polled nearly 12,000 votes as an Independent in Pembroke in 1970.
Yes, but we remember these exceptions because they're rare. Peter Law in Blaenau Gwent was of a similar situation (though he gained the seat from 'official' Labour, he was essentially the 'home Labour' choice), likewise SO Davies in 1970, nearby in Methyr.
But Nick's main point is right (and even these exceptions tend to testify to that as none survived any length of time): if people are to jump ship then they need to band together, form (or join) a party, and establish a national profile strong enough to transcend the original reason for departure.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
So, real wages are still down on when the Cons took power in 2010? Sure, if you want to take credit for that then go ahead.
Apparently Paisley will not be available to vote until 22nd November.
Under the Recall of MPs Act 2015 we could have a by-election. It needs a petition signed by about 7500 people in North Antrim. Paisley could stand in such a by-election. I've no idea whether this is likely, perhaps some of our Northern Irish correspondents could advise?
It is such a struggle these days to get apprentices. The must stay in education to 18 is completely to blame. In theory it is a good idea but in practice it is awful. Schools get paid for each student they keep till 18 so we now only get 5% of the apprenticeship applications that we did 10 years ago. Interesting. I’d assumed that you’d just pick up the apprentices at 18 instead of 16, and they’d have spent the last two years doing the physics and maths bits of electrics that’d you’d have to teach them anyway?
18 is too late to fully access the Government funding for the apprenticeship. It is a four year apprenticeship and they do day release at college one day a week where they learn the physics and maths stuff whilst getting paid. At 21 once qualified they will easily earn £40k plus per year. Unfortunately far too may 16-17 year olds stay on at School and do completely pointless Geography A- levels. The School does not care though as they get the Government funding.
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
All good points. I also think that Soubry has the right adjectives too. It would be a government of national unity to begin with. So you start with sensible MPs from all parties joining to put forward a moderate Brexit programme. They then vote no confidence in May and ask the queen to allow them to form a government. The formation of the new party follows on from that.
It sounds like what the country needs.
Without being put to the people without with a GE
We had a referendum. If this is the only way its result can be implemented then I don't see the problem.
I do - it would be just wrong
Democracy isn't something you have, it is something you do. We are fortunate in this country that we have two big and well organised parties able to put forward programmes of government and 4 more capable of playing a role in government. (We had 5 until UKIP imploded.) This is all good and us non-partisans should be grateful to the posters on here who give up their time to keep their particular parties on the road.
But sometimes situations arise that the normal configuration can't cope with. We have had national governments in the past in response to economic crises and wars. Brexit is a big enough deal to need a special way of handling it.
Funny how Soubry wasn't interested in a Govt. of National Unity when she was hoping to get her amendments through the House. Now she has been on the wrong end of a drubbing, it's "How about we call it a draw?"
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
“I personally would abandon the Labour frontbench and I would reach beyond it and I would encompass Plaid Cymru, the SNP and other sensible, pragmatic people who believe in putting this country’s interests first and foremost,” she said.
The willingness to talk to the SNP - perhaps she's already done so? - changes the maths.
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
All good points. I also think that Soubry has the right adjectives too. It would be a government of national unity to begin with. So you start with sensible MPs from all parties joining to put forward a moderate Brexit programme. They then vote no confidence in May and ask the queen to allow them to form a government. The formation of the new party follows on from that...
And who would lead such an effort ?
One of the reasons all three main parties are in the mess they are is the leadership vacuum. Starting with a glorified committee meeting would likely see any such arrangement stillborn.
Looks like currystar took the BBC's incorrectly reported figure instead of the source.
Edit: Could be my confusion between CPIH and some other CPI.
The correct source further enhances my point. Does anyone think that the Government should get any credit for this incredible economic performance or is this performance absolutely nothing to do with the Government ?
So, real wages are still down on when the Cons took power in 2010? Sure, if you want to take credit for that then go ahead.
If claimants were allowed to claim Contribution -based JSA for 12 months - rather than 6 months -as was the case in the 1970s, that alone would add significantly to the headline figures. There would be a similar impact from allowing claims from 16-18 year olds - and from students during vacations as was formerly the case.
It would increase the claimant count, but the ILO figures are the ones you use to look at unemployment numbers on a like for like basis.
I doubt that the ILO data takes account of people working 18 hours per week who wish to be in fulltime jobs.
The ILO data is generally excellent, and tracks employment rates, part time, and self employment.
Just because you don't like the answers it gives, doesn't mean it's wrong.
Barrow and Furness is probably number one on the Tories target list now.
A general issue for people defecting from their parties is that unless they get backing from a different party, as Artist suggests, they are almost certainly doomed as the electorate is massive polarised. Neither John Woodcock nor Anna Soubry would IMO have any chance of re-election if they were opposed by both Tory and Labour candidates (and AS has zero chance of Labour endorsement). (I expect AS to get her party's selection again if she wants it. John W, not so much.)
That means that people who are happy to jump to another party have a fair chance of survival, jumping to an independent position is a bridge to oblivion, unless an entirely new and successful party is formed. That's the main reason we're not seeing it happen often.
Dick Taverne and Eddie Milne were brief exceptions to that rule. Dave Nellist came close to hanging on in Coventry in 1992 after being deselected. Further back Desmond Donnelly polled nearly 12,000 votes as an Independent in Pembroke in 1970.
Yes, but we remember these exceptions because they're rare. Peter Law in Blaenau Gwent was of a similar situation (though he gained the seat from 'official' Labour, he was essentially the 'home Labour' choice), likewise SO Davies in 1970, nearby in Methyr.
But Nick's main point is right (and even these exceptions tend to testify to that as none survived any length of time): if people are to jump ship then they need to band together, form (or join) a party, and establish a national profile strong enough to transcend the original reason for departure.
I do agree - but then deselections are themselves quite rare.
In the light of this morning's conversation about a new party, this is quite an interesting quote from Soubry's Today programme interview:
A loose alliance of (let's say) the new Centre party, the LibDems, Plaid and the SNP would be fighting the next election with 150 incumbents. Retaining at least half of those would seem plausible and I suspect they could hope to do much, much better.
There's the question of how toxic the SNP is to English voters. My sense is that centrists are less offended by it than the extremes of either main party, so an alliance may not offend that many of the Centre party's potential voters - but that's just supposition. (And of course there's a few LD/SNP battlegrounds and an LD/Plaid one, which probably rules out a formal alliance but not a loose understanding. I could see a Centre party deciding not to fight in Scotland at all.)
All good points. I also think that Soubry has the right adjectives too. It would be a government of national unity to begin with. So you start with sensible MPs from all parties joining to put forward a moderate Brexit programme. They then vote no confidence in May and ask the queen to allow them to form a government. The formation of the new party follows on from that.
It sounds like what the country needs.
Without being put to the people without with a GE
We had a referendum. If this is the only way its result can be implemented then I don't see the problem.
I do - it would be just wrong
Democracy isn't something you have, it is something you do. We are fortunate in this country that we have two big and well organised parties able to put forward programmes of government and 4 more capable of playing a role in government. (We had 5 until UKIP imploded.) This is all good and us non-partisans should be grateful to the posters on here who give up their time to keep their particular parties on the road.
But sometimes situations arise that the normal configuration can't cope with. We have had national governments in the past in response to economic crises and wars. Brexit is a big enough deal to need a special way of handling it.
The MP must be answerable to his/her constituents
And funnily enough I am just about to write to my MP to thank him for opposing the government on the European Medicines Agency amendment or to admonish him for putting party loyalty above common sense. I just need to find out which he did.
Comments
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1019471467304513537
Whatever problems you might think that Theresa May has they are as nothing compared to the extinction of Fine Gael that would follow them accepting that.
Some awareness of the politics and history of your counterparts in a negotiation is required to reach a successful agreement.
2018 Electrician Hourly Rate £18.50
Real world figures, not some ONS nonsense.
Rates of employment among people of working age are higher than in the 1970's.
For those people life is brilliant and anything that might disturb that brilliance is an existential threat, whereas for most people a shakeup of the status quo is long overdue and seen as an opportunity for future growth.
Yes there are some parallels, but nothing the Tories have done is at the same scale/level as the Republicans IMO.
NEWSFLASH: The European Commission has fined Google €4.34bn for breaching EU antitrust rules.
The tech giant is being sanctioned for abusing its dominant position in the Android operating system for mobile phones.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/jul/18/uk-inflation-cost-of-living-wages-google-fine-fed-chair-business-live
I was quite surprised at how few outright derogatory remarks there were about Woodcock and the downright silence about anything complimentary, which I put down to "he's our MP, love him or hate him, we will support him" outlook, but of the few I did find, again from May:
"I feel your MP is doing more to harm Labour than any Conservative, Lib Dem, UKIP or Green candidate could ever do"
"Spot on there and local members feel the same. Many of us loathe him but taking the next steps is a big decision"
"I am trying to help people who are affected by the many cuts to public services including the most vulnerable in our society. I tell the vulnerable a better world is out there and under Mr Corbyn we may achieve this. Then this man continually helps the Conservatives attack Mr Corbyn he is a disgrace to the Labour Party. He needs to decide who he is working for the Labour Party or the Conservatives"
Politicians often are convinced that they have a big personal mandate, but it is rarely true. Even anti-Corbyn MPs like Liz Kendall or the scandal ridden Keith Vaz got much the same swing as national polling suggested.
Or who doesn't have 2+ years experience doing the job being advertised.
It sounds like what the country needs.
It's all part of the cultural snobbishness we have in this country about people employed in work that involves getting the hands dirty, which is also seen in the obsession with grammar schools.
On the other hand... Peter Law.
Again, the far right could rise in such circumstances.
Neither of the above is the only sensible answer.
But sometimes situations arise that the normal configuration can't cope with. We have had national governments in the past in response to economic crises and wars. Brexit is a big enough deal to need a special way of handling it.
But Nick's main point is right (and even these exceptions tend to testify to that as none survived any length of time): if people are to jump ship then they need to band together, form (or join) a party, and establish a national profile strong enough to transcend the original reason for departure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Antrim_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
It is such a struggle these days to get apprentices. The must stay in education to 18 is completely to blame. In theory it is a good idea but in practice it is awful. Schools get paid for each student they keep till 18 so we now only get 5% of the apprenticeship applications that we did 10 years ago.
Interesting. I’d assumed that you’d just pick up the apprentices at 18 instead of 16, and they’d have spent the last two years doing the physics and maths bits of electrics that’d you’d have to teach them anyway?
18 is too late to fully access the Government funding for the apprenticeship. It is a four year apprenticeship and they do day release at college one day a week where they learn the physics and maths stuff whilst getting paid. At 21 once qualified they will easily earn £40k plus per year. Unfortunately far too may 16-17 year olds stay on at School and do completely pointless Geography A- levels. The School does not care though as they get the Government funding.
One of the reasons all three main parties are in the mess they are is the leadership vacuum. Starting with a glorified committee meeting would likely see any such arrangement stillborn.
Just because you don't like the answers it gives, doesn't mean it's wrong.
Good afternoon, everybody.