Does anyone think UKIP could get more votes than Farage's new party, simply through name recognition? A lot of people probably think Farage is still UKIP leader.
Given the additional defections from UKIP to Brexit parties over the past few days I think the chances are low, but not non-existent. I think Farage and co have done a reasonable job setting it up.
Will the new SDP be standing and how is that not confusing?
The clearly pro Remain parties not forming a one off alliance is bonkers (I appreciate it may have been hard in the time available)
Any alliance whether LibDem/TIG or UKIP/Brexit woule have to agree who would top the alliance's list - and the order of subsequent names.
yes that clearly is a problem
It's not *that* much of a problem for LD/ChUK, who only have 1 MEP between them, and whose prospects of gaining many are considerably lower if competing as two parties rather than one (even allowing that you can't put a single list up and assume all the voters who would back the two independently would swing behind an alliance).
There'd be much more of a problem for UKIP/Brexit, who must already have a lot of bad blood between them anyway, when they have sitting MEPs to protect.
Apparently, there's already a couple of Tory MEPs chicken-running to the CUK slate.
Having just come from Westminster, turns out the Extinction Rebellion folks make crossing the roads so much easier given they block routes for cars because of their protests,
Also, I did not know that the dispatch box in front of the Prime Minister has the letters ‘GE” stencilled onto the front directly in the PM’s line of sight - no wonder they always have elections on the brain.
Mr. Sandpit, aye, but that doesn't explain the logo cock-up.
They thought they could change the name, but keep the logo for the name that had been rejected. A party called "Change UK" with the logo "TIG" is meaningless.
So far if getting elected is an exam, the CUKs are finding it a huge struggle to write their name at the top of the answer sheet. Heaven help us when they move onto their actual questions, like "what do you stand for?", "what are your policies?", and "why should we vote for you?"
And before people start asking why a party who are apparently calling for change, are standing mainly on a platform of preventing the biggest change in decades in favour of the status quo?
Does anyone think UKIP could get more votes than Farage's new party, simply through name recognition? A lot of people probably think Farage is still UKIP leader.
I think it possible, albeit unlikely.
There is also a population of prospective voters quite keen on islamophobia and Tommy Robinson.
Mr. Sandpit, aye, but that doesn't explain the logo cock-up.
They thought they could change the name, but keep the logo for the name that had been rejected. A party called "Change UK" with the logo "TIG" is meaningless.
So far if getting elected is an exam, the CUKs are finding it a huge struggle to write their name at the top of the answer sheet. Heaven help us when they move onto their actual questions, like "what do you stand for?", "what are your policies?", and "why should we vote for you?"
And before people start asking why a party who are apparently calling for change, are standing mainly on a platform of preventing the biggest change in decades in favour of the status quo?
My guess is they had vague thoughts of Obama in their heads when they picked that name.
Will the new SDP be standing and how is that not confusing?
The clearly pro Remain parties not forming a one off alliance is bonkers (I appreciate it may have been hard in the time available)
Any alliance whether LibDem/TIG or UKIP/Brexit woule have to agree who would top the alliance's list - and the order of subsequent names.
Yes, but the beauty of multiple regions is that you can trade these things off reasonably precisely, with different parties getting to top the list in different areas. The tricky bit is persuading your counterparties that you bring more votes to the table than they do.
The Brexit Party won't be interested in talking to UKIP, as they're aiming to destroy them.
But a CUK/LD/Green(?) tie-up as "The Remain Coalition" would have been smart. Too late now.
Mr. Sandpit, aye, but that doesn't explain the logo cock-up.
They thought they could change the name, but keep the logo for the name that had been rejected. A party called "Change UK" with the logo "TIG" is meaningless.
So far if getting elected is an exam, the CUKs are finding it a huge struggle to write their name at the top of the answer sheet. Heaven help us when they move onto their actual questions, like "what do you stand for?", "what are your policies?", and "why should we vote for you?"
And before people start asking why a party who are apparently calling for change, are standing mainly on a platform of preventing the biggest change in decades in favour of the status quo?
My guess is they had vague thoughts of Obama in their heads when they picked that name.
And because one of the most common refrains at election time from oppositions is that it is time for change. It’s just free advertising in that regard.
On restoration of apartheid they have rather missed the boat.
I did stay in a hotel run by white separatists in the Transvaal in 1994, a few weeks after Mandela was elected. They refused to have black people on the premises. It was a slightly odd experience, but the only hotel in town with free rooms. I cannot think why.
On restoration of apartheid they have rather missed the boat.
I did stay in a hotel run by white separatists in the Transvaal in 1994, a few weeks after Mandela was elected. They refused to have black people on the premises. It was a slightly odd experience, but the only hotel in town with free rooms. I cannot think why.
Stuart Agnew seems to be a supporter of white separatism in South Africa.
Agnew, who is one of the few Ukip MEPs elected in 2015 to remain loyal to the current leader, Gerard Batten, told the Guardian he does not support apartheid, but that there is a possible argument to establish a “homeland” for white South Africans.
Anyone know why Agnew has remained loyal to the EDL/Tommy Robinson loving Batten?
As a name for a political party 'Change' is as turgid, uninspiring and negative as it gets. It's the stuff of conference presentations by and for the salesforce of corrugated cardboard manufacturers in Scunthorpe. Hopeless. The wonderful Heidi Allen and the magnificently eccentric Anna Soubry (who with only a little alteration in dynamics would have a future in situation comedy) deserve and should have done better.
Oh, and by the way Vive la France, Vive Notre Dame. 'Resurgam'.
And thus goes the cycle. An insincere apology to shut down criticisms by saying he has changed, knowing that he still believes it, and that many people will say he was totally right to say it anyway.
On restoration of apartheid they have rather missed the boat.
I did stay in a hotel run by white separatists in the Transvaal in 1994, a few weeks after Mandela was elected. They refused to have black people on the premises. It was a slightly odd experience, but the only hotel in town with free rooms. I cannot think why.
Stuart Agnew seems to be a supporter of white separatism in South Africa.
Agnew, who is one of the few Ukip MEPs elected in 2015 to remain loyal to the current leader, Gerard Batten, told the Guardian he does not support apartheid, but that there is a possible argument to establish a “homeland” for white South Africans.
Anyone know why Agnew has remained loyal to the EDL/Tommy Robinson loving Batten?
It is an interesting case for an exercise of self determination of peoples.
Not that I am convinced that even the hardiest Trekboers really think it is their future. Most seem content to keep their economic position. Afrikaaners are quite an interesting culture, and make charming hosts for foreign visitors, it is only their fellow countrymen that they despise.
Mr. Sandpit, aye, but that doesn't explain the logo cock-up.
They thought they could change the name, but keep the logo for the name that had been rejected. A party called "Change UK" with the logo "TIG" is meaningless.
So far if getting elected is an exam, the CUKs are finding it a huge struggle to write their name at the top of the answer sheet. Heaven help us when they move onto their actual questions, like "what do you stand for?", "what are your policies?", and "why should we vote for you?"
And before people start asking why a party who are apparently calling for change, are standing mainly on a platform of preventing the biggest change in decades in favour of the status quo?
My guess is they had vague thoughts of Obama in their heads when they picked that name.
I think you can be quite confident about the vague thoughts part...
Yes, that's right, Roger: Jews should just deal with oppression and victimisation the same way they always have. After all, what's the worst that could happen?
Burgon will be in charge of the courts system and the law within months.
And Diane Abbott in charge of the police and MI5.
What could possibly go wrong.
A No Deal Brexit ensures a Labour landslide.
I’d hope an SNP C&S would temper a Corbyn government.
The Labour back benches will temper a Corbyn government.
Just as they've successfully forced him to deal with anti-semitism in the party and prevented the hard-left getting control of the party apparatus, presumably.
Burgon will be in charge of the courts system and the law within months.
And Diane Abbott in charge of the police and MI5.
But Fox will no longer be responsible for international trade or Williamson in charge of defence!
The Brexit endlessness has meant remarkably little discussion of just how bad a Corbyn government will be. Anyone who thinks it will be a couple of years of shambling ineptitude followed by a Tory landslide is mistaken. Once gifted power, the Hard Left will be very loathe to give it up. The scary thing is it could happen by accident due to the Tories' incompetence.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said talks with the government are stalling due to a Tory desire for post-Brexit deregulation including pursuing a US trade deal, a sign that the cordial tone of the negotiations is faltering.
The usual cheap jibes aside, Change UK is a very different animal from the Brexit Party. To be honest, I have a better idea of what Change UK might stand for than I do the Brexit Party.
I presume the Brexit Party has this notion about honouring the 23/6/16 referendum result and us leaving the EU - well, not as much leaving as storming off in a huff and not looking back. Okay and that float quite a few boats but in terms of practical economics and politics, "No Deal Crash Out" is so popular that a British Prime Minister had to humiliate herself before the EU rather than do it.
CUK are much more interesting, serious and of significance. The question for me is whether they represent or can come to represent some genuinely new socio-economic thinking or will it end up a mush of "the Third Way" and Cameron-style "liberal conservatism" with nods to social democracy and One Nation Conservatism. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal - the sort of Party you'd allow your daughter or grand-daughter to be seen with.
There's a gap or chasm to be filled - how will Britain be in the 2020s and beyond facing a raft of socio-economic, technological and environmental challenges? I don't have any answers apart from some thoughts - CUK ought to be leading the thinking.
Burgon will be in charge of the courts system and the law within months.
And Diane Abbott in charge of the police and MI5.
What could possibly go wrong.
A No Deal Brexit ensures a Labour landslide.
I’d hope an SNP C&S would temper a Corbyn government.
The Labour back benches will temper a Corbyn government.
Just as they've successfully forced him to deal with anti-semitism in the party and prevented the hard-left getting control of the party apparatus, presumably.
They don't have divisions in the House of Commons relating to dealing with internal party matters. They do on government policy.
Burgon will be in charge of the courts system and the law within months.
And Diane Abbott in charge of the police and MI5.
But Fox will no longer be responsible for international trade or Williamson in charge of defence!
The Brexit endlessness has meant remarkably little discussion of just how bad a Corbyn government will be. Anyone who thinks it will be a couple of years of shambling ineptitude followed by a Tory landslide is mistaken. Once gifted power, the Hard Left will be very loathe to give it up. The scary thing is it could happen by accident due to the Tories' incompetence.
I reckon the first term will be fine. The Brexit fiasco demonstrates how resilient the economy is in the short term, and it will stand up to Corbyn quite well, particularly as McDonnell is not proposing much that is economically radical.
Burgon will be in charge of the courts system and the law within months.
And Diane Abbott in charge of the police and MI5.
But Fox will no longer be responsible for international trade or Williamson in charge of defence!
The Brexit endlessness has meant remarkably little discussion of just how bad a Corbyn government will be. Anyone who thinks it will be a couple of years of shambling ineptitude followed by a Tory landslide is mistaken. Once gifted power, the Hard Left will be very loathe to give it up. The scary thing is it could happen by accident due to the Tories' incompetence.
I reckon the first term will be fine. The Brexit fiasco demonstrates how resilient the economy is in the short term, and it will stand up to Corbyn quite well, particularly as McDonnell is not proposing much that is economically radical.
You are willing to believe an entrist marxist that has repeatedly been caught lying....very brave.
And even the stuff he has said, renationalising loads of industries is pretty economically radical in most peoples book (even if you agree with it).
The usual cheap jibes aside, Change UK is a very different animal from the Brexit Party. To be honest, I have a better idea of what Change UK might stand for than I do the Brexit Party.
I presume the Brexit Party has this notion about honouring the 23/6/16 referendum result and us leaving the EU - well, not as much leaving as storming off in a huff and not looking back. Okay and that float quite a few boats but in terms of practical economics and politics, "No Deal Crash Out" is so popular that a British Prime Minister had to humiliate herself before the EU rather than do it.
CUK are much more interesting, serious and of significance. The question for me is whether they represent or can come to represent some genuinely new socio-economic thinking or will it end up a mush of "the Third Way" and Cameron-style "liberal conservatism" with nods to social democracy and One Nation Conservatism. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal - the sort of Party you'd allow your daughter or grand-daughter to be seen with.
There's a gap or chasm to be filled - how will Britain be in the 2020s and beyond facing a raft of socio-economic, technological and environmental challenges? I don't have any answers apart from some thoughts - CUK ought to be leading the thinking.
They can't lead the thinking as their very purpose is to be stuck in the past when Blairite centre politics ruled. They seem utterly incapable of seeing what a failure that has been for so many people.
That’s what happens when you have the EU collectively negotiate your trade deals. They end up being massively in favour of German and French industry, while screwing everyone else. Why does anyone think a customs union with the EU after we’ve left would be anything but an abysmal idea?
But the Germans are massive car producers. I'm any case, the EU-Japan trade deals takes a whole decade to dismantle tariffs on cars between the two blocs, so that's extremely unlikely to be the cause.
The reality is that Eurozone economic growth numbers are being revised down again, and ICE demand is falling faster. Jobs are being shed in the auto industry in the EU, the UK, Canada, Mexico and Japan right now.
Yes, that's right, Roger: Jews should just deal with oppression and victimisation the same way they always have. After all, what's the worst that could happen?
A completely stupid comment from one of the few people who i thought might know better.
They don't have divisions in the House of Commons relating to dealing with internal party matters. They do on government policy.
The idea that Labour MPs are going to vote against economically illiterate but populist tax, spending and nationalisation measures put forward by a Labour Chancellor and referenced in the manifesto they were elected on is, how shall I put it, rather optimistic.
The lead is somewhat misleading. The issue isn't that the logo or emblem isn't well known - which would be a ridiculous ruling since any new party and new logo will be definition be unknown. The issue is that the "TIG" acronym isn't well known and doesn't relate to the registered name of the party.
Burgon will be in charge of the courts system and the law within months.
And Diane Abbott in charge of the police and MI5.
What could possibly go wrong.
A No Deal Brexit ensures a Labour landslide.
I’d hope an SNP C&S would temper a Corbyn government.
The Labour back benches will temper a Corbyn government.
No. They won't. The party levers of power are now controlled by Momentum. The Labour party we think we know as voters is dead.
In terms of running the Labour Party, that's true. In terms of running a government (which is in any case going to be rather more difficult than a bunch of generally not-very-bright pensioner-activists think), MPs still matter, as Mrs may could attest.
TIG was a good name and I've heard non political people mention it. The direction I would have gone with them would have been to stay as an independent grouping rather than try to be a full party and try to get local moderate independents to stand for them across the country. Maybe with an emphasis on people who haven't been in politics before like Sarah Wollaston. I would also have entered a pact with the Lib Dems, but not the Greens in these European Elections.
OT, but very interesting and detailed paper on what it would take to achieve 100% renewable generation by 2050. http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE_All_Sectors_Global_Report_2019.pdf Electrification across all energy sectors is inevitable (see Figure KF-1) and is more resource efficient than the current system. Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors. Final energy fuel consumption is reduced by more than 2/3 (68%) from 2015 numbers, as fossil fuels are phased out completely and remaining fuels are either electricity-based or biofuels. Electricity will constitute for more than 90% of the primary energy demand in 2050. This electrification results in massive energy efficiency gains when compared to a low electrification trajectory (see KF-1). Almost all of the renewable energy supply will come from local and regional generation....
Briefly skimming the assumptions in their model, which appear in the appendices at the end, they do not seem to have made any heroic assumptions about any of the technologies involved (all of which are currently demonstrable).
The biggest assumption seems to be the political policy lead involved - though given the compelling economic case, even that might be feasible.
Thanks for the link.
"Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors"
This is quite an assumption - if we make use of hydrogen to decarbonise heating, then the growth in demand for electricity will not be quite so dramatic.
Won't we need electricity to get hydrogen?
Yup. And unless they've repealed those pesky thermodynamics laws, the amount of heat and energy required to produce the electricity to get the hydrogen is far greater than the heat and electricity saved by the hydrogen that you got. Unless we get it from the nearest free source of course, which is (thinks for a minute) the outer gas giant planets.
Pause.
Ok, that's not gonna work...
Can't we hold a referendum to repeal the laws of thermodynamics? About as plausible as the Brexit referendum. The Will of the People must of course be obeyed.
Burgon will be in charge of the courts system and the law within months.
And Diane Abbott in charge of the police and MI5.
But Fox will no longer be responsible for international trade or Williamson in charge of defence!
The Brexit endlessness has meant remarkably little discussion of just how bad a Corbyn government will be. Anyone who thinks it will be a couple of years of shambling ineptitude followed by a Tory landslide is mistaken. Once gifted power, the Hard Left will be very loathe to give it up. The scary thing is it could happen by accident due to the Tories' incompetence.
I reckon the first term will be fine. The Brexit fiasco demonstrates how resilient the economy is in the short term, and it will stand up to Corbyn quite well, particularly as McDonnell is not proposing much that is economically radical.
Bear in mind that it's now a decade since the last recession, the housing market is faltering at a high level, and that Labour is very keen to tackle housing as an issue. Very easy for them to prompt a housing-driven recession.
They should still be able to register a strapline for the Ballot paper - Change UK: The Independenr Group if they wanted. Six words exactly, which is the maximum. It does however deprive them of using the other four words for a message. The LibDems plan to refer to opposing Brexit with their spare words.
Bear in mind that it's now a decade since the last recession, the housing market is faltering at a high level, and that Labour is very keen to tackle housing as an issue. Very easy for them to prompt a housing-driven recession.
As a CityAM leader piece said today:
Back in November 2017, Corbyn warned the City directly, saying in a viral video: “you’re right, we are a threat”. Tellingly, his ire was aimed at Morgan Stanley, which had just made the same comparison of a Labour government to Brexit as Citigroup has.
Two months before, his shadow chancellor spoke of “wargaming” capital flight following a Labour victory.
More recently, Labour last week proposed using the Bank of England to control house prices, while Corbyn’s plan for “people’s QE” would mean printing money for his pet infrastructure projects, oblivious to the delicacy of monetary policy.
His plans for mass nationalisations would also clog up the courts for years, as investors demand to have their say.
Labour’s combination of unsustainable tax rises, deficit increases, and nationalisation projects based on delusional cost estimates, led by an economically illiterate team who have been openly hostile to business and the City for their entire careers, should have started ringing alarm bells long before now.
Burgon will be in charge of the courts system and the law within months.
And Diane Abbott in charge of the police and MI5.
But Fox will no longer be responsible for international trade or Williamson in charge of defence!
The Brexit endlessness has meant remarkably little discussion of just how bad a Corbyn government will be. Anyone who thinks it will be a couple of years of shambling ineptitude followed by a Tory landslide is mistaken. Once gifted power, the Hard Left will be very loathe to give it up. The scary thing is it could happen by accident due to the Tories' incompetence.
I reckon the first term will be fine. The Brexit fiasco demonstrates how resilient the economy is in the short term, and it will stand up to Corbyn quite well, particularly as McDonnell is not proposing much that is economically radical.
Bear in mind that it's now a decade since the last recession, the housing market is faltering at a high level, and that Labour is very keen to tackle housing as an issue. Very easy for them to prompt a housing-driven recession.
Rent controls - a great way to shaft the housing market while helping very few people (according to economic studies).
Change U.K. is a complete misnomer. What they have said in public amounts to higher taxes, extension of the welfare state and staying in the EU. They could have joined the LibDems or stayed in their respective parties with that agenda. What they mean is they don’t like Corbyn or May or their policies. One can have a lot of sympathy with that but not with their agenda.
Bear in mind that it's now a decade since the last recession, the housing market is faltering at a high level, and that Labour is very keen to tackle housing as an issue. Very easy for them to prompt a housing-driven recession.
As a CityAM leader piece said today:
Back in November 2017, Corbyn warned the City directly, saying in a viral video: “you’re right, we are a threat”. Tellingly, his ire was aimed at Morgan Stanley, which had just made the same comparison of a Labour government to Brexit as Citigroup has.
Two months before, his shadow chancellor spoke of “wargaming” capital flight following a Labour victory.
More recently, Labour last week proposed using the Bank of England to control house prices, while Corbyn’s plan for “people’s QE” would mean printing money for his pet infrastructure projects, oblivious to the delicacy of monetary policy.
His plans for mass nationalisations would also clog up the courts for years, as investors demand to have their say.
Labour’s combination of unsustainable tax rises, deficit increases, and nationalisation projects based on delusional cost estimates, led by an economically illiterate team who have been openly hostile to business and the City for their entire careers, should have started ringing alarm bells long before now.
OT, but very interesting and detailed paper on what it would take to achieve 100% renewable generation by 2050. http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE_All_Sectors_Global_Report_2019.pdf Electrification across all energy sectors is inevitable (see Figure KF-1) and is more resource efficient than the current system. Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors. Final energy fuel consumption is reduced by more than 2/3 (68%) from 2015 numbers, as fossil fuels are phased out completely and remaining fuels are either electricity-based or biofuels. Electricity will constitute for more than 90% of the primary energy demand in 2050. This electrification results in massive energy efficiency gains when compared to a low electrification trajectory (see KF-1). Almost all of the renewable energy supply will come from local and regional generation....
Briefly skimming the assumptions in their model, which appear in the appendices at the end, they do not seem to have made any heroic assumptions about any of the technologies involved (all of which are currently demonstrable).
The biggest assumption seems to be the political policy lead involved - though given the compelling economic case, even that might be feasible.
Thanks for the link.
"Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors"
This is quite an assumption - if we make use of hydrogen to decarbonise heating, then the growth in demand for electricity will not be quite so dramatic.
Won't we need electricity to get hydrogen?
Yup. And unless they've repealed those pesky thermodynamics laws, the amount of heat and energy required to produce the electricity to get the hydrogen is far greater than the heat and electricity saved by the hydrogen that you got. Unless we get it from the nearest free source of course, which is (thinks for a minute) the outer gas giant planets.
Pause.
Ok, that's not gonna work...
Can't we hold a referendum to repeal the laws of thermodynamics? About as plausible as the Brexit referendum. The Will of the People must of course be obeyed.
I thought Economic Theory had already done this. Limitless growth for ever and ever.
Bear in mind that it's now a decade since the last recession, the housing market is faltering at a high level, and that Labour is very keen to tackle housing as an issue. Very easy for them to prompt a housing-driven recession.
As a CityAM leader piece said today:
Back in November 2017, Corbyn warned the City directly, saying in a viral video: “you’re right, we are a threat”. Tellingly, his ire was aimed at Morgan Stanley, which had just made the same comparison of a Labour government to Brexit as Citigroup has.
Two months before, his shadow chancellor spoke of “wargaming” capital flight following a Labour victory.
More recently, Labour last week proposed using the Bank of England to control house prices, while Corbyn’s plan for “people’s QE” would mean printing money for his pet infrastructure projects, oblivious to the delicacy of monetary policy.
His plans for mass nationalisations would also clog up the courts for years, as investors demand to have their say.
Labour’s combination of unsustainable tax rises, deficit increases, and nationalisation projects based on delusional cost estimates, led by an economically illiterate team who have been openly hostile to business and the City for their entire careers, should have started ringing alarm bells long before now.
Yes Brexit has done wonders for increasing support for the EU in the remaining 27.
Le Pen has now removed all talk of France leaving and in the Netherlands the main anti EU party has quickly removed any mention of a Nexit from their campaign literature . A highlights package of the chaos and division in the UK is ready to go should any other party propose such a stupid course of action .
Project Fear. We get it every time a Labour government looks likely.
Very telling that you just use a Boris-style attempt at put-down, rather than addressing the actual points raised. The difference between Labour prior to Corbyn, and Labour now, is massive. This is a completely different order of magnitude of threat both to the economy and our security; never in the history of modern UK politics has the main opposition party been so extreme.
Bear in mind that it's now a decade since the last recession, the housing market is faltering at a high level, and that Labour is very keen to tackle housing as an issue. Very easy for them to prompt a housing-driven recession.
As a CityAM leader piece said today:
Back in November 2017, Corbyn warned the City directly, saying in a viral video: “you’re right, we are a threat”. Tellingly, his ire was aimed at Morgan Stanley, which had just made the same comparison of a Labour government to Brexit as Citigroup has.
Two months before, his shadow chancellor spoke of “wargaming” capital flight following a Labour victory.
More recently, Labour last week proposed using the Bank of England to control house prices, while Corbyn’s plan for “people’s QE” would mean printing money for his pet infrastructure projects, oblivious to the delicacy of monetary policy.
His plans for mass nationalisations would also clog up the courts for years, as investors demand to have their say.
Labour’s combination of unsustainable tax rises, deficit increases, and nationalisation projects based on delusional cost estimates, led by an economically illiterate team who have been openly hostile to business and the City for their entire careers, should have started ringing alarm bells long before now.
Foxy, you've come back to the dark side! I was starting to think we'd lost your support.
Nah, but I am not clutching my pearls at the prospect of a Labour government. It would be a step up from the current shishow.
I will be voting LD in the locals, as we have a good presence on the local councils and scope to increase it. Probably Green in the Euros, though Mrs Foxy supports ChUK.
The exact extent of Eretz Israel but that doesn't really matter because the aim of Zionism is an indeterminate border which at a minimum includes the biblical area of Judea and Samaria which includes the West Bank and Jerusalem. I went to a funeral yesterday where there were some Israelis who discussed this subject intelligently so I really can't be arsed with with the likes of Stephen Pollard or total irrelevancies from David Herdson
TIG was a good name and I've heard non political people mention it. The direction I would have gone with them would have been to stay as an independent grouping rather than try to be a full party and try to get local moderate independents to stand for them across the country. Maybe with an emphasis on people who haven't been in politics before like Sarah Wollaston. I would also have entered a pact with the Lib Dems, but not the Greens in these European Elections.
I can't see much commonality between the Tiggers and Greens. None of the Tiggers strike me as eco-socialists.
Project Fear. We get it every time a Labour government looks likely.
Very telling that you just use a Boris-style attempt at put-down, rather than addressing the actual points raised. The difference between Labour prior to Corbyn, and Labour now, is massive. This is a completely different order of magnitude of threat both to the economy and our security; never in the history of modern UK politics has the main opposition party been so extreme.
Well, the Tories shouldn't have pissed me off so much then!
Project Fear. We get it every time a Labour government looks likely.
Very telling that you just use a Boris-style attempt at put-down, rather than addressing the actual points raised. The difference between Labour prior to Corbyn, and Labour now, is massive. This is a completely different order of magnitude of threat both to the economy and our security; never in the history of modern UK politics has the main opposition party been so extreme.
Well, the Tories shouldn't have pissed me off so much then!
They can't lead the thinking as their very purpose is to be stuck in the past when Blairite centre politics ruled. They seem utterly incapable of seeing what a failure that has been for so many people.
There might be those who look back on the pre-2008 period of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and rising asset values with a certain nostalgia. The current economic model is producing some extraordinary official statistics but they hide, in my view, some much less palatable truths about the impact of an unending supply of cheap labour which has allowed people to be absorbed into the workforce and has acted as a brake on process-driven improvement.
We are told by Boris Johnson he has a "tide of Tory ideas" if he becomes Prime Minister but neither the Conservative nor Labour parties seem any more suited to thinking about the future than the jibe you address at Change UK.
Mr. Nabavi, quite agree. It's why, so long as Corbyn and his socialist circle are squatting on Labour's front bench, I'm nailed on to vote for the Conservatives even if they're led by the rubbish May.
They don't have divisions in the House of Commons relating to dealing with internal party matters. They do on government policy.
The idea that Labour MPs are going to vote against economically illiterate but populist tax, spending and nationalisation measures put forward by a Labour Chancellor and referenced in the manifesto they were elected on is, how shall I put it, rather optimistic.
Of course they'll support those policies - that's the good stuff. It's the wacky foreign policy stuff that they will rebel against.
The exact extent of Eretz Israel but that doesn't really matter because the aim of Zionism is an indeterminate border which at a minimum includes the biblical area of Judea and Samaria which includes the West Bank and Jerusalem. I went to a funeral yesterday where there were some Israelis who discussed this subject intelligently so I really can't be arsed with with the likes of Stephen Pollard or total irrelevancies from David Herdson
They don't have divisions in the House of Commons relating to dealing with internal party matters. They do on government policy.
The idea that Labour MPs are going to vote against economically illiterate but populist tax, spending and nationalisation measures put forward by a Labour Chancellor and referenced in the manifesto they were elected on is, how shall I put it, rather optimistic.
Of course they'll support those policies - that's the good stuff. It's the wacky foreign policy stuff that they will rebel against.
You are right, there will probably be token rebellions against inviting terrorists into Westminster Hall and voting with Russia in the Security Council, and placid acquiescence when the economy crashes and unemployment starts rapidly rising.
Project Fear. We get it every time a Labour government looks likely.
Very telling that you just use a Boris-style attempt at put-down, rather than addressing the actual points raised. The difference between Labour prior to Corbyn, and Labour now, is massive. This is a completely different order of magnitude of threat both to the economy and our security; never in the history of modern UK politics has the main opposition party been so extreme.
We're not the ones foaming at the mouth over the prospect of a No Deal Brexit.
Project Fear. We get it every time a Labour government looks likely.
Very telling that you just use a Boris-style attempt at put-down, rather than addressing the actual points raised. The difference between Labour prior to Corbyn, and Labour now, is massive. This is a completely different order of magnitude of threat both to the economy and our security; never in the history of modern UK politics has the main opposition party been so extreme.
Well, the Tories shouldn't have pissed me off so much then!
Likewise. If it was a straight choice between Corbyn and these Tories, there is no way I would offer this government and its bunch of damaging idiots any support. The Tories will struggle to make a case against Labour over damaging the economy after the disgraceful fiasco of the last few years.
Mr. Nabavi, quite agree. It's why, so long as Corbyn and his socialist circle are squatting on Labour's front bench, I'm nailed on to vote for the Conservatives even if they're led by the rubbish May.
That’s what happens when you have the EU collectively negotiate your trade deals. They end up being massively in favour of German and French industry, while screwing everyone else. Why does anyone think a customs union with the EU after we’ve left would be anything but an abysmal idea?
But the Germans are massive car producers. I'm any case, the EU-Japan trade deals takes a whole decade to dismantle tariffs on cars between the two blocs, so that's extremely unlikely to be the cause.
The reality is that Eurozone economic growth numbers are being revised down again, and ICE demand is falling faster. Jobs are being shed in the auto industry in the EU, the UK, Canada, Mexico and Japan right now.
I know that the car industry is a complete mess right now all over the world, but it’s not purely a co-incidence that the minute the EU agree to tariff-free imports from Japan, the major Japanese carmakers decide to exit the European production market.
The U.K. must be pretty close to neutral, with a lot of the smaller companies expanding.
City AM has its constituency and not surprisingly that constituency quite enjoys the relatively pro-business policies of a Conservative Government though City AM has argued the May Government hasn't been as pro-business as it would like and the paper constantly bangs the drum for supply-side reform including tax cuts.
Fair enough.
The attraction of Corbyn's message is not the message but rather the admission the current economic model isn't working for everyone. For all the wonderful official statistics about work, employment and vacancies and a 3.5% wage rise, you'd think we would be seeing 4 or 5% annual growth rates off such buoyant numbers but we aren't - growth staggers on at 1.2 - 1.5%.
There's a paradox here - well it is for me because I'm not an economist. I see a construction industry which should be on the biggest boom of all time and yet...
I just have this sense all these people in work and all these vacancies not being filled are symptomatic of something not quite right in the UK economy. Is or has the supply of cheap labour distorting some other things? Productivity as an example - we are all running faster to stand still it would seem. Is it simply easier to maintain current business processes and employ people rather than seek to improve things via technology or automaton. If labour is so prevalent and so cheap I can well understand how much easier it is to hire another pair of hands.
Corbyn speaks to those who are running hard to stand still - he offers them change and a degree of false hope. The Conservatives, by contrast, simply offer more of the same.
They can't lead the thinking as their very purpose is to be stuck in the past when Blairite centre politics ruled. They seem utterly incapable of seeing what a failure that has been for so many people.
There might be those who look back on the pre-2008 period of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and rising asset values with a certain nostalgia. The current economic model is producing some extraordinary official statistics but they hide, in my view, some much less palatable truths about the impact of an unending supply of cheap labour which has allowed people to be absorbed into the workforce and has acted as a brake on process-driven improvement.
We are told by Boris Johnson he has a "tide of Tory ideas" if he becomes Prime Minister but neither the Conservative nor Labour parties seem any more suited to thinking about the future than the jibe you address at Change UK.
I never said they were. But just because those parties are stuck in the past and have no new, relevant ideas for the 21st century doesn't mean the Tiggers are any better. They are not. And trying to portray themselves as some sort of fresh new broom to sweep away the old order is just going to leave them open to ridicule.
Project Fear. We get it every time a Labour government looks likely.
Very telling that you just use a Boris-style attempt at put-down, rather than addressing the actual points raised. The difference between Labour prior to Corbyn, and Labour now, is massive. This is a completely different order of magnitude of threat both to the economy and our security; never in the history of modern UK politics has the main opposition party been so extreme.
We're not the ones foaming at the mouth over the prospect of a No Deal Brexit.
Mr. Nabavi, quite agree. It's why, so long as Corbyn and his socialist circle are squatting on Labour's front bench, I'm nailed on to vote for the Conservatives even if they're led by the rubbish May.
You have been a Tory ever since I first came on this site in one of my various guises more than a decade ago. So please refrain from insulting our intelligence by claiming your present vote is anything other than your partisan default position.
Comments
Given the additional defections from UKIP to Brexit parties over the past few days I think the chances are low, but not non-existent. I think Farage and co have done a reasonable job setting it up.
Also, I did not know that the dispatch box in front of the Prime Minister has the letters ‘GE” stencilled onto the front directly in the PM’s line of sight - no wonder they always have elections on the brain.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1118170695815639041?s=21
There is also a population of prospective voters quite keen on islamophobia and Tommy Robinson.
Burgon will be in charge of the courts system and the law within months.
And Diane Abbott in charge of the police and MI5.
The Brexit Party won't be interested in talking to UKIP, as they're aiming to destroy them.
But a CUK/LD/Green(?) tie-up as "The Remain Coalition" would have been smart. Too late now.
I’d hope an SNP C&S would temper a Corbyn government.
I did stay in a hotel run by white separatists in the Transvaal in 1994, a few weeks after Mandela was elected. They refused to have black people on the premises. It was a slightly odd experience, but the only hotel in town with free rooms. I cannot think why.
https://issuu.com/communist_party/docs/cunorth11
Agnew, who is one of the few Ukip MEPs elected in 2015 to remain loyal to the current leader, Gerard Batten, told the Guardian he does not support apartheid, but that there is a possible argument to establish a “homeland” for white South Africans.
Anyone know why Agnew has remained loyal to the EDL/Tommy Robinson loving Batten?
Oh, and by the way Vive la France, Vive Notre Dame. 'Resurgam'.
Not that I am convinced that even the hardiest Trekboers really think it is their future. Most seem content to keep their economic position. Afrikaaners are quite an interesting culture, and make charming hosts for foreign visitors, it is only their fellow countrymen that they despise.
They really don’t have much money or capacity.
Now someone is deleting the incriminating evidence.
https://twitter.com/forwardnotback/status/1118170493889257474?s=21
May has shown that even a PM who has no majority and little control of her party has significant power.
The usual cheap jibes aside, Change UK is a very different animal from the Brexit Party. To be honest, I have a better idea of what Change UK might stand for than I do the Brexit Party.
I presume the Brexit Party has this notion about honouring the 23/6/16 referendum result and us leaving the EU - well, not as much leaving as storming off in a huff and not looking back. Okay and that float quite a few boats but in terms of practical economics and politics, "No Deal Crash Out" is so popular that a British Prime Minister had to humiliate herself before the EU rather than do it.
CUK are much more interesting, serious and of significance. The question for me is whether they represent or can come to represent some genuinely new socio-economic thinking or will it end up a mush of "the Third Way" and Cameron-style "liberal conservatism" with nods to social democracy and One Nation Conservatism. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal - the sort of Party you'd allow your daughter or grand-daughter to be seen with.
There's a gap or chasm to be filled - how will Britain be in the 2020s and beyond facing a raft of socio-economic, technological and environmental challenges? I don't have any answers apart from some thoughts - CUK ought to be leading the thinking.
So what element do you think is arguable?
https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1118178539172442112?s=21
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1118173881540534272
And even the stuff he has said, renationalising loads of industries is pretty
economically radical in most peoples book (even if you agree with it).
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1118179981509758976
* Not actually wondering.
The reality is that Eurozone economic growth numbers are being revised down again, and ICE demand is falling faster. Jobs are being shed in the auto industry in the EU, the UK, Canada, Mexico and Japan right now.
[I've had a long day]
Back in November 2017, Corbyn warned the City directly, saying in a viral video: “you’re right, we are a threat”. Tellingly, his ire was aimed at Morgan Stanley, which had just made the same comparison of a Labour government to Brexit as Citigroup has.
Two months before, his shadow chancellor spoke of “wargaming” capital flight following a Labour victory.
More recently, Labour last week proposed using the Bank of England to control house prices, while Corbyn’s plan for “people’s QE” would mean printing money for his pet infrastructure projects, oblivious to the delicacy of monetary policy.
His plans for mass nationalisations would also clog up the courts for years, as investors demand to have their say.
Labour’s combination of unsustainable tax rises, deficit increases, and nationalisation projects based on delusional cost estimates, led by an economically illiterate team who have been openly hostile to business and the City for their entire careers, should have started ringing alarm bells long before now.
http://www.cityam.com/276311/corbyn-much-threat-city-no-deal-brexit
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/595112367358406656?s=19
Le Pen has now removed all talk of France leaving and in the Netherlands the main anti EU party has quickly removed any mention of a Nexit from their campaign literature . A highlights package of the chaos and division in the UK is ready to go should any other party propose such a stupid course of action .
I will be voting LD in the locals, as we have a good presence on the local councils and scope to increase it. Probably Green in the Euros, though Mrs Foxy supports ChUK.
We are told by Boris Johnson he has a "tide of Tory ideas" if he becomes Prime Minister but neither the Conservative nor Labour parties seem any more suited to thinking about the future than the jibe you address at Change UK.
As the resolution puts it.
Labour's domestic policy platform is mainstream socialism. Nothing more, nothing less.
The U.K. must be pretty close to neutral, with a lot of the smaller companies expanding.
Fair enough.
The attraction of Corbyn's message is not the message but rather the admission the current economic model isn't working for everyone. For all the wonderful official statistics about work, employment and vacancies and a 3.5% wage rise, you'd think we would be seeing 4 or 5% annual growth rates off such buoyant numbers but we aren't - growth staggers on at 1.2 - 1.5%.
There's a paradox here - well it is for me because I'm not an economist. I see a construction industry which should be on the biggest boom of all time and yet...
I just have this sense all these people in work and all these vacancies not being filled are symptomatic of something not quite right in the UK economy. Is or has the supply of cheap labour distorting some other things? Productivity as an example - we are all running faster to stand still it would seem. Is it simply easier to maintain current business processes and employ people rather than seek to improve things via technology or automaton. If labour is so prevalent and so cheap I can well understand how much easier it is to hire another pair of hands.
Corbyn speaks to those who are running hard to stand still - he offers them change and a degree of false hope. The Conservatives, by contrast, simply offer more of the same.
I saw a comment on the Daily Mail saying something like, “If we just stop trading then people would have to buy local. Simples.”