Mr. Sandpit, I partly disagree. At some races earlier on, Hamilton seemed out of sorts, lacklustre, and a bit off the pace. Since then, Vettel's made some mistakes/misjudgements and Hamilton has not. In my last F1 blog, I mentioned this as Vettel's head letting him down and, earlier, Hamilton's heart doing likewise.
Things should be closer than they are.
Hardly surprising when you think that Ferrari (and Vettel) should have won both Monza and Singapore - and in both cases the race was lost in Saturday Qualifying. I was going to say by mistakes by Vettel but Hamilton's Singapore lap was something special...
Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.
If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.
What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.
I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.
The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.
But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.
Which is why May aides were reported in the Sunday Times to be planning a November general election to get a Tory overall majority for a Canada style FTA with a customs union backstop for Northrrn Ireland. If the Tories got an overall majority in the UK they would no longer be reliant on the DUP blocking the backstop and the backstop could be agreed and the EU would then agree to the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which the FTA could be negotiated
As Dominic Rabb said yesterday that story is for the birds - not going to happen.
Why do you jump on every bit of journalistic licence and take it as an authentic story.
Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.
If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.
What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.
I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.
The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.
But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.
Which is why May aides were reported in the Sunday Times to be planning a November general election to get a Tory overall majority for a Canada style FTA with a customs union backstop for Northrrn Ireland. If the Tories got an overall majority in the UK they would no longer be reliant on the DUP blocking the backstop and the backstop could be agreed and the EU would then agree to the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which the FTA could be negotiated
As Dominic Rabb said yesterday that story is for the birds - not going to happen.
Why do you jump on every bit of journalistic licence and take it as an authentic story.
Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.
If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.
What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.
I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.
The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.
But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.
Which is why May aides were reported in the Sunday Times to be planning a November general election to get a Tory overall majority for a Canada style FTA with a customs union backstop for Northrrn Ireland. If the Tories got an overall majority in the UK they would no longer be reliant on the DUP blocking the backstop and the backstop could be agreed and the EU would then agree to the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which the FTA could be negotiated
If she did that, she would lose because it would expose her as an utter liar - she has said 'no PM would ever accept' the NI CU backstop so how the hell would she fight an election on that?
Also, it would just be an election on the single topic that she made a mistake agreeing to the backstop in the first place.
Luckily, like a lot we see, this is just lazy journalism. Last week the press were busy proclaiming a secret deal had been done with the EU - the press are full of it.
Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.
If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.
What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.
I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.
The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.
But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.
Which is why May aides were reported in the Sunday Times to be planning a November general election to get a Tory overall majority for a Canada style FTA with a customs union backstop for Northrrn Ireland. If the Tories got an overall majority in the UK they would no longer be reliant on the DUP blocking the backstop and the backstop could be agreed and the EU would then agree to the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which the FTA could be negotiated
As Dominic Rabb said yesterday that story is for the birds - not going to happen.
Why do you jump on every bit of journalistic licence and take it as an authentic story.
To avoid No Deal it may have to happen
Too big a risk for any government to currently take...
Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.
If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.
What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.
I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.
The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.
But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.
Which is why May aides were reported in the Sunday Times to be planning a November general election to get a Tory overall majority for a Canada style FTA with a customs union backstop for Northrrn Ireland. If the Tories got an overall majority in the UK they would no longer be reliant on the DUP blocking the backstop and the backstop could be agreed and the EU would then agree to the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which the FTA could be negotiated
As Dominic Rabb said yesterday that story is for the birds - not going to happen.
Why do you jump on every bit of journalistic licence and take it as an authentic story.
Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.
If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.
What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.
I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.
The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.
But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.
Which is why May aides were reported in the Sunday Times to be planning a November general election to get a Tory overall majority for a Canada style FTA with a customs union backstop for Northrrn Ireland. If the Tories got an overall majority in the UK they would no longer be reliant on the DUP blocking the backstop and the backstop could be agreed and the EU would then agree to the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which the FTA could be negotiated
Madness. We’d lose.
The only way it could be worse is if she called it the ‘Who Governs Britain’ election.
Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.
I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.
McDonnell's shares plan would sfaict apply to large companies. Start-ups were encouraged to give share options to staff back in the last century. Charles would know if that is still commonplace.
Options. For purchase at value.
Sometimes people should read and think before posting.
Do I take it you never made a pile of cash on your options? Options to purchase at 10p shares which are, after the expected growth (or takeover bid) now worth £5 (or worth nothing because the company's gone bust).
McDonnell's plan is tweaked right wing orthodoxy and once the knee-jerking has stopped, I'd not be surprised if May and Hammond don't shoot Labour's fox by adopting something along the same lines.
Who do you think I work for and why do you think (a) it's listed; (b) it issues options, (c) those options would not be taxed at vesting value on the option being issued and not exercised. The plan is nothing like right wing orthodoxy. Next you'll be saying that the Labour 2017 prospectus was properly and accurately costed.
If she did that, she would lose because it would expose her as an utter liar - she has said 'no PM would ever accept' the NI CU backstop so how the hell would she fight an election on that?
Also, it would just be an election on the single topic that she made a mistake agreeing to the backstop in the first place.
Luckily, like a lot we see, this is just lazy journalism. Last week the press were busy proclaiming a secret deal had been done with the EU - the press are full of it.
Anyone who cares already knows she's a liar. She lied about whether she'd hold the last election, she lied about Chequers. She's going to do plenty more lying before this thing is over, because she can't possibly deliver what she promised.
At the end of the day the opposition is Jeremy Corbyn, she has a lot of latitude.
Can someone from Labour explain what problem(s) they're trying to solve with this employee ownership proposal ?
I haven't looked at the answer in detail, but the question is "how can we reverse the imbalance in profits being distributed between worker and capitalist?"
Bezos is one of the richest men in the world, while most of his workforce is casual labour on the minimum wage, And his commpany pays very little tax. I am not convinced Labour have the right answer, but thay are at least asking the right question.
Technically the people in Amazon's warehouses are not his workforce but employed by agencies...
The same problem affects all those wheezes to limit C-suite pay to 10 times the lowest paid workers'. In practice, you'd just be passing a law to outsource the cleaners.
I reckon the proportion of that 8% that know what CETA is is very small.
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally and when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.
If you do that.
What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.
I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.
The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.
But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.
Which is why May aides were reported in the Sunday Times to be planning a November general election to get a Tory overall majority for a Canada style FTA with a customs union backstop for Northrrn Ireland. If the Tories got an overall majority in the UK they would no longer be reliant on the DUP blocking the backstop and the backstop could be agreed and the EU would then agree to the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which the FTA could be negotiated
If she did that, she would lose because it would expose her as an utter liar - she has said 'no PM would ever accept' the NI CU backstop so how the hell would she fight an election on that?
Also, it would just be an election on the single topic that she made a mistake agreeing to the backstop in the first place.
Luckily, like a lot we see, this is just lazy journalism. Last week the press were busy proclaiming a secret deal had been done with the EU - the press are full of it.
May accepted the backstop. In fact, she had accepted one even closer to what the EU27 originally wanted before the DUP threatened blood and gore.
If she did that, she would lose because it would expose her as an utter liar - she has said 'no PM would ever accept' the NI CU backstop so how the hell would she fight an election on that?
Also, it would just be an election on the single topic that she made a mistake agreeing to the backstop in the first place.
Luckily, like a lot we see, this is just lazy journalism. Last week the press were busy proclaiming a secret deal had been done with the EU - the press are full of it.
Anyone who cares already knows she's a liar. She lied about whether she'd hold the last election, she lied about Chequers. She's going to do plenty more lying before this thing is over, because she can't possibly deliver what she promised.
At the end of the day the opposition is Jeremy Corbyn, she has a lot of latitude.
A very astute post as usual. I watched Len McClusky and John McDonnell take centre stage yesterday and knew that there's nothing Corbyn could ever do that would end up with him being PM. They're the past and they're poison.
So, basically, McDonnell has joined right-wing Brexiteers in saying Fuck Business. Once, both the Tories and Labour believed in wealth creation - the former to allow tax cuts, the latter to enable redistribution. Those days are long gone. The hole in the centre of British politics is becoming a chasm.
Hammond's upcoming Budget will not remotely be a "fuck business" Budget. Quit the hyperbole.
McDonnells first would though.
Hammond will not be around for very much longer. I do agree, though, that he is one of the very few front-line Tories who still believes that wealth creation is a front and centre issue (though I disagree with his methods).
I reckon the proportion of that 8% that know what CETA is is very small.
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally and when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
All you need to know is that most Leavers hate the EU with a capital H, and anything that seems to be a bit closer to the EU is automatically to be condemned and anything that seems to be relatively further away is automatically to be welcomed.
The details don't matter, only the mood music does.
Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.
If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.
What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.
I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.
The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.
But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.
Which is why May aides were reported in the Sunday Times to be planning a November general election to get a Tory overall majority for a Canada style FTA with a customs union backstop for Northrrn Ireland. If the Tories got an overall majority in the UK they would no longer be reliant on the DUP blocking the backstop and the backstop could be agreed and the EU would then agree to the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which the FTA could be negotiated
Madness. We’d lose.
The only way it could be worse is if she called it the ‘Who Governs Britain’ election.
LOL.
I remember the answer to that one - 'You don't, mate'.
Can someone from Labour explain what problem(s) they're trying to solve with this employee ownership proposal ?
I haven't looked at the answer in detail, but the question is "how can we reverse the imbalance in profits being distributed between worker and capitalist?"
Bezos is one of the richest men in the world, while most of his workforce is casual labour on the minimum wage, And his commpany pays very little tax. I am not convinced Labour have the right answer, but thay are at least asking the right question.
Technically the people in Amazon's warehouses are not his workforce but employed by agencies...
I reckon the proportion of that 8% that know what CETA is is very small.
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally and when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
All you need to know is that most Leavers hate the EU with a capital H, and anything that seems to be a bit closer to the EU is automatically to be condemned and anything that seems to be relatively further away is automatically to be welcomed.
The details don't matter, only the mood music does.
So, basically, McDonnell has joined right-wing Brexiteers in saying Fuck Business. Once, both the Tories and Labour believed in wealth creation - the former to allow tax cuts, the latter to enable redistribution. Those days are long gone. The hole in the centre of British politics is becoming a chasm.
From the Bankers via BHS to the Tech giants much of business is widely regarded as being parasitical on society.
With a trail of unpaid taxes, redundant workers, wiped out shareholders and empty pension funds whilst an executive oligarchy take all the wealth.
Mike says: if May "survives the confidence vote, even by just one vote, then there can be no further challenge for a year". True, but May would surely not cling on with a one vote majority. My guess is that she would want to win a confidence vote by at least 60/40 to stay on.
Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.
I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.
McDonnell's shares plan would sfaict apply to large companies. Start-ups were encouraged to give share options to staff back in the last century. Charles would know if that is still commonplace.
Options. For purchase at value.
Sometimes people should read and think before posting.
Do I take it you never made a pile of cash on your options? Options to purchase at 10p shares which are, after the expected growth (or takeover bid) now worth £5 (or worth nothing because the company's gone bust).
McDonnell's plan is tweaked right wing orthodoxy and once the knee-jerking has stopped, I'd not be surprised if May and Hammond don't shoot Labour's fox by adopting something along the same lines.
Who do you think I work for and why do you think (a) it's listed; (b) it issues options, (c) those options would not be taxed at vesting value on the option being issued and not exercised. The plan is nothing like right wing orthodoxy. Next you'll be saying that the Labour 2017 prospectus was properly and accurately costed.
Next I'll be saying the Labour manifesto was a damn sight better costed than the Conservative one. Unless that is you've found the small print where the Conservatives laid out the hundreds of billions of pounds to be lost or gained by their flagship Brexit policy. Or indeed any other numbers.
McDonnell's plan is very much like right wing orthodoxy. Try a thought experiment. Imagine Philip Hammond, Theresa May or even Margaret Thatcher standing up at conference and opening with, we plan to extend the benefits of share ownership to everyone, reduce strikes by turning workers into owners, and turn Britain into a share-owning democracy.
Not so hard to imagine, is it? The rhetoric would be very, very different from Labour's but the core policy would look similar.
I reckon the proportion of that 8% that know what CETA is is very small.
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally and when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
I think underestimating the public mood is a dangerous notion for politicians. But anyway, thepublic at large do, however, understand how to read the mood music.
If something is too much of a fudge for many of those who advocated Leave, and those, like Baker and Davis, who have been trying to find a way through the EU’s red lines and our own, then it is not perceived as properly leaving.
Labour have the rather incredible policy of demanding a general election so that they can sort out Brexit - while deliberately having no policy for how they might do that.
Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.
I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.
McDonnell's shares plan would sfaict apply to large companies. Start-ups were encouraged to give share options to staff back in the last century. Charles would know if that is still commonplace.
Options. For purchase at value.
Sometimes people should read and think before posting.
Do I take it you never made a pile of cash on your options? Options to purchase at 10p shares which are, after the expected growth (or takeover bid) now worth £5 (or worth nothing because the company's gone bust).
McDonnell's plan is tweaked right wing orthodoxy and once the knee-jerking has stopped, I'd not be surprised if May and Hammond don't shoot Labour's fox by adopting something along the same lines.
Who do you think I work for and why do you think (a) it's listed; (b) it issues options, (c) those options would not be taxed at vesting value on the option being issued and not exercised. The plan is nothing like right wing orthodoxy. Next you'll be saying that the Labour 2017 prospectus was properly and accurately costed.
Next I'll be saying the Labour manifesto was a damn sight better costed than the Conservative one. Unless that is you've found the small print where the Conservatives laid out the hundreds of billions of pounds to be lost or gained by their flagship Brexit policy. Or indeed any other numbers.
McDonnell's plan is very much like right wing orthodoxy. Try a thought experiment. Imagine Philip Hammond, Theresa May or even Margaret Thatcher standing up at conference and opening with, we plan to extend the benefits of share ownership to everyone, reduce strikes by turning workers into owners, and turn Britain into a share-owning democracy.
Not so hard to imagine, is it? The rhetoric would be very, very different from Labour's but the core policy would look similar.
Good theory but when 80% of the economy is in public ownership who will it benefit?
I reckon the proportion of that 8% that know what CETA is is very small.
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally and when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
All you need to know is that most Leavers hate the EU with a capital H, and anything that seems to be a bit closer to the EU is automatically to be condemned and anything that seems to be relatively further away is automatically to be welcomed.
The details don't matter, only the mood music does.
Asked whether they thought the gender pay gap was “women as a whole being paid less on average than men as a whole” or “women being paid less than men for doing the same job”, only 30% correctly chose the former option. By contrast, close to two thirds (64%) incorrectly chose the latter answer, which is specifically about equal pay (in this the failure to do so).
Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.
If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.
What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.
I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.
The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.
But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.
Which is why May aides were reported in the Sunday Times to be planning a November general election to get a Tory overall majority for a Canada style FTA with a customs union backstop for Northrrn Ireland. If the Tories got an overall majority in the UK they would no longer be reliant on the DUP blocking the backstop and the backstop could be agreed and the EU would then agree to the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which the FTA could be negotiated
Madness. We’d lose.
The only way it could be worse is if she called it the ‘Who Governs Britain’ election.
The Tories still got most votes in that election and 5 years later returned to power and were in for 18 years
Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.
If you do that.
What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.
I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.
The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.
But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.
Which is why May aides were reported in the Sunday Times to be planning a November general election to get a Tory overall majority for a Canada style FTA with a customs union backstop for Northrrn Ireland. If the Tories got an overall majority in the UK they would no longer be reliant on the DUP blocking the backstop and the backstop could be agreed and the EU would then agree to the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which the FTA could be negotiated
If she did that, she would lose because it would expose her as an utter liar - she has said 'no PM would ever accept' the NI CU backstop so how the hell would she fight an election on that?
Also, it would just be an election on the single topic that she made a mistake agreeing to the backstop in the first place.
Luckily, like a lot we see, this is just lazy journalism. Last week the press were busy proclaiming a secret deal had been done with the EU - the press are full of it.
May accepted the backstop. In fact, she had accepted one even closer to what the EU27 originally wanted before the DUP threatened blood and gore.
...when she thought the EU were negotiating in good faith.
Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.
I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.
McDonnell's shares plan would sfaict apply to large companies. Start-ups were encouraged to give share options to staff back in the last century. Charles would know if that is still commonplace.
Options. For purchase at value.
Sometimes people should read and think before posting.
Do I take it you never made a pile of cash on your options? Options to purchase at 10p shares which are, after the expected growth (or takeover bid) now worth £5 (or worth nothing because the company's gone bust).
McDonnell's plan is tweaked right wing orthodoxy and once the knee-jerking has stopped, I'd not be surprised if May and Hammond don't shoot Labour's fox by adopting something along the same lines.
Who do you think I work for and why do you think (a) it's listed; (b) it issues options, (c) those options would not be taxed at vesting value on the option being issued and not exercised. The plan is nothing like right wing orthodoxy. Next you'll be saying that the Labour 2017 prospectus was properly and accurately costed.
Next I'll be saying the Labour manifesto was a damn sight better costed than the Conservative one. Unless that is you've found the small print where the Conservatives laid out the hundreds of billions of pounds to be lost or gained by their flagship Brexit policy. Or indeed any other numbers.
McDonnell's plan is very much like right wing orthodoxy. Try a thought experiment. Imagine Philip Hammond, Theresa May or even Margaret Thatcher standing up at conference and opening with, we plan to extend the benefits of share ownership to everyone, reduce strikes by turning workers into owners, and turn Britain into a share-owning democracy.
Not so hard to imagine, is it? The rhetoric would be very, very different from Labour's but the core policy would look similar.
Good theory but when 80% of the economy is in public ownership who will it benefit?
Maybe it's because I work in a business (and sector) where the ownership is already distributed widely among many of the workers but I can't work up too much horror for the idea that 10% of large businesses should be compulsorily shared among the workforce. Seems a perfectly sensible idea to me.
I reckon the proportion of that 8% that know what CETA is is very small.
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally and when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
The median voter according to every poll wants out of the EU but also a FTA with the EU and not no deal, only Canada delivers that
Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.
If you do that.
What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.
I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.
The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.
But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.
Which is why May aides were reported in the Sunday Times to be planning a November general election to get a Tory overall majority for a Canada style FTA with a customs union backstop for Northrrn Ireland. If the Tories got an overall majority in the UK they would no longer be reliant on the DUP blocking the backstop and the backstop could be agreed and the EU would then agree to the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which the FTA could be negotiated
If she did that, she would lose because it would expose her as an utter liar - she has said 'no PM would ever accept' the NI CU backstop so how the hell would she fight an election on that?
Also, it would just be an election on the single topic that she made a mistake agreeing to the backstop in the first place.
Luckily, like a lot we see, this is just lazy journalism. Last week the press were busy proclaiming a secret deal had been done with the EU - the press are full of it.
May accepted the backstop. In fact, she had accepted one even closer to what the EU27 originally wanted before the DUP threatened blood and gore.
...when she thought the EU were negotiating in good faith.
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
The point being she is lying when she says that no British PM can accept what the EU suggested. She already did - twice.
Mike says: if May "survives the confidence vote, even by just one vote, then there can be no further challenge for a year". True, but May would surely not cling on with a one vote majority. My guess is that she would want to win a confidence vote by at least 60/40 to stay on.
And she would - probably by a larger margin.
However, the more significant comment this weekend was from Nicky Morgan who stated that TM will not lead into the next GE. It is clear she is being kept in place to agree Brexit and then to announce her resignation, with her continuing in the role until her successor is elected through the 3 month election process in the party
I would suggest May/June 2019 as the most likely announcement meaning a new leader ( and PM) in place for the return of Parliament in September 2019.
2019 must now be the favourite for her leaving office
So, basically, McDonnell has joined right-wing Brexiteers in saying Fuck Business. Once, both the Tories and Labour believed in wealth creation - the former to allow tax cuts, the latter to enable redistribution. Those days are long gone. The hole in the centre of British politics is becoming a chasm.
From the Bankers via BHS to the Tech giants much of business is widely regarded as being parasitical on society.
With a trail of unpaid taxes, redundant workers, wiped out shareholders and empty pension funds whilst an executive oligarchy take all the wealth.
Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.
If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government 't do that.
What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous o Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.
I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.
The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.
But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.
Which is why May aides were reported in the Sunday Times to be planning a November general election to get a Tory overall majority for a Canada style FTA with a customs union backstop for Northrrn Ireland. If the Tories got an overall majority in the UK they would no longer be reliant on the DUP blocking the backstop and the backstop could be agreed and the EU would then agree to the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which the FTA could be negotiated
If she did that, she would lose because it would expose her as an utter liar - she has said 'no PM would ever accept' the NI CU backstop so how the hell would she fight an election on that?
Also, it would just be an election on the single topic that she made a mistake agreeing to the backstop in the first place.
Luckily, like a lot we see, this is just lazy journalism. Last week the press were busy proclaiming a secret deal had been done with the EU - the press are full of it.
The backstop is the only way to get the EU to agree a transition deal and CETA negotiations.
I think most Tories would prefer to try and get a mandate for CETA than stay in government with No Deal, myself included.
Better to go into opposition then and let Corbyn deal with Brexit as PM whether as a second EU referendum or trying to reopen negotiations, he would almost certainly only be PM propped up by minor parties anyway
So, basically, McDonnell has joined right-wing Brexiteers in saying Fuck Business. Once, both the Tories and Labour believed in wealth creation - the former to allow tax cuts, the latter to enable redistribution. Those days are long gone. The hole in the centre of British politics is becoming a chasm.
From the Bankers via BHS to the Tech giants much of business is widely regarded as being parasitical on society.
With a trail of unpaid taxes, redundant workers, wiped out shareholders and empty pension funds whilst an executive oligarchy take all the wealth.
And your alternative system is?
And when capitalism fails it makes the news. Most businesses in the U.K. are SMEs who pay staff well and pay their taxes.
I reckon the proportion of that 8% that know what CETA is is very small.
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally and when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
The median voter according to every poll wants out of the EU but also a FTA with the EU and not no deal, only Canada delivers that
So you are happy for an Irish sea border. TM and Corbyn yesterday ruled that out comprehensively.
Please explain how you intend resolving that as no one so far has come up with the solution. Indeed that is the impasse
I reckon the proportion of that 8% that know what CETA is is very small.
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally and when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
The median voter according to every poll wants out of the EU but also a FTA with the EU and not no deal, only Canada delivers that
So you are happy for an Irish sea border. TM and Corbyn yesterday ruled that out comprehensively.
Please explain how you intend resolving that as no one so far has come up with the solution. Indeed that is the impasse
That is the whole point of the election, to get a mandate for CETA without need for DUP
Maybe it's because I work in a business (and sector) where the ownership is already distributed widely among many of the workers but I can't work up too much horror for the idea that 10% of large businesses should be compulsorily shared among the workforce. Seems a perfectly sensible idea to me.
Alastair, look at the detail.
It’s not really being shared amongst the workforce. It’s being put in a trust, in which individuals have no control over their shares, voting rights over which will be controlled by friends of Jeremy, and any dividend over £500 goes straight to the state. There’s no suggestion that the % will be different for companies that are worth £5mn or £5bn.
It’s a massive disincentive for any large business to base itself in Britain.
So, basically, McDonnell has joined right-wing Brexiteers in saying Fuck Business. Once, both the Tories and Labour believed in wealth creation - the former to allow tax cuts, the latter to enable redistribution. Those days are long gone. The hole in the centre of British politics is becoming a chasm.
From the Bankers via BHS to the Tech giants much of business is widely regarded as being parasitical on society.
With a trail of unpaid taxes, redundant workers, wiped out shareholders and empty pension funds whilst an executive oligarchy take all the wealth.
And your alternative system is?
Well to start with I'd look into ending the block vote when it comes to executive remuneration and how about a law that means the executives of bankrupt companies get no more than statutory redundancy pay rather than Fred Goodwin style payoffs from the taxpayer.
I've even got a phrase to sum these ideas up - "We're all in this together".
Maybe it's because I work in a business (and sector) where the ownership is already distributed widely among many of the workers but I can't work up too much horror for the idea that 10% of large businesses should be compulsorily shared among the workforce. Seems a perfectly sensible idea to me.
It isn’t like a straight share scheme though. There is a also a sneaky tax in there on the business worth £600m a year according to McDonnells figures. For big companies it won’t make much of a difference (and most already offer compensation packages with shares) but it affects even companies with only 250 workers.
Also as a worker you can't sell you shares. So does that mean every new employee gets shares and the worker ownership gets greater and greater over time? And will this be top of standard share scheme that big companies offer?
Also you setup a business and when you reach 250 workers you are going to be a) forced to give away 10% of your business and b) pay more tax. That is going to make it harder to get seed money from angel investors.
I reckon the proportion of that 8% that know what CETA is is very small.
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally and when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
The median voter according to every poll wants out of the EU but also a FTA with the EU and not no deal, only Canada delivers that
So you are happy for an Irish sea border. TM and Corbyn yesterday ruled that out comprehensively.
Please explain how you intend resolving that as no one so far has come up with the solution. Indeed that is the impasse
That is the whole point of the election, to get a mandate for CETA without need for DUP
Really - TM and Corbyn have stated no Prime Minister could ever agree to the Irish sea border
You also are blind to Norway ++ which has many fans
And if you think another GE will resolve Brexit you are in fairy land
Not particularly surprising. War is the midwife of revolution, but if you can't get a war, a car-crash Brexit is pretty much the closest thing you can do in peacetime.
And if you think another GE will resolve Brexit you are in fairy land
There's no way to "resolve" Brexit but there's a good chance a new election would get the DUP out of the critical path one way or another, which would make it substantially easier.
This is a big moment. The Labour leadership has decided to bet everything on a Tory Brexit deal or No Deal being electoral poison. They are going directly against the express wishes of the membership to do this. If they turn out to have called it wrong, they are finished. At last, a positive from Brexit!!
This is a big moment. The Labour leadership has decided to bet everything on a Tory Brexit deal or No Deal being electoral poison. They are going directly against the express wishes of the membership to do this. If they turn out to have called it wrong, they are finished. At last, a positive from Brexit!!
It's as if they aren't as anti-brexit as lots of the cult have somehow convinced themselves they are.
And if you think another GE will resolve Brexit you are in fairy land
There's no way to "resolve" Brexit but there's a good chance a new election would get the DUP out of the critical path one way or another, which would make it substantially easier.
I am not even sure that is true. There is no indication another GE will produce much change in the HOC but certainly if TM called one Brenda of Bristol would go crazy
I reckon the proportion of that 8% that know what CETA is is very small.
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally and when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
The median voter according to every poll wants out of the EU but also a FTA with the EU and not no deal, only Canada delivers that
So you are happy for an Irish sea border. TM and Corbyn yesterday ruled that out comprehensively.
Please explain how you intend resolving that as no one so far has come up with the solution. Indeed that is the impasse
That is the whole point of the election, to get a mandate for CETA without need for DUP
Really - TM and Corbyn have stated no Prime Minister could ever agree to the Irish sea border
You also are blind to Norway ++ which has many fans
And if you think another GE will resolve Brexit you are in fairy land
The idea that someone who has supported for 40+ years handing N Ireland over to the Republic will oppose an Irish Sea border seems optimistic. In as far as Corbyn opposes that border as a Brexit solution, it's an entirely tactical (though not entirely coherent) response aimed at retaining the current EU-UK status quo on borders.
This McDonnell position may not last. Out of the three of Corbyn, Mcluskey and McDonnell the leader was decidedly the most ambiguous.
He's also the most consensually driven within the party of the three, and the reaction to this from their hundreds of thousands of new members, mainly young and idealistically driven, is going to be ferocious.
McDonnell should have concealed his glee until Wednesday. I wonder if efforts will be made to amend the motion on the floor of Conference?
Any chance Nick Palmer or someone familiar with Labour internal procedures could tell use what would be involved in this - who would have to do what, who are the veto players etc.
I reckon the proportion of that 8% that know what CETA is is very small.
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally and when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
The median voter according to every poll wants out of the EU but also a FTA with the EU and not no deal, only Canada delivers that
So you are happy for an Irish sea border. TM and Corbyn yesterday ruled that out comprehensively.
Please explain how you intend resolving that as no one so far has come up with the solution. Indeed that is the impasse
That is the whole point of the election, to get a mandate for CETA without need for DUP
Really - TM and Corbyn have stated no Prime Minister could ever agree to the Irish sea border
You also are blind to Norway ++ which has many fans
And if you think another GE will resolve Brexit you are in fairy land
May did agree to an Irish Sea border. She then rowed back because the DUP threatened her.
This McDonnell position may not last. Out of the three of Corbyn, Mcluskey and McDonnell the leader was decidedly the most ambiguous.
He's also the most consensually driven within the party of the three, and the reaction to this from their hundreds of thousands of new members, mainly young and idealistically driven, is going to be ferocious.
McCluskey, McDonnell and others yesterday were all of the opinion a referendum had to be on the deal not rejoin. It is consistent with their mad cap economic policies
Maybe it's because I work in a business (and sector) where the ownership is already distributed widely among many of the workers but I can't work up too much horror for the idea that 10% of large businesses should be compulsorily shared among the workforce. Seems a perfectly sensible idea to me.
I'm not sure that a LLP (where most of the workers will not have ownership rights, and even those that do can find themselves circumscribed in objectively surprising ways) is wholly comparable.
This McDonnell position may not last. Out of the three of Corbyn, Mcluskey and McDonnell the leader was decidedly the most ambiguous.
He's also the most consensually driven within the party of the three, and the reaction to this from their hundreds of thousands of new members, mainly young and idealistically driven, is going to be ferocious.
McCluskey, McDonnell and others yesterday were all of the opinion a referendum had to be on the deal not rejoin. It is consistent with their mad cap economic policies
No, Corbyn said nothing on that ; just that he was open to a second referendum.
And if you think another GE will resolve Brexit you are in fairy land
There's no way to "resolve" Brexit but there's a good chance a new election would get the DUP out of the critical path one way or another, which would make it substantially easier.
I am not even sure that is true. There is no indication another GE will produce much change in the HOC but certainly if TM called one Brenda of Bristol would go crazy
It's not *certain* but it's unlikely that you'd land in that precise place where the Tories can govern need the DUP. Even if nothing's changed in the underlying party support then there's a little bit that's effectively random.
Obviously the downside from the Tories' point of view is that they could just as easily lose as gain, but like I say if there was ever a good election to lose it would be this one.
This McDonnell position may not last. Out of the three of Corbyn, Mcluskey and McDonnell the leader was decidedly the most ambiguous.
He's also the most consensually driven within the party of the three, and the reaction to this from their hundreds of thousands of new members, mainly young and idealistically driven, is going to be ferocious.
McCluskey, McDonnell and others yesterday were all of the opinion a referendum had to be on the deal not rejoin. It is consistent with their mad cap economic policies
No, Corbyn said nothing on that ; just that he was open to a second referendum.
Corbyn said he would respect the wishes of the membership but the way the motion has been drafted and today's explanations by McDonnell they do not wanr a remain option
OT enjoying the LNER service from Kings Cross to Newcastle - impossible to say how much was actually put in place by Virgin -but for £36 in First Class I’m not complaining. The interesting thing would be to see how a government owned TOC did from scratch, rather than inheriting something established.
I reckon the proportion of that 8% that know what CETA is is very small.
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally and when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
The median voter according to every poll wants out of the EU but also a FTA with the EU and not no deal, only Canada delivers that
So you are happy for an Irish sea border. TM and Corbyn yesterday ruled that out comprehensively.
Please explain how you intend resolving that as no one so far has come up with the solution. Indeed that is the impasse
That is the whole point of the election, to get a mandate for CETA without need for DUP
Really - TM and Corbyn have stated no Prime Minister could ever agree to the Irish sea border
You also are blind to Norway ++ which has many fans
And if you think another GE will resolve Brexit you are in fairy land
May did agree to an Irish Sea border. She then rowed back because the DUP threatened her.
She agreed to a backstop as a way of buying time beyond last December. Her position was never too allow it to actually happen
And if you think another GE will resolve Brexit you are in fairy land
There's no way to "resolve" Brexit but there's a good chance a new election would get the DUP out of the critical path one way or another, which would make it substantially easier.
I am not even sure that is true. There is no indication another GE will produce much change in the HOC but certainly if TM called one Brenda of Bristol would go crazy
I think Corbyn would win handily. He'd lose a 2022 election though.
Why vote to keep the Tories in if power is clearly too tricky for them.
Delighted to see Labour are so keen to spread the concept of a private shareholding democracy further... who'd have thought they would take on Mrs T's ambitions so whole-heartedly?
I reckon the proportion of that 8% that know what CETA is is very small.
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally and when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
The median voter according to every poll wants out of the EU but also a FTA with the EU and not no deal, only Canada delivers that
So you are happy for an Irish sea border. TM and Corbyn yesterday ruled that out comprehensively.
Please explain how you intend resolving that as no one so far has come up with the solution. Indeed that is the impasse
That is the whole point of the election, to get a mandate for CETA without need for DUP
Really - TM and Corbyn have stated no Prime Minister could ever agree to the Irish sea border
You also are blind to Norway ++ which has many fans
And if you think another GE will resolve Brexit you are in fairy land
May did agree to an Irish Sea border. She then rowed back because the DUP threatened her.
She agreed to a backstop as a way of buying time beyond last December. Her position was never too allow it to actually happen
Well it was a bloody stupid decision.
The problem is whether May is now the right person to tell the EU it cannot happen once CETA is on the table. She seems to be justifying her mistake by refusing to engage on CETA when the correct approach is simply to offer CETA, no backstop and dare the EU to go for no deal instead.
This McDonnell position may not last. Out of the three of Corbyn, Mcluskey and McDonnell the leader was decidedly the most ambiguous.
He's also the most consensually driven within the party of the three, and the reaction to this from their hundreds of thousands of new members, mainly young and idealistically driven, is going to be ferocious.
McCluskey, McDonnell and others yesterday were all of the opinion a referendum had to be on the deal not rejoin. It is consistent with their mad cap economic policies
No, Corbyn said nothing on that ; just that he was open to a second referendum.
Corbyn said he would respect the wishes of the membership but the way the motion has been drafted and today's explanations by McDonnell they do not wanr a remain option
It all comes down to him this week, and I doubt he'll want the alienate so many of the new members by being as specific as McCluskey and McDonnell. He could be using them as outriders, or they could be trying to dictate policy ; either way it opens up an ambiguity so far.
And if you think another GE will resolve Brexit you are in fairy land
There's no way to "resolve" Brexit but there's a good chance a new election would get the DUP out of the critical path one way or another, which would make it substantially easier.
I am not even sure that is true. There is no indication another GE will produce much change in the HOC but certainly if TM called one Brenda of Bristol would go crazy
I think Corbyn would win handily. He'd lose a 2022 election though.
Why vote to keep the Tories in if power is clearly too tricky for them.
I do not think anyone would win handily. And for that reason TM will not call it
OT enjoying the LNER service from Kings Cross to Newcastle - impossible to say how much was actually put in place by Virgin -but for £36 in First Class I’m not complaining. The interesting thing would be to see how a government owned TOC did from scratch, rather than inheriting something established.
The only thing Virgin have done to the East Coast service since taking it from public ownership is to make WiFi non standard to make you book through their website.
So, basically, McDonnell has joined right-wing Brexiteers in saying Fuck Business. Once, both the Tories and Labour believed in wealth creation - the former to allow tax cuts, the latter to enable redistribution. Those days are long gone. The hole in the centre of British politics is becoming a chasm.
From the Bankers via BHS to the Tech giants much of business is widely regarded as being parasitical on society.
With a trail of unpaid taxes, redundant workers, wiped out shareholders and empty pension funds whilst an executive oligarchy take all the wealth.
And your alternative system is?
Well to start with I'd look into ending the block vote when it comes to executive remuneration and how about a law that means the executives of bankrupt companies get no more than statutory redundancy pay rather than Fred Goodwin style payoffs from the taxpayer.
I've even got a phrase to sum these ideas up - "We're all in this together".
Not really relevant to a socio-economic system, though, is it. Block vote on executive remuneration - so asking who? Each of the 1.3m (guessing) people who hold BAe through Fidelity? As for exec payoff I can't get too worked up about it; there is a reason that top execs reappear all over the shop (unless of course there is a witchhunt). Tell them that if their bold, innovative business strategy fails they won't get a penny? Guess what would happen. And the numbers are trivial.
If she did that, she would lose because it would expose her as an utter liar - she has said 'no PM would ever accept' the NI CU backstop so how the hell would she fight an election on that?
Also, it would just be an election on the single topic that she made a mistake agreeing to the backstop in the first place.
Luckily, like a lot we see, this is just lazy journalism. Last week the press were busy proclaiming a secret deal had been done with the EU - the press are full of it.
Anyone who cares already knows she's a liar. She lied about whether she'd hold the last election, she lied about Chequers. She's going to do plenty more lying before this thing is over, because she can't possibly deliver what she promised.
At the end of the day the opposition is Jeremy Corbyn, she has a lot of latitude.
If she did that, she would lose because it would expose her as an utter liar - she has said 'no PM would ever accept' the NI CU backstop so how the hell would she fight an election on that?
Also, it would just be an election on the single topic that she made a mistake agreeing to the backstop in the first place.
Luckily, like a lot we see, this is just lazy journalism. Last week the press were busy proclaiming a secret deal had been done with the EU - the press are full of it.
Anyone who cares already knows she's a liar. She lied about whether she'd hold the last election, she lied about Chequers. She's going to do plenty more lying before this thing is over, because she can't possibly deliver what she promised.
At the end of the day the opposition is Jeremy Corbyn, she has a lot of latitude.
This is the best post I have read on here for many a year.
Cuts through the partisan crap and hits the nail on the head succinctly.
Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, has said that social media companies should stop letting people post abuse from anonymous accounts. Speaking at a Guardian fringe meeting, she said:
One of the first things they should do is stop anonymous accounts. Most people who send me abuse me do so from anonymous accounts, and wouldn’t dream of doing it in their own name.
I reckon the proportion of that 8% that know what CETA is is very small.
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally and when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
The median voter according to every poll wants out of the EU but also a FTA with the EU and not no deal, only Canada delivers that
So you are happy for an Irish sea border. TM and Corbyn yesterday ruled that out comprehensively.
Please explain how you intend resolving that as no one so far has come up with the solution. Indeed that is the impasse
That is the whole point of the election, to get a mandate for CETA without need for DUP
Really - TM and Corbyn have stated no Prime Minister could ever agree to the Irish sea border
You also are blind to Norway ++ which has many fans
And if you think another GE will resolve Brexit you are in fairy land
May did agree to an Irish Sea border. She then rowed back because the DUP threatened her.
She agreed to a backstop as a way of buying time beyond last December. Her position was never too allow it to actually happen
It’s amusing how John Lewis is still held up as the great ideal by many on the left and some on the right. This is a business whose profits (and hence bonuses for staff) have vanished.
They have done better than most in adapting to the Internet, but overmanning is chronic.
Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, has said that social media companies should stop letting people post abuse from anonymous accounts. Speaking at a Guardian fringe meeting, she said:
One of the first things they should do is stop anonymous accounts. Most people who send me abuse me do so from anonymous accounts, and wouldn’t dream of doing it in their own name.
Mentioned yesterday...Example #917437887 of politician doesn't get the internet.
Maybe it's because I work in a business (and sector) where the ownership is already distributed widely among many of the workers but I can't work up too much horror for the idea that 10% of large businesses should be compulsorily shared among the workforce. Seems a perfectly sensible idea to me.
It isn’t like a straight share scheme though. There is a also a sneaky tax in there on the business worth £600m a year according to McDonnells figures. For big companies it won’t make much of a difference (and most already offer compensation packages with shares) but it affects even companies with only 250 workers.
Also as a worker you can't sell you shares. So does that mean every new employee gets shares and the worker ownership gets greater and greater over time? And will this be top of standard share scheme that big companies offer?
Also you setup a business and when you reach 250 workers you are going to be a) forced to give away 10% of your business and b) pay more tax. That is going to make it harder to get seed money from angel investors.
It's an optional tax, as I understand it, only payable to the extent that dividend payments on the 10% exceed £500 per worker. That provides an incentive for businesses to employ workers (to increase the number of £500s paid out in the 10%) and to invest in the business rather than return funds to shareholders. Neither of those seem bad things to encourage.
It would be nice to see any excess go into the equivalent of a sovereign wealth fund rather into central government coffers, but you can't have everything.
So the cabinet's moving towards Canada, according to Torygraph. Very bad news for the Labour Brexiteers - the members won't wear it.
I'm thinking if the Cabinet keeps moving towards Canada along with their friends in the ERG, and the Shadow Cabinet move towards Russia or maybe Brazil or New Zealand, then the people who are still left in London can do something about the whole Brexit situation.
Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.
I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.
McDonnell's shares plan would sfaict apply to large companies. Start-ups were encouraged to give share options to staff back in the last century. Charles would know if that is still commonplace.
Options. For purchase at value.
Sometimes people should read and think before posting.
Do I take it you never made a pile of cash on your options? Options to purchase at 10p shares which are, after the expected growth (or takeover bid) now worth £5 (or worth nothing because the company's gone bust).
McDonnell's plan is tweaked right wing orthodoxy and once the knee-jerking has stopped, I'd not be surprised if May and Hammond don't shoot Labour's fox by adopting something along the same lines.
Shares in our family company are unlimited liability and only ever transferred at nominal value. Dividends are minimal.
Do you think that the workers would be happy to take on that risk for such low returns?
I don’t think our regulators would be happy either as the employees couldn’t provide the hard commitment on backstop equity that the current shareholders do.
Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, has said that social media companies should stop letting people post abuse from anonymous accounts. Speaking at a Guardian fringe meeting, she said:
One of the first things they should do is stop anonymous accounts. Most people who send me abuse me do so from anonymous accounts, and wouldn’t dream of doing it in their own name.
I don't know about insane, clueless is more accurate. There are rarely easy answers to difficult problems.
So the cabinet's moving towards Canada, according to Torygraph. Very bad news for the Labour Brexiteers - the members won't wear it.
I'm thinking if the Cabinet keeps moving towards Canada along with their friends in the ERG, and the Shadow Cabinet move towards Russia or maybe Brazil or New Zealand, then the people who are still left in London can do something about the whole Brexit situation.
The problem here is natural justice is conflicting with judicial process
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled or delayed until after the mid-terms, as the Democrats, want then he will *never* become a Justice
As a result he will have been severely punished regardless of whether he is found guilty or innocent of these allegations
Equally, the women in question have a right to a fair hearing (and Kavanaugh to the protections of a court not a political bear pit).
The “right” way to handle this would be for Kavanaugh to be appointed *subject to* being cleared of the allegations
But I doubt that is (a) possible or (b) that the two sides trust each other to make it a viable path forward
No, or rather yes but no. Putting the sex allegations to one side, there are also lines that were earlier pursued by Harris and Booker that this was a stitch-up at best or conspiracy at worst to fast-track Kavanaugh on to the bench to stop Trump being indicted.
So, basically, McDonnell has joined right-wing Brexiteers in saying Fuck Business. Once, both the Tories and Labour believed in wealth creation - the former to allow tax cuts, the latter to enable redistribution. Those days are long gone. The hole in the centre of British politics is becoming a chasm.
From the Bankers via BHS to the Tech giants much of business is widely regarded as being parasitical on society.
With a trail of unpaid taxes, redundant workers, wiped out shareholders and empty pension funds whilst an executive oligarchy take all the wealth.
And your alternative system is?
Well to start with I'd look into ending the block vote when it comes to executive remuneration and how about a law that means the executives of bankrupt companies get no more than statutory redundancy pay rather than Fred Goodwin style payoffs from the taxpayer.
I've even got a phrase to sum these ideas up - "We're all in this together".
Not really relevant to a socio-economic system, though, is it. Block vote on executive remuneration - so asking who? Each of the 1.3m (guessing) people who hold BAe through Fidelity? As for exec payoff I can't get too worked up about it; there is a reason that top execs reappear all over the shop (unless of course there is a witchhunt). Tell them that if their bold, innovative business strategy fails they won't get a penny? Guess what would happen. And the numbers are trivial.
Its the imagery.
Business is now widely believed to be run for the benefit of FatCats who take the profits and take the bailout money while workers / pensioners / taxpayers / shareholders take the losses.
Its the lack of fairness in society which is a big vote driver for Corbyn Labour.
And if something isn't done to change "Its one rule for them and another for us" into "We're all in this together" it will continue to drive votes to hard left ideas.
You might not get too worked up about executive earnings but they do have electoral consequences.
It is; but I use it quite regularly and service is far more customer minded when it isn’t in public ownership.
Shortage of weekend sarnies, running out of weekday main courses and not serving hot drinks for 40 minutes after boarding - all whilst in public ownership.
If she did that, she would lose because it would expose her as an utter liar - she has said 'no PM would ever accept' the NI CU backstop so how the hell would she fight an election on that?
Also, it would just be an election on the single topic that she made a mistake agreeing to the backstop in the first place.
Luckily, like a lot we see, this is just lazy journalism. Last week the press were busy proclaiming a secret deal had been done with the EU - the press are full of it.
Anyone who cares already knows she's a liar. She lied about whether she'd hold the last election, she lied about Chequers. She's going to do plenty more lying before this thing is over, because she can't possibly deliver what she promised.
At the end of the day the opposition is Jeremy Corbyn, she has a lot of latitude.
If she did that, she would lose because it would expose her as an utter liar - she has said 'no PM would ever accept' the NI CU backstop so how the hell would she fight an election on that?
Also, it would just be an election on the single topic that she made a mistake agreeing to the backstop in the first place.
Luckily, like a lot we see, this is just lazy journalism. Last week the press were busy proclaiming a secret deal had been done with the EU - the press are full of it.
Anyone who cares already knows she's a liar. She lied about whether she'd hold the last election, she lied about Chequers. She's going to do plenty more lying before this thing is over, because she can't possibly deliver what she promised.
At the end of the day the opposition is Jeremy Corbyn, she has a lot of latitude.
This is the best post I have read on here for many a year.
Cuts through the partisan crap and hits the nail on the head succinctly.
Exactly - most of Politics is not seen through the tinted glasses of Labour of Tory supporters. Most of them will never change allegiance. It is the peopl in the middle who catch 5 minutes news a week who really matter- the art of politics is attracting them whilst keeping your own headbangers in tow
Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, has said that social media companies should stop letting people post abuse from anonymous accounts. Speaking at a Guardian fringe meeting, she said:
One of the first things they should do is stop anonymous accounts. Most people who send me abuse me do so from anonymous accounts, and wouldn’t dream of doing it in their own name.
Mentioned yesterday...Example #917437887 of politician doesn't get the internet.
I'll stick my hand up. Why couldn't twitter, for example, require each poster to provide their personal details?
But the dividend payments would not be available to state employees - including workers in industries such as water, which Labour hopes to nationalise.
Maybe it's because I work in a business (and sector) where the ownership is already distributed widely among many of the workers but I can't work up too much horror for the idea that 10% of large businesses should be compulsorily shared among the workforce. Seems a perfectly sensible idea to me.
It isn’t like a straight share scheme though. There is a also a sneaky tax in there on the business worth £600m a year according to McDonnells figures. For big companies it won’t make much of a difference (and most already offer compensation packages with shares) but it affects even companies with only 250 workers.
Also as a worker you can't sell you shares. So does that mean every new employee gets shares and the worker ownership gets greater and greater over time? And will this be top of standard share scheme that big companies offer?
Also you setup a business and when you reach 250 workers you are going to be a) forced to give away 10% of your business and b) pay more tax. That is going to make it harder to get seed money from angel investors.
It's an optional tax, as I understand it, only payable to the extent that dividend payments on the 10% exceed £500 per worker. That provides an incentive for businesses to employ workers (to increase the number of £500s paid out in the 10%) and to invest in the business rather than return funds to shareholders. Neither of those seem bad things to encourage.
It would be nice to see any excess go into the equivalent of a sovereign wealth fund rather into central government coffers, but you can't have everything.
The only incentive it will create is to delist in London and relist elsewhere.
Comments
Why do you jump on every bit of journalistic licence and take it as an authentic story.
Also, it would just be an election on the single topic that she made a mistake agreeing to the backstop in the first place.
Luckily, like a lot we see, this is just lazy journalism. Last week the press were busy proclaiming a secret deal had been done with the EU - the press are full of it.
At the end of the day the opposition is Jeremy Corbyn, she has a lot of latitude.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
https://twitter.com/holland_tom/status/1044133680988508160
The details don't matter, only the mood music does.
I remember the answer to that one - 'You don't, mate'.
With a trail of unpaid taxes, redundant workers, wiped out shareholders and empty pension funds whilst an executive oligarchy take all the wealth.
McDonnell's plan is very much like right wing orthodoxy. Try a thought experiment. Imagine Philip Hammond, Theresa May or even Margaret Thatcher standing up at conference and opening with, we plan to extend the benefits of share ownership to everyone, reduce strikes by turning workers into owners, and turn Britain into a share-owning democracy.
Not so hard to imagine, is it? The rhetoric would be very, very different from Labour's but the core policy would look similar.
If something is too much of a fudge for many of those who advocated Leave, and those, like Baker and Davis, who have been trying to find a way through the EU’s red lines and our own, then it is not perceived as properly leaving.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/09/14/most-brits-have-wrong-idea-what-gender-pay-gap/
Asked whether they thought the gender pay gap was “women as a whole being paid less on average than men as a whole” or “women being paid less than men for doing the same job”, only 30% correctly chose the former option. By contrast, close to two thirds (64%) incorrectly chose the latter answer, which is specifically about equal pay (in this the failure to do so).
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
However, the more significant comment this weekend was from Nicky Morgan who stated that TM will not lead into the next GE. It is clear she is being kept in place to agree Brexit and then to announce her resignation, with her continuing in the role until her successor is elected through the 3 month election process in the party
I would suggest May/June 2019 as the most likely announcement meaning a new leader ( and PM) in place for the return of Parliament in September 2019.
2019 must now be the favourite for her leaving office
The former were both patriots who wanted what was best for the country.
Just look at the hiding Roy Mason, Callaghan's NI Secretary, gave the IRA.
I think most Tories would prefer to try and get a mandate for CETA than stay in government with No Deal, myself included.
Better to go into opposition then and let Corbyn deal with Brexit as PM whether as a second EU referendum or trying to reopen negotiations, he would almost certainly only be PM propped up by minor parties anyway
Please explain how you intend resolving that as no one so far has come up with the solution. Indeed that is the impasse
Country before party, you should try it some time.
https://mobile.twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1044125026402881536
It’s not really being shared amongst the workforce. It’s being put in a trust, in which individuals have no control over their shares, voting rights over which will be controlled by friends of Jeremy, and any dividend over £500 goes straight to the state. There’s no suggestion that the % will be different for companies that are worth £5mn or £5bn.
It’s a massive disincentive for any large business to base itself in Britain.
I've even got a phrase to sum these ideas up - "We're all in this together".
Also as a worker you can't sell you shares. So does that mean every new employee gets shares and the worker ownership gets greater and greater over time? And will this be top of standard share scheme that big companies offer?
Also you setup a business and when you reach 250 workers you are going to be a) forced to give away 10% of your business and b) pay more tax. That is going to make it harder to get seed money from angel investors.
You also are blind to Norway ++ which has many fans
And if you think another GE will resolve Brexit you are in fairy land
He's also the most consensually driven within the party of the three, and the reaction to this from their hundreds of thousands of new members, mainly young and idealistically driven, is going to be ferocious.
Obviously the downside from the Tories' point of view is that they could just as easily lose as gain, but like I say if there was ever a good election to lose it would be this one.
Why vote to keep the Tories in if power is clearly too tricky for them.
Pssst - tell Sid.
The problem is whether May is now the right person to tell the EU it cannot happen once CETA is on the table. She seems to be justifying her mistake by refusing to engage on CETA when the correct approach is simply to offer CETA, no backstop and dare the EU to go for no deal instead.
Cuts through the partisan crap and hits the nail on the head succinctly.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/sep/23/labour-conference-liverpool-jeremy-corbyn-say-he-will-accept-any-labour-conference-decision-on-second-brexit-referendum-politics-live
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled or delayed until after the mid-terms, as the Democrats, want then he will *never* become a Justice
As a result he will have been severely punished regardless of whether he is found guilty or innocent of these allegations
Equally, the women in question have a right to a fair hearing (and Kavanaugh to the protections of a court not a political bear pit).
The “right” way to handle this would be for Kavanaugh to be appointed *subject to* being cleared of the allegations
But I doubt that is (a) possible or (b) that the two sides trust each other to make it a viable path forward
They have done better than most in adapting to the Internet, but overmanning is chronic.
It would be nice to see any excess go into the equivalent of a sovereign wealth fund rather into central government coffers, but you can't have everything.
Do you think that the workers would be happy to take on that risk for such low returns?
I don’t think our regulators would be happy either as the employees couldn’t provide the hard commitment on backstop equity that the current shareholders do.
Business is now widely believed to be run for the benefit of FatCats who take the profits and take the bailout money while workers / pensioners / taxpayers / shareholders take the losses.
Its the lack of fairness in society which is a big vote driver for Corbyn Labour.
And if something isn't done to change "Its one rule for them and another for us" into "We're all in this together" it will continue to drive votes to hard left ideas.
You might not get too worked up about executive earnings but they do have electoral consequences.
Shortage of weekend sarnies, running out of weekday main courses and not serving hot drinks for 40 minutes after boarding - all whilst in public ownership.
I'll stick my hand up. Why couldn't twitter, for example, require each poster to provide their personal details?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45621361
I bet state employees will be happy about that...