A Jo Johnson level or has it reached a Boris Johnson level ?
Looking in some detail at today's employment data it suggests that the minimum level of unemployment can only be fractionally below 4%.
Its noticeable that a slight increase in unemployment has happened at the same time as vacancies reaching another record high, redundancies reaching another record low and a continuing shift to full time, permanent employment from part-time, temporary and self-employment.
But real unemployment is much higher than that when account is taken of the many who are obliged to work far fewer hours than they would normally choose. Others have declared themselves Self Employed but earn peanuts.
How stupid does he think everyone is? They've been saying May's days are numbered for a long time.
I'm very convinced many May opponents are lying about how bad things would be, else they would have taken action and been more forthright about needing to remove her a long time ago. Only some have been so bold.
This is irrespective of if the deal is terrible. It might be, but their actions are cynical and pathetic.
Tgey do not have the numbers to topple May as Leader so it is all bravado
They have the numbers to topple May. What they do not have is the numbers to elect the right successor. Worse, their own two candidates, Boris and Davis, are busted flushes. From their point of view, Hunt, Javid or Hammond would be even worse than May, not least because they are more competent and less likely to crash out by mistake.
No they do not.
They need 160 Tory MPs to topple May. May got 165 Tory MPs in the first round alone in 2016 and only 120 Tory MPs even backed Leave
Not so. It took fewer to topple Thatcher.
Different rules.
Thatcher would have lost to Heseltine in round 2, now if you get 50.1% in a no confidence vote you cannot be challenged for a year.
Thatcher would have survived in 1990 under these rules
Would the SNP lend her the votes if she. added an Indyref2 clause?
The SNP will not help the Tories. Were they to do so , they would drive the left of centre voters back to Labour in Scotland and lose a bucket full of seats next time.
How stupid does he think everyone is? They've been saying May's days are numbered for a long time.
I'm very convinced many May opponents are lying about how bad things would be, else they would have taken action and been more forthright about needing to remove her a long time ago. Only some have been so bold.
This is irrespective of if the deal is terrible. It might be, but their actions are cynical and pathetic.
Tgey do not have the numbers to topple May as Leader so it is all bravado
They have the numbers to topple May. What they do not have is the numbers to elect the right successor. Worse, their own two candidates, Boris and Davis, are busted flushes. From their point of view, Hunt, Javid or Hammond would be even worse than May, not least because they are more competent and less likely to crash out by mistake.
No they do not.
They need 160 Tory MPs to topple May. May got 165 Tory MPs in the first round alone in 2016 and only 120 Tory MPs even backed Leave
Not so. It took fewer to topple Thatcher.
Thatcher was facing further votes that she could not win. If May wins by one vote she's "safe" from a further internal party challenge for a year.
She would be damaged and potentially couldn’t get legislation through parliament. She would be safe as leader, but not as PM.
Would the SNP lend her the votes if she. added an Indyref2 clause?
The SNP will not help the Tories. Were they to do so , they would drive the left of centre voters back to Labour in Scotland and lose a bucket full of seats next time.
They have a good track record of working with the Tories. They brought us Thatcher after all.
To all those who said there wouldn't be a deal at the last minute - I told you so. It's how the EU handles crises. Whether it will get through Parliament is another story, but I suspect it will.
Well done Nick.
Your's has been a voice of good sense on how far things would proceed.
If Labour vote against a deal and we leave with no deal - this being the alternative - will their voters ever actually forgive them?
Perversely, it would also massively help the Tories - by forcing them to deliver the no deal most of the voters are odd enough to want.
And @TheWhiteRabbit I hope you haven't forgotten our bet in light of recent comments...
Most voters do not want No Deal, not one poll has No Deal preferred to a Deal or even Remain
In case you hadn't spotted this, I commented that it was most of THEIR voters. As in, more than half of just under 43%. I stand by that comment.
Actually most Tory voters want a Canada Deal, No Deal is just a last resort.
Only UKIP voters are fully behind No Deal
The most recent poll put the split at 48/41. On the assumption that the remaining 11% are probably not closet Liberal Democrats, I still repeat my comment.
Nothing 'for fuck's sake about it' even your own poll has 57% of 2017 Tory voters wanting a Canada Deal as first preference, the problem is the backstop
You are still quoting Conservative Home.
Your increasingly irrational devotion to them reminds me of those people who cling to minor variants in RCD as evidence the earth is 6,000 years old.
ConHome got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on, the last time the members were consulted.
I will never apologise for quoting ConHome
No, you never will.
Which was sort of the reason for my original outburst, to be fair.
Would the SNP lend her the votes if she. added an Indyref2 clause?
The SNP will not help the Tories. Were they to do so , they would drive the left of centre voters back to Labour in Scotland and lose a bucket full of seats next time.
They have a good track record of working with the Tories. They brought us Thatcher after all.
How stupid does he think everyone is? They've been saying May's days are numbered for a long time.
I'm very convinced many May opponents are lying about how bad things would be, else they would have taken action and been more forthright about needing to remove her a long time ago. Only some have been so bold.
This is irrespective of if the deal is terrible. It might be, but their actions are cynical and pathetic.
Tgey do not have the numbers to topple May as Leader so it is all bravado
They have the numbers to topple May. What they do not have is the numbers to elect the right successor. Worse, their own two candidates, Boris and Davis, are busted flushes. From their point of view, Hunt, Javid or Hammond would be even worse than May, not least because they are more competent and less likely to crash out by mistake.
No they do not.
They need 160 Tory MPs to topple May. May got 165 Tory MPs in the first round alone in 2016 and only 120 Tory MPs even backed Leave
Not so. It took fewer to topple Thatcher.
Different rules.
Thatcher would have lost to Heseltine in round 2, now if you get 50.1% in a no confidence vote you cannot be challenged for a year.
Thatcher would have survived in 1990 under these rules
Making the gigantic leap to assume the MPs would vote identically with a different rules / voting system. There is a risk that they were a more sophisticated electorate than that.
Thatcher would have lost to Heseltine in round 2, now if you get 50.1% in a no confidence vote you cannot be challenged for a year.
Thatcher would have survived in 1990 under these rules
Come on, you're a political person and you know it doesn't work like that.
If May got 200 votes or fewer in a VONC her authority would be trashed beyond repair - did Major ever recover from getting 218 votes in 1995? No and he has said he would have quit if he had got below 215.
There's mathematics and there's reality - if as a leader you see more than a third of your Party voting directly against you in a No Confidence vote, there's a message there.
How stupid does he think everyone is? They've been saying May's days are numbered for a long time.
I'm very convinced many May opponents are lying about how bad things would be, else they would have taken action and been more forthright about needing to remove her a long time ago. Only some have been so bold.
This is irrespective of if the deal is terrible. It might be, but their actions are cynical and pathetic.
Tgey do not have the numbers to topple May as Leader so it is all bravado
They have the numbers to topple May. What they do not have is the numbers to elect the right successor. Worse, their own two candidates, Boris and Davis, are busted flushes. From their point of view, Hunt, Javid or Hammond would be even worse than May, not least because they are more competent and less likely to crash out by mistake.
No they do not.
They need 160 Tory MPs to topple May. May got 165 Tory MPs in the first round alone in 2016 and only 120 Tory MPs even backed Leave
Not so. It took fewer to topple Thatcher.
Different rules.
Thatcher would have lost to Heseltine in round 2, now if you get 50.1% in a no confidence vote you cannot be challenged for a year.
Thatcher would have survived in 1990 under these rules
Making the gigantic leap to assume the MPs would vote identically with a different rules / voting system. There is a risk that they were a more sophisticated electorate than that.
I repeat, May got over 160 Tory MPs in the first round in 2016, only 120 Tory MPs backed Leave
Would the SNP lend her the votes if she. added an Indyref2 clause?
The SNP will not help the Tories. Were they to do so , they would drive the left of centre voters back to Labour in Scotland and lose a bucket full of seats next time.
It continues to amaze me how all these parties are focusing on calculus for political advantages, rather than what is actually best for their constituents.
Thatcher would have lost to Heseltine in round 2, now if you get 50.1% in a no confidence vote you cannot be challenged for a year.
Thatcher would have survived in 1990 under these rules
Come on, you're a political person and you know it doesn't work like that.
If May got 200 votes or fewer in a VONC her authority would be trashed beyond repair - did Major ever recover from getting 218 votes in 1995? No and he has said he would have quit if he had got below 215.
There's mathematics and there's reality - if as a leader you see more than a third of your Party voting directly against you in a No Confidence vote, there's a message there.
Would the SNP lend her the votes if she. added an Indyref2 clause?
The SNP will not help the Tories. Were they to do so , they would drive the left of centre voters back to Labour in Scotland and lose a bucket full of seats next time.
It continues to amaze me how all these parties are focusing on calculus for political advantages, rather than what is actually best for their constituents.
If you are ever in doubt as an MP what is best for constituents, do as they would do.
A Jo Johnson level or has it reached a Boris Johnson level ?
Looking in some detail at today's employment data it suggests that the minimum level of unemployment can only be fractionally below 4%.
Its noticeable that a slight increase in unemployment has happened at the same time as vacancies reaching another record high, redundancies reaching another record low and a continuing shift to full time, permanent employment from part-time, temporary and self-employment.
But real unemployment is much higher than that when account is taken of the many who are obliged to work far fewer hours than they would normally choose. Others have declared themselves Self Employed but earn peanuts.
That is why the shift from self-employment to employment is a good thing overall.
Likewise the number of people who are employed part time because they are unable to get full time employment has also fallen significantly.
Would the SNP lend her the votes if she. added an Indyref2 clause?
The SNP will not help the Tories. Were they to do so , they would drive the left of centre voters back to Labour in Scotland and lose a bucket full of seats next time.
It continues to amaze me how all these parties are focusing on calculus for political advantages, rather than what is actually best for their constituents.
Thatcher would have lost to Heseltine in round 2, now if you get 50.1% in a no confidence vote you cannot be challenged for a year.
Thatcher would have survived in 1990 under these rules
Come on, you're a political person and you know it doesn't work like that.
If May got 200 votes or fewer in a VONC her authority would be trashed beyond repair - did Major ever recover from getting 218 votes in 1995? No and he has said he would have quit if he had got below 215.
There's mathematics and there's reality - if as a leader you see more than a third of your Party voting directly against you in a No Confidence vote, there's a message there.
Yes, but it's Theresa May we're talking of here. She'd shrug off winning a party VONC by a single vote and would carry on regardless. It's what she does.
These people are idiots. They care more about posturing than practical realities. By voting down this deal we will be even further removed from Europe, with no referendum coming, and a hard left in government.
Would the SNP lend her the votes if she. added an Indyref2 clause?
The SNP will not help the Tories. Were they to do so , they would drive the left of centre voters back to Labour in Scotland and lose a bucket full of seats next time.
They have a good track record of working with the Tories. They brought us Thatcher after all.
That's a zinger...
As a result the SNP lost 9 of their 11 MPs at the 1979 election. I doubt that they have forgotten that.
So the crap is on the table. What do we do with it? We need to do something before it stinks the house out.
For me, the keys are:
(1) can we get out of this at a time of our own choosing, with or without notice?
(2) have we got the CU without making concessions on FoM?
(3) is it still the decision of the U.K. Parliament whether to implement EU law or does it have direct effect? If the former what are the penalties for non compliance?
(4) have we got rid of that f****** awful backstop for NI or is it still a part of the agreement? If it is what penalties have we conceded for non compliance?
Of these the most important is the first. One day, maybe, we will have a competent government with a clear understanding of consequences for both their actions and failures to act. I want that government to have the ability to make good the appalling incompetence of this one.
If the deal doesn't pass the Cabinet (or the Commons should it pass the Cabinet), does PB believe we are heading for No Deal, or Referendum 2: Refer Harder?
Starting to think we might actually (gasp) be heading for snap GE.
Trudging to the polls in the December gloom, ice, rain and snow with darkness descending at 3:30pm...
AND Theresa May leading the campaign.
What could possibly go wrong?
January 17th is more likely!
Trudging to the polls in the January gloom, ice, rain and snow with darkness descending at 4:00pm...
AND Theresa May leading the campaign.
What could possibly go wrong?
Again the Tories still lead or are level in most polls.
It looks more February 1974 than 1997 and the Tories won the popular vote and a majority in England in February 1974 and the subsequent Labour government was so bad the Tories were returned to power 5 years later and in power for 18 years
There are worse fates than a PM Corbyn with a minority government having to agree the Brexit Deal while the Tories rebuild in opposition
Far from clear though that the Tories would have won in 1978!
Even had Labour scraped home it would just have delayed the inevitable
They would have had the oil money to cover the gaps in the early 80s though.
Thatcher would have lost to Heseltine in round 2, now if you get 50.1% in a no confidence vote you cannot be challenged for a year.
Thatcher would have survived in 1990 under these rules
Come on, you're a political person and you know it doesn't work like that.
If May got 200 votes or fewer in a VONC her authority would be trashed beyond repair - did Major ever recover from getting 218 votes in 1995? No and he has said he would have quit if he had got below 215.
There's mathematics and there's reality - if as a leader you see more than a third of your Party voting directly against you in a No Confidence vote, there's a message there.
Wrong. Thatcher got 54% in 1990 and was quite clear she was going on until her MPs and Cabinet told her she would lose to Heseltine in round 2.
If May wins in round 1 she cannot be removed and has no risk of a Heseltine and she is bloody minded as anything.
For goodness sake over two thirds of Labour MPs voted against Corbyn and he ploughed on regardless. Both he and May have the hide of a rhoniceraus.
Even Major went through to the next general election after the 1995 vote
Would the SNP lend her the votes if she. added an Indyref2 clause?
The SNP will not help the Tories. Were they to do so , they would drive the left of centre voters back to Labour in Scotland and lose a bucket full of seats next time.
It continues to amaze me how all these parties are focusing on calculus for political advantages, rather than what is actually best for their constituents.
It’s all a bit pointless speculating till we see some detail. Unless you’re a politician seeking to frame it for your own narrow ends. Even then, some circumspection is advisable.
So the crap is on the table. What do we do with it? We need to do something before it stinks the house out.
For me, the keys are:
(1) can we get out of this at a time of our own choosing, with or without notice?
(2) have we got the CU without making concessions on FoM?
(3) is it still the decision of the U.K. Parliament whether to implement EU law or does it have direct effect? If the former what are the penalties for non compliance?
(4) have we got rid of that f****** awful backstop for NI or is it still a part of the agreement? If it is what penalties have we conceded for non compliance?
Of these the most important is the first. One day, maybe, we will have a competent government with a clear understanding of consequences for both their actions and failures to act. I want that government to have the ability to make good the appalling incompetence of this one.
On (1) we will be a sovereign government that can leave treaties at any time, if willing to pay the diplomatic and economic costs. Any sensible Brexiteer should be able to see that can be done at a time when it won't bring Corbyn into power.
How stupid does he think everyone is? They've been saying May's days are numbered for a long time.
I'm very convinced many May opponents are lying about how bad things would be, else they would have taken action and been more forthright about needing to remove her a long time ago. Only some have been so bold.
This is irrespective of if the deal is terrible. It might be, but their actions are cynical and pathetic.
Tgey do not have the numbers to topple May as Leader so it is all bravado
They have the numbers to topple May. What they do not have is the numbers to elect the right successor. Worse, their own two candidates, Boris and Davis, are busted flushes. From their point of view, Hunt, Javid or Hammond would be even worse than May, not least because they are more competent and less likely to crash out by mistake.
No they do not.
They need 160 Tory MPs to topple May. May got 165 Tory MPs in the first round alone in 2016 and only 120 Tory MPs even backed Leave
Not so. It took fewer to topple Thatcher.
Different rules.
Thatcher would have lost to Heseltine in round 2, now if you get 50.1% in a no confidence vote you cannot be challenged for a year.
Thatcher would have survived in 1990 under these rules
Making the gigantic leap to assume the MPs would vote identically with a different rules / voting system. There is a risk that they were a more sophisticated electorate than that.
I repeat, May got over 160 Tory MPs in the first round in 2016, only 120 Tory MPs backed Leave
You do quite frequently.
The point is next time they will be voting on the May of 2018/2019, and in her performance over the last couple of years, not the ex Home Secretary May from before her ascent to PM.
The votes harvested by candidates vary from election to election.
Others have declared themselves Self Employed but earn peanuts.
Like teachers but with more job security?
Teachers on just above the average salary, better than average pensions, once in place very hard to sack and with long holidays?
It is not that bad in the classroom
That's almost as wrong as your claims about ConHome.
Edit - if it's that good, why aren't you a teacher?
Why you still a teacher then?
I did not say life as a teacher was perfect but they are hardly on zero hours contracts or minimum wage or unemployed even if doing supply.
Yes they are on zero hours contracts if doing supply. It's one reason why no government will get rid of them.
Good question, why [am] I still a teacher? I don't know. Nor does the letter of resignation I'm in the process of drafting.
It is actually very easy to get rid of teachers you don't want, contrary to popular belief. Woodhead's lie about bad teachers is still believed even though ironically he was sacked twice himself.
As for 'it's not that bad in the classroom,' how on earth would you know? Pure sophistry.
A whole lot of posturing. I've no doubt the government will try to constrain the vote on the deal, but what does that really matter since the EU is under no obligation to reopen matters from what the government has negotiated if parliament instructs the government to do so?
So I presume it is just political positioning on all sides.
Increases in employment of Western Europeans, Romanians / Bulgarians and from Cyprus / Malta / Croatia but a big fall in the number employed from the EU8 (who I'll refer to as 'Poles').
I rather suspect that the 'Poles' leaving the UK are neither as highly skilled as the Western Europeans employed nor as willing to accept poor pay and conditions as the Romanians and Bulgarians.
What will be interesting though is to see if upcoming migration stats show net immigration fall dramatically and maybe turn negative.
After all if the number of immigrants employed falls then what are people migrating to the UK for instead ?
That the number of EU migrants who are unemployed has increased during the last year is a worrying sign about who is migrating to the UK.
I’m a fellow Palmerian, mind. I’ve been expecting a deal all year.
The absence of a sensible alternative massively improves its chances of passing, whatever it actually says.
A deal was always there. Trivial. The challenge was to get a deal that could pass the Commons.
It’s like killing cancer. Utterly trivial. It’s killing it without killing the patient that’s the hard bit
See my second comment.
I expect it will be passed on a one hand one bounce basis, but not before completely destroying the credibility of a vast array of politicians, which will be nice. My advice to waverers is to get your humble pie in early.
This is going to be top quality entertainment. What's the point in a technical agreement by diplomats if ihe poloroxoanstgey work for are so bitterly divided that the PM refuses to show them the legal advice and needs to plead with them one by one?
How many cabinet resignations can she survive?
Anyone care to offer a translation of poloroxoanstgey, please?
Good evening, everybody.
I suspect it's typoese or perhaps autocorrectomania.
"politicians they" ?
Good, thanks, that would make sense. I realised it was type.autocorrect, but normally one can make a good guess at what's intended. That one floored me completely.
So the crap is on the table. What do we do with it? We need to do something before it stinks the house out.
For me, the keys are:
(1) can we get out of this at a time of our own choosing, with or without notice?
(2) have we got the CU without making concessions on FoM?
(3) is it still the decision of the U.K. Parliament whether to implement EU law or does it have direct effect? If the former what are the penalties for non compliance?
(4) have we got rid of that f****** awful backstop for NI or is it still a part of the agreement? If it is what penalties have we conceded for non compliance?
Of these the most important is the first. One day, maybe, we will have a competent government with a clear understanding of consequences for both their actions and failures to act. I want that government to have the ability to make good the appalling incompetence of this one.
On (1) we will be a sovereign government that can leave treaties at any time, if willing to pay the diplomatic and economic costs. Any sensible Brexiteer should be able to see that can be done at a time when it won't bring Corbyn into power.
I have consistently said we would have to take May’s deal no matter how awful because the alternatives are worse but blimey, she seems to be testing that theory to destruction.
Would the SNP lend her the votes if she. added an Indyref2 clause?
No, of course not.
For all kinds of reasons.
For one IndyRef2 comes with no strings attached.
For two, they aren't going to vote for the Toriesv plan when the Tories' plan doesn't meet any of the SNP red lines.
Independence gets round it surely.
Anyway, if May doesn’t have the numbers she will have to give someone something. I wonder what it might be.
I cannot see what she could. I can see a path to a referendum, maybe, but this hypothesis is about giving something to get the numbers to not need a referendum. I think Mr Meeks' theory of it being voted down, but it coming back and approved after chaos, is more plausible than May being able to offer something to Labour or the SNP to back this. Neither wants anything to do with this.
How stupid does he think everyone is? They've been saying May's days are numbered for a long time.
I'm very convinced many May opponents are lying about how bad things would be, else they would have taken action and been more forthright about needing to remove her a long time ago. Only some have been so bold.
This is irrespective of if the deal is terrible. It might be, but their actions are cynical and pathetic.
Tgey do not have the numbers to topple May as Leader so it is all bravado
They have the numbers to topple May. What they do not have is the numbers to elect the right successor. Worse, their own two candidates, Boris and Davis, are busted flushes. From their point of view, Hunt, Javid or Hammond would be even worse than May, not least because they are more competent and less likely to crash out by mistake.
No they do not.
They need 160 Tory MPs to topple May. May got 165 Tory MPs in the first round alone in 2016 and only 120 Tory MPs even backed Leave
Not so. It took fewer to topple Thatcher.
Different rules.
Thatcher would have lost to Heseltine in round 2, now if you get 50.1% in a no confidence vote you cannot be challenged for a year.
Thatcher would have survived in 1990 under these rules
Making the gigantic leap to assume the MPs would vote identically with a different rules / voting system. There is a risk that they were a more sophisticated electorate than that.
I repeat, May got over 160 Tory MPs in the first round in 2016, only 120 Tory MPs backed Leave
You do quite frequently.
The point is next time they will be voting on the May of 2018/2019, and in her performance over the last couple of years, not the ex Home Secretary May from before her ascent to PM.
The votes harvested by candidates vary from election to election.
May has got a Deal, for the average Tory MP bar the diehards that is what matters
A Jo Johnson level or has it reached a Boris Johnson level ?
Looking in some detail at today's employment data it suggests that the minimum level of unemployment can only be fractionally below 4%.
Its noticeable that a slight increase in unemployment has happened at the same time as vacancies reaching another record high, redundancies reaching another record low and a continuing shift to full time, permanent employment from part-time, temporary and self-employment.
Yes but the statistics only tell the story of the people the statistics have been tuned to pick up.
As of yesterday I am unemployed. But I will not appear on any stat because I will not be claiming any social security payments. How many millions of people like myself are economically inactive?
Right. It would make more sense for them to say we aren't getting enough sovereignty back. We are getting it in services, immigration, justice and other non-economic matters but not goods.
Is that the right tactic? I don't know. I imagine there are quite a few on both benches that would like to vote against but have the deal pass
The only people voting down works for is those that want to see Corbyn as PM and a no deal Brexit.
Incorrect - it also works for those who do not care about Corbyn as PM or a no deal Brexit (or one of the two at any rate). That number is probably at least half the Commons - Labour MPs, despite their protests, SNP and the rest of the opposition, plus the ERG and DUP.
If they genuinely want no deal, or think Corbyn as PM and/or no deal is better than a bad deal, then they should vote it down, whatever the consequences. Fear of Corbyn alone should not do it.
Others have declared themselves Self Employed but earn peanuts.
Like teachers but with more job security?
Teachers on just above the average salary, better than average pensions, once in place very hard to sack and with long holidays?
It is not that bad in the classroom
That's almost as wrong as your claims about ConHome.
Edit - if it's that good, why aren't you a teacher?
Why you still a teacher then?
I did not say life as a teacher was perfect but they are hardly on zero hours contracts or minimum wage or unemployed even if doing supply.
Yes they are on zero hours contracts if doing supply. It's one reason why no government will get rid of them.
Good question, why [am] I still a teacher? I don't know. Nor does the letter of resignation I'm in the process of drafting.
It is actually very easy to get rid of teachers you don't want, contrary to popular belief. Woodhead's lie about bad teachers is still believed even though ironically he was sacked twice himself.
As for 'it's not that bad in the classroom,' how on earth would you know? Pure sophistry.
Most people who do supply are either looking for a permanent role or like the flexibility.
There are far worse jobs than teaching, many lower paid and with far fewer holidays and worse pensions, most teachers do not have long commutes and the associated costs.
I never said teaching was easy nor perfect but teachers who complain all the time often have gone straight from school to university then back to the classroom with no time in the world outside
Is that the right tactic? I don't know. I imagine there are quite a few on both benches that would like to vote against but have the deal pass
The only people voting down works for is those that want to see Corbyn as PM and a no deal Brexit.
Anyone afraid of that outcome should demand the government offer a referendum first.
I think it will get to that, but only after the deal is voted down. Then May will say the only way to avoid no deal is a referendum on her deal vs no deal, then there will be wrangling and remain will get added to the pile as the price for a vote.
A Jo Johnson level or has it reached a Boris Johnson level ?
Looking in some detail at today's employment data it suggests that the minimum level of unemployment can only be fractionally below 4%.
Its noticeable that a slight increase in unemployment has happened at the same time as vacancies reaching another record high, redundancies reaching another record low and a continuing shift to full time, permanent employment from part-time, temporary and self-employment.
Yes but the statistics only tell the story of the people the statistics have been tuned to pick up.
As of yesterday I am unemployed. But I will not appear on any stat because I will not be claiming any social security payments. How many millions of people like myself are economically inactive?
You'll still appear in the unemployment figures but not on the claimant count.
If May does get something through parliament then it may well be a terrible, terrible deal, but it would be a hell of a political achievement in the circumstances, not least after she threw away a majority.
I do not like speculating but if the cabinet hold together and Geoffrey Cox approves it I think TM will get her deal and the country will sigh a sigh of relief and she will get the plaudits she deserves.
Others have declared themselves Self Employed but earn peanuts.
Like teachers but with more job security?
Teachers on just above the average salary, better than average pensions, once in place very hard to sack and with long holidays?
It is not that bad in the classroom
That's almost as wrong as your claims about ConHome.
Edit - if it's that good, why aren't you a teacher?
Why you still a teacher then?
I did not say life as a teacher was perfect but they are hardly on zero hours contracts or minimum wage or unemployed even if doing supply.
Yes they are on zero hours contracts if doing supply. It's one reason why no government will get rid of them.
Good question, why [am] I still a teacher? I don't know. Nor does the letter of resignation I'm in the process of drafting.
It is actually very easy to get rid of teachers you don't want, contrary to popular belief. Woodhead's lie about bad teachers is still believed even though ironically he was sacked twice himself.
As for 'it's not that bad in the classroom,' how on earth would you know? Pure sophistry.
Most people who do supply are either looking for a permanent role or like the flexibility.
There are far worse jobs than teaching, many lower paid and with far fewer holidays and worse pensions, most teachers do not have long commutes and the associated costs.
I never said teaching was easy nor perfect but teachers who complain all the time often have gone straight from school to university then back to the classroom with no time in the world outside
That is truly epic ignorance. Most teachers commute over an hour to work. You are just embarrassing yourself now.
And I spent three years in academia, three years self employed and a year as a Civil Servant before going into teaching and having to cope with a colleague literally walking out yesterday.
Take your patronising, lying shit elsewhere. It's people like you who give Tories a bad name.
So the crap is on the table. What do we do with it? We need to do something before it stinks the house out.
For me, the keys are:
(1) can we get out of this at a time of our own choosing, with or without notice?
(2) have we got the CU without making concessions on FoM?
(3) is it still the decision of the U.K. Parliament whether to implement EU law or does it have direct effect? If the former what are the penalties for non compliance?
(4) have we got rid of that f****** awful backstop for NI or is it still a part of the agreement? If it is what penalties have we conceded for non compliance?
Of these the most important is the first. One day, maybe, we will have a competent government with a clear understanding of consequences for both their actions and failures to act. I want that government to have the ability to make good the appalling incompetence of this one.
On (1) we will be a sovereign government that can leave treaties at any time, if willing to pay the diplomatic and economic costs. Any sensible Brexiteer should be able to see that can be done at a time when it won't bring Corbyn into power.
The economic and diplomatic costs of reneging on a treaty can be considerable. The US can get away with it through sheer size and power, the UK less so. I also recall someone posting here that we're party to a convention that forbids the unilaterally denouncing of a treaty other than by the terms (if any) set out in that treaty.
Right. It would make more sense for them to say we aren't getting enough sovereignty back. We are getting it in services, immigration, justice and other non-economic matters but not goods.
Indeed.
And I wonder how many Leavers in the manufacturing sector are quite happy with the status quo on goods rather than having the likes of Boris negotiating new trade treaties.
Others have declared themselves Self Employed but earn peanuts.
Like teachers but with more job security?
Teachers on just above the average salary, better than average pensions, once in place very hard to sack and with long holidays?
It is not that bad in the classroom
That's almost as wrong as your claims about ConHome.
Edit - if it's that good, why aren't you a teacher?
Why you still a teacher then?
I did not say life as a teacher was perfect but they are hardly on zero hours contracts or minimum wage or unemployed even if doing supply.
Yes they are on zero hours contracts if doing supply. It's one reason why no government will get rid of them.
Good question, why [am] I still a teacher? I don't know. Nor does the letter of resignation I'm in the process of drafting.
It is actually very easy to get rid of teachers you don't want, contrary to popular belief. Woodhead's lie about bad teachers is still believed even though ironically he was sacked twice himself.
As for 'it's not that bad in the classroom,' how on earth would you know? Pure sophistry.
Most people who do supply are either looking for a permanent role or like the flexibility.
There are far worse jobs than teaching, many lower paid and with far fewer holidays and worse pensions, most teachers do not have long commutes and the associated costs.
I never said teaching was easy nor perfect but teachers who complain all the time often have gone straight from school to university then back to the classroom with no time in the world outside
That is truly epic ignorance. Most teachers commute over an hour to work. You are just embarrassing yourself now.
And I spent three years in academia, three years self employed and a year as a Civil Servant before going into teaching and having to cope with a colleague literally walking out yesterday.
Take your patronising, lying shit elsewhere. It's people like you who give Tories a bad name.
He cannot help himself.
He even thinks he knows more than those in the know and ends up just looking foolish
Comments
Thatcher would have lost to Heseltine in round 2, now if you get 50.1% in a no confidence vote you cannot be challenged for a year.
Thatcher would have survived in 1990 under these rules
The ERG hardliners have really exposed their lack of maturity and rationality.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1062431299682492416
Your's has been a voice of good sense on how far things would proceed.
Which was sort of the reason for my original outburst, to be fair.
If May got 200 votes or fewer in a VONC her authority would be trashed beyond repair - did Major ever recover from getting 218 votes in 1995? No and he has said he would have quit if he had got below 215.
There's mathematics and there's reality - if as a leader you see more than a third of your Party voting directly against you in a No Confidence vote, there's a message there.
https://twitter.com/alstewitn/status/1062415349923135488
Likewise the number of people who are employed part time because they are unable to get full time employment has also fallen significantly.
hence my 'take that' post. Harsh I know...
It is not that bad in the classroom
What is it?
Edit - if it's that good, why aren't you a teacher?
So the crap is on the table. What do we do with it? We need to do something before it stinks the house out.
For me, the keys are:
(1) can we get out of this at a time of our own choosing, with or without notice?
(2) have we got the CU without making concessions on FoM?
(3) is it still the decision of the U.K. Parliament whether to implement EU law or does it have direct effect? If the former what are the penalties for non compliance?
(4) have we got rid of that f****** awful backstop for NI or is it still a part of the agreement? If it is what penalties have we conceded for non compliance?
Of these the most important is the first. One day, maybe, we will have a competent government with a clear understanding of consequences for both their actions and failures to act. I want that government to have the ability to make good the appalling incompetence of this one.
If May wins in round 1 she cannot be removed and has no risk of a Heseltine and she is bloody minded as anything.
For goodness sake over two thirds of Labour MPs voted against Corbyn and he ploughed on regardless. Both he and May have the hide of a rhoniceraus.
Even Major went through to the next general election after the 1995 vote
ERG trash it without reading it
Says it all really
They are holding a council, which is part of the problem.
Pakistan v Ireland about to start in Guyana, in the Women's World Cup.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/45621399
For all kinds of reasons.
For one IndyRef2 comes with no strings attached.
For two, they aren't going to vote for the Toriesv plan when the Tories' plan doesn't meet any of the SNP red lines.
Technically maybe a GE, but his pretext for a GE is so he can win and renegotiate, so that's out.
The absence of a sensible alternative massively improves its chances of passing, whatever it actually says.
I did not say life as a teacher was perfect but they are hardly on zero hours contracts or minimum wage or unemployed even if doing supply.
The point is next time they will be voting on the May of 2018/2019, and in her performance over the last couple of years, not the ex Home Secretary May from before her ascent to PM.
The votes harvested by candidates vary from election to election.
Anyway, if May doesn’t have the numbers she will have to give someone something. I wonder what it might be.
Good question, why [am] I still a teacher? I don't know. Nor does the letter of resignation I'm in the process of drafting.
It is actually very easy to get rid of teachers you don't want, contrary to popular belief. Woodhead's lie about bad teachers is still believed even though ironically he was sacked twice himself.
As for 'it's not that bad in the classroom,' how on earth would you know? Pure sophistry.
So I presume it is just political positioning on all sides.
It’s like killing cancer. Utterly trivial. It’s killing it without killing the patient that’s the hard bit
Interesting splits over the last year:
Increases in employment of Western Europeans, Romanians / Bulgarians and from Cyprus / Malta / Croatia but a big fall in the number employed from the EU8 (who I'll refer to as 'Poles').
I rather suspect that the 'Poles' leaving the UK are neither as highly skilled as the Western Europeans employed nor as willing to accept poor pay and conditions as the Romanians and Bulgarians.
What will be interesting though is to see if upcoming migration stats show net immigration fall dramatically and maybe turn negative.
After all if the number of immigrants employed falls then what are people migrating to the UK for instead ?
That the number of EU migrants who are unemployed has increased during the last year is a worrying sign about who is migrating to the UK.
I want Gove and Morgan to complete the set.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/rep-bruce-poliquin-lawsuit-maine-ranked-choice-voting-system
I expect it will be passed on a one hand one bounce basis, but not before completely destroying the credibility of a vast array of politicians, which will be nice. My advice to waverers is to get your humble pie in early.
As of yesterday I am unemployed. But I will not appear on any stat because I will not be claiming any social security payments. How many millions of people like myself are economically inactive?
If they genuinely want no deal, or think Corbyn as PM and/or no deal is better than a bad deal, then they should vote it down, whatever the consequences. Fear of Corbyn alone should not do it.
There are far worse jobs than teaching, many lower paid and with far fewer holidays and worse pensions, most teachers do not have long commutes and the associated costs.
I never said teaching was easy nor perfect but teachers who complain all the time often have gone straight from school to university then back to the classroom with no time in the world outside
Best of luck in finding work.
But it is still a big if
And I spent three years in academia, three years self employed and a year as a Civil Servant before going into teaching and having to cope with a colleague literally walking out yesterday.
Take your patronising, lying shit elsewhere. It's people like you who give Tories a bad name.
And I wonder how many Leavers in the manufacturing sector are quite happy with the status quo on goods rather than having the likes of Boris negotiating new trade treaties.
He even thinks he knows more than those in the know and ends up just looking foolish