How many lifelong Labour voters will thus remain if Corbyn facilitates Brexit? Count me out!
I agree, but I do not expect Corbyn to facilitate Brexit. He does not have the power to do so, the vast majority of his MPs, his party members and his voters are opposed. His hands are tied, a fact which he has skilfully concealed up to now.
It's been concealed by accident. Corbyn has done little to enable Brexit but has done little to frustrate it either. Indeed, apart from offering his own unicorn - which by accident or design has turned out to be a sound tactical decision - his main contribution has been to stop Labour from having any meaningful policy. Indeed, Labour's policy remains to leave the EU on the basis of their own preferred deal and without a public vote.
Certainly, but no one seriously supposes that Labour could get a different deal from the one the Tories have got. And there is no parliamentary majority for any deal, a fact that will not change even if there is a general election (unless one party obtains a landslide majority - a very unlikely prospect indeed). If (when?) Labour comes to power it will not want to risk allowing itself to be destroyed by Brexit, as the Tories have been, and the only way to avoid that will be a second referendum. So Labour will, eventually, take this route but it will not make an unconditional promise on the subject this week.
Yes, of course. Labour's 'own preferred deal' is a Unicorn, so it doesn't matter whether it comes with or without a public vote, because it ain't gonna happen no matter what.
Except that if somehow Labour comes into power before Brexit happens, they would have to go through the motions of pretending to negotiate a new deal (in practice, they'd get a modified political declaration, little different in substance from the existing one). In that scenario, they would probably be cornered into having to hold a referendum on the 'new' deal versus Revoke. That would be rather awkward for them, because of the question of which side they'd campaign on.
The deficit has just come in at its lowest for what, !8 years? And Debt as % of GDP is now falling steadily.
So why on earth is he proposing new taxes - it's totally unnecessary.
And even if his proposals were the "right thing" to do for inter-generational fairness it is blindingly obvious that they will be politically toxic and cost masses of votes.
Plus they would never get through the Commons even with a Con Majority Govt - many Con MPs would never vote for them.
The whole thing feels like what you would expect to hear from an academic / ivory tower - the Conservatives need to distance themselves as far as possible from anything like this.
I'm not so sure about that. The Conservatives need above all to try to claw back a little bit of the lost credibility and the reputation they used to have for dealing with the real world, not a fantasy world. Damian Green's proposals seem like a modest step in that direction.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.
So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?
With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.
Wait, what do you stand for exactly?
The application of logic to a whole host of issues, foxhunting for example.
You're asking for fact and evidence-based policy making. I'm afraid that we're in an era of message sending and emotion based policies where the only common themes are a victim-mentality and a someone else will pay thought process.
I've been triggered by your micro-aggression and the lack of mention of trans-pensioners.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
You've been picked up on the 'almost' part of that post, but the second sentence is perhaps more interesting. I would think that there are quite a lot of wavering Labour voters who would be swayed by a referendum promise - after all, a lot of people signed up to the petition on the subject. Or perhaps it's too late: maybe Corbyn has lost so much credibility with that group that it wouldn't be enough to sway them now.
Of course a lot would depend on the circumstances of any election.
It would depend on how unequivocal a commitment to a referendum Corbyn made, how much or little you’d trust him to stick to his promise, what the question would be, which side you think would be likely to win and whether or not you think that having Corbyn in power would be a bad thing, regardless of his stance on a referendum.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
Can I test that almost bit with
Diana Abbott, John McDonnell. Owen Smith?
Abbott I always had doubts about but she was once a formidable campaigner. Sadly, I think she is unwell now, or at the least well past her best, so she doesn't really figure any more. McDonnell I would be fine with. He's younger and smarter than Corbyn. Crucially, he is more flexible and gives the impression that he thinks posturing less important than governing. What on earth is wrong with Owen Smith? He wouldn't necessarily be my first choice but by the woefully low standards in both Parties I'd say he's well above par.
That misses my point: why, when Corbyn is so keen on pointless gestures, is Labour not making a pointless gesture *now*, when its failure to do so is costing it support? The only answer surely is that the leadership doesn't want to be trapped into having to deliver on it if it turns out - as you rightly note - to be a genuine commitment rather than a gesture.
My answer would be similar but slightly different. They will not offer it now because if they do they are stuck with it. Not stuck with having to deliver it - they can't, they're the Opposition - but stuck with having to offer it again should there come a pre Brexit general election. That would be a stupid position to put themselves in. They need to be making that decision at the time of such an election based on the conditions prevailing then. Will it help us win? Why try and answer that now? Much better to stay flexible.
Question back for you. You say down thread that the clear best thing for Labour is for Brexit to happen BEFORE a general election. So if Corbyn & Co agree with you they will find a way of letting the WA pass yes?
It is off topic, btw, but it’s weird how we have stopped talking about Brexit, except as a phenomenon driving various party fortunes.
Now, my predictive track record on the WA is appalling, but it seems perfectly likely that the government will pass the WA, or a WA with a CU, at the next opportunity (post the council elections) in an MV4.
I think the success of the Brexit Party, and the failure of CUK/LDs/Greens to ally, means that the balance has shifted back toward passing a deal - any deal.
May can then retire. Johnson can take over. Corbyn can be content that the Tory Party is probably fatally wounded. Farage’s fox is shot, so are the CUKs, etc. No?
The deficit has just come in at its lowest for what, !8 years? And Debt as % of GDP is now falling steadily.
So why on earth is he proposing new taxes - it's totally unnecessary.
And even if his proposals were the "right thing" to do for inter-generational fairness it is blindingly obvious that they will be politically toxic and cost masses of votes.
Plus they would never get through the Commons even with a Con Majority Govt - many Con MPs would never vote for them.
The whole thing feels like what you would expect to hear from an academic / ivory tower - the Conservatives need to distance themselves as far as possible from anything like this.
I'm not so sure about that. The Conservatives need above all to try to claw back a little bit of the lost credibility and the reputation they used to have for dealing with the real world, not a fantasy world. Damian Green's proposals seem like a modest step in that direction.
Hold on, I don't see his proposal to extend NI to pensioners or anything like that. So far from combatting intergenerational unfairness won't this just create a dividing line to people born after 1970 or some such ?!
How many lifelong Labour voters will thus remain if Corbyn facilitates Brexit? Count me out!
I agree, but I do not expect Corbyn to facilitate Brexit. He does not have the power to do so, the vast majority of his MPs, his party members and his voters are opposed. His hands are tied, a fact which he has skilfully concealed up to now.
It's been concealed by accident. Corbyn has done little to enable Brexit but has done little to frustrate it either. Indeed, apart from offering his own unicorn - which by accident or design has turned out to be a sound tactical decision - his main contribution has been to stop Labour from having any meaningful policy. Indeed, Labour's policy remains to leave the EU on the basis of their own preferred deal and without a public vote.
Certainly, but no one seriously supposes that Labour could get a different deal from the one the Tories have got. And there is no parliamentary majority for any deal, a fact that will not change even if there is a general election (unless one party obtains a landslide majority - a very unlikely prospect indeed). If (when?) Labour comes to power it will not want to risk allowing itself to be destroyed by Brexit, as the Tories have been, and the only way to avoid that will be a second referendum. So Labour will, eventually, take this route but it will not make an unconditional promise on the subject this week.
Yes, of course. Labour's 'own preferred deal' is a Unicorn, so it doesn't matter whether it comes with or without a public vote, because it ain't gonna happen no matter what.
Except that if somehow Labour comes into power before Brexit happens, they would have to go through the motions of pretending to negotiate a new deal (in practice, they'd get a modified political declaration, little different in substance from the existing one). In that scenario, they would probably be cornered into having to hold a referendum on the 'new' deal versus Revoke. That would be rather awkward for them, because of the question of which side they'd campaign on.
We're getting into the hypothetical here but I think Labour would go along to the EU and attempt a bit of "negotiating" but would eventually conclude that it is not possible to get a better deal outside the EU than inside it and recommend that people vote accordingly. The EU could throw in a few sweeteners on FM just to show willing.
McDonnell is utterly untrustworthy. He looks and behaves like one of those bent Met detectives from the 1970’s: outwardly charming and seemingly competent but not to be trusted, quite willing to bend the rules and use violence to get his way and nowhere near as competent as he thinks he is.
Abbott is probably not up to being leader but has more good points than some of her detractors allow.
Owen Smith: a bit meh but in the land of the blind etc.....
How many lifelong Labour voters will thus remain if Corbyn facilitates Brexit? Count me out!
I agree, but I do not expect Corbyn to facilitate Brexit. He does not have the power to do so, the vast majority of his MPs, his party members and his voters are opposed. His hands are tied, a fact which he has skilfully concealed up to now.
It's been concealed by accident. Corbyn has done little to enable Brexit but has done little to frustrate it either. Indeed, apart from offering his own unicorn - which by accident or design has turned out to be a sound tactical decision - his main contribution has been to stop Labour from having any meaningful policy. Indeed, Labour's policy remains to leave the EU on the basis of their own preferred deal and without a public vote.
Certainly, but no one seriously supposes that Labour could get a different deal from the one the Tories have got. And there is no parliamentary majority for any deal, a fact that will not change even if there is a general election (unless one party obtains a landslide majority - a very unlikely prospect indeed). If (when?) Labour comes to power it will not want to risk allowing itself to be destroyed by Brexit, as the Tories have been, and the only way to avoid that will be a second referendum. So Labour will, eventually, take this route but it will not make an unconditional promise on the subject this week.
Yes, of course. Labour's 'own preferred deal' is a Unicorn, so it doesn't matter whether it comes with or without a public vote, because it ain't gonna happen no matter what.
Except that if somehow Labour comes into power before Brexit happens, they would have to go through the motions of pretending to negotiate a new deal (in practice, they'd get a modified political declaration, little different in substance from the existing one). In that scenario, they would probably be cornered into having to hold a referendum on the 'new' deal versus Revoke. That would be rather awkward for them, because of the question of which side they'd campaign on.
Agreed, Richard. If Labour somehow come into power before Brexit, they're cattle trucked.
We're getting into the hypothetical here but I think Labour would go along to the EU and attempt a bit of "negotiating" but would eventually conclude that it is not possible to get a better deal outside the EU than inside it and recommend that people vote accordingly. The EU could throw in a few sweeteners on FM just to show willing.
That would mean Labour conceding that the terrible Tory deal was the best possible one available, given the referendum result. I can't see them ever doing that, especially since it's true.
The deficit has just come in at its lowest for what, !8 years? And Debt as % of GDP is now falling steadily.
So why on earth is he proposing new taxes - it's totally unnecessary.
And even if his proposals were the "right thing" to do for inter-generational fairness it is blindingly obvious that they will be politically toxic and cost masses of votes.
Plus they would never get through the Commons even with a Con Majority Govt - many Con MPs would never vote for them.
The whole thing feels like what you would expect to hear from an academic / ivory tower - the Conservatives need to distance themselves as far as possible from anything like this.
Perhaps he was thinking about intergenerational fairness and sustainable government finances - you know, like a responsible MP?
How many lifelong Labour voters will thus remain if Corbyn facilitates Brexit? Count me out!
I agree, but I do not expect Corbyn to facilitate Brexit. He does not have the power to do so, the vast majority of his MPs, his party members and his voters are opposed. His hands are tied, a fact which he has skilfully concealed up to now.
It's been concealed by accident. Corbyn has done little to enable Brexit but has done little to frustrate it either. Indeed, apart from offering his own unicorn - which by accident or design has turned out to be a sound tactical decision - his main contribution has been to stop Labour from having any meaningful policy. Indeed, Labour's policy remains to leave the EU on the basis of their own preferred deal and without a public vote.
Certainly, but no one seriously supposes that Labour could get a different deal from the one the Tories have got. And there is no parliamentary majority for any deal, a fact that will not change even if there is a general election (unless one party obtains a landslide majority - a very unlikely prospect indeed). If (when?) Labour comes to power it will not want to risk allowing itself to be destroyed by Brexit, as the Tories have been, and the only way to avoid that will be a second referendum. So Labour will, eventually, take this route but it will not make an unconditional promise on the subject this week.
Yes, of course. Labour's 'own preferred deal' is a Unicorn, so it doesn't matter whether it comes with or without a public vote, because it ain't gonna happen no matter what.
Except that if somehow Labour comes into power before Brexit happens, they would have to go through the motions of pretending to negotiate a new deal (in practice, they'd get a modified political declaration, little different in substance from the existing one). In that scenario, they would probably be cornered into having to hold a referendum on the 'new' deal versus Revoke. That would be rather awkward for them, because of the question of which side they'd campaign on.
We're getting into the hypothetical here but I think Labour would go along to the EU and attempt a bit of "negotiating" but would eventually conclude that it is not possible to get a better deal outside the EU than inside it and recommend that people vote accordingly. The EU could throw in a few sweeteners on FM just to show willing.
Has there been any evidence of the Labour leadership supporting such a position?
There would need to be a major volte face by McCluskey for Labour to come out in favour of a second referendum. Even that might not be enough with Labour unlikely to rebuild their support in Scotland.
The Tories need to recognise its no deal or no Brexit, get shot of May and get on with life after Brexit if they are to have any chance of reversing the damage May, Hammond, Clark, Grayling have done.
Frankly, neither party is worth voting for at the moment but the danger McDonnell poses to the economy is by far the greatest.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
Can I test that almost bit with
Diana Abbott, John McDonnell. Owen Smith?
Abbott I always had doubts about but she was once a formidable campaigner
The deficit has just come in at its lowest for what, !8 years? And Debt as % of GDP is now falling steadily.
So why on earth is he proposing new taxes - it's totally unnecessary.
And even if his proposals were the "right thing" to do for inter-generational fairness it is blindingly obvious that they will be politically toxic and cost masses of votes.
Plus they would never get through the Commons even with a Con Majority Govt - many Con MPs would never vote for them.
The whole thing feels like what you would expect to hear from an academic / ivory tower - the Conservatives need to distance themselves as far as possible from anything like this.
Perhaps he was thinking about intergenerational fairness and sustainable government finances - you know, like a responsible MP?
Talking up new taxes for the 50-68? age range won't suddenly make people in their 20s think hmm I'm going to vote Tory. Pensioners will be exempt anyway unless the NI limit is being extended indefinitely, and people in their 30s and 40s are going to be thinking... shit that's a tax I'll be paying in my 50s and 60s.
Sorry but I have to ask, since I have never before had the opportunity to do so of a Ukip member, did you come across a fair few "cranks and loons and closet fruitcakes"? And is that why you left?
Talking up new taxes for the 50-68? age range won't suddenly make people in their 20s think hmm I'm going to vote Tory. Pensioners will be exempt anyway unless the NI limit is being extended indefinitely, and people in their 30s and 40s are going to be thinking... shit that's a tax I'll be paying in my 50s and 60s.
They may well think that. The smarter ones will realise that they'll be paying irrespective of how it's organised. The very smartest ones will realise that the alternative is to finance a higher proportion of care for the elderly out of general taxation - i.e. they pay straightaway, as they do for the triple lock, bus passes, TV licences and all the other goodies John McDonnell is so keen to protect.
Has there been any evidence of the Labour leadership supporting such a position?
No, it's hypothetical as I said. Hardly any leavers were advocating no deal at the 2017 election but now it is apparently the only true form of Brexit. Labour could easily move in the opposite direction.
Sorry but I have to ask, since I have never before had the opportunity to do so of a Ukip member, did you come across a fair few "cranks and loons and closet fruitcakes"? And is that why you left?
Some. I didn't come across anyone who was nasty, but some people were a bit obsessed.
Sorry but I have to ask, since I have never before had the opportunity to do so of a Ukip member, did you come across a fair few "cranks and loons and closet fruitcakes"? And is that why you left?
Is this one of those “if you didn’t, the crank must be you” conundrums?
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
Can I test that almost bit with
Diana Abbott, John McDonnell. Owen Smith?
Abbott I always had doubts about but she was once a formidable campaigner
One trick pony - vote for me I'm black like you.
She gave one of the best Parliamentary speeches against Blair’s lunatic detention without trial for 42 days proposal.
Sorry but I have to ask, since I have never before had the opportunity to do so of a Ukip member, did you come across a fair few "cranks and loons and closet fruitcakes"? And is that why you left?
Went to a UKIP meeting once. Candidate was an ineffectual nice-but-dim chap a bit younger than me in a blazer. Behind him were two or three men in suits. Nice-but-dim spoke for a while and then a chap who looked as thought he'd escaped from somewhere said something about 'we all know why we're here and what the real problem is'. At which point I made my excuses and left.
With mcIRA in case it will be less fire up the quattro, more fire up the new nationalized car industries modern equivalent of the morris minor (that they had to wait a month for because the workforce went on strike because fred got sacked for smoking on the job).
Talking up new taxes for the 50-68? age range won't suddenly make people in their 20s think hmm I'm going to vote Tory. Pensioners will be exempt anyway unless the NI limit is being extended indefinitely, and people in their 30s and 40s are going to be thinking... shit that's a tax I'll be paying in my 50s and 60s.
They may well think that. The smarter ones will realise that they'll be paying irrespective of how it's organised. The very smartest ones will realise that the alternative is to finance a higher proportion of care for the elderly out of general taxation - i.e. they pay straightaway, as they do for the triple lock, bus passes, TV licences and all the other goodies John McDonnell is so keen to protect.
Yep - it's why I liked the original approach of taking it out of inheritance. While it may have destroyed my inheritance it was both better than the current gamble and the other option of increasing taxes.
The thing is that the money does need to come from somewhere the question is really only one of where.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
Can I test that almost bit with
Diana Abbott, John McDonnell. Owen Smith?
Abbott I always had doubts about but she was once a formidable campaigner
One trick pony - vote for me I'm black like you.
She gave one of the best Parliamentary speeches against Blair’s lunatic detention without trial for 42 days proposal.
Yes, it was one of the best backbench speeches of that parliament. The contrast with her recent dismal performance is extraordinary.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.
So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?
With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.
Oddly, I recall saying perhaps 2 years ago that only Johnson had the absolute chutzpah to carry out a Brexit reversal. He could still do although he hasn't helped himself in the interim.
'OK chaps, there's obviously no need to Leave now I'm P.M.'
Went to a UKIP meeting once. Candidate was an ineffectual nice-but-dim chap a bit younger than me in a blazer. Behind him were two or three men in suits. Nice-but-dim spoke for a while and then a chap who looked as thought he'd escaped from somewhere said something about 'we all know why we're here and what the real problem is'. At which point I made my excuses and left.
LOL. There was a beer advert once which springs to mind ... "Time for a sharp exit!"
Any case, I'd better not develop the theme. I was (rightly) yellow carded yesterday for going on about the 'Blazer Brigade'.
Poor write up of the "case study". No mention if what degree or grade.
The whole analysis basis looked pretty weak. A technocratic assumption about what job a graduate should be doing with apparently little thought to softer skills or people making conscious choices about employment and what suits them emotionally. Perhaps unfair but it looked like an actuary had been let loose in the press release room.
Sorry but I have to ask, since I have never before had the opportunity to do so of a Ukip member, did you come across a fair few "cranks and loons and closet fruitcakes"? And is that why you left?
Went to a UKIP meeting once. Candidate was an ineffectual nice-but-dim chap a bit younger than me in a blazer. Behind him were two or three men in suits. Nice-but-dim spoke for a while and then a chap who looked as thought he'd escaped from somewhere said something about 'we all know why we're here and what the real problem is'. At which point I made my excuses and left.
So you never found out why they were there and what the real problem was?
Sorry but I have to ask, since I have never before had the opportunity to do so of a Ukip member, did you come across a fair few "cranks and loons and closet fruitcakes"? And is that why you left?
Went to a UKIP meeting once. Candidate was an ineffectual nice-but-dim chap a bit younger than me in a blazer. Behind him were two or three men in suits. Nice-but-dim spoke for a while and then a chap who looked as thought he'd escaped from somewhere said something about 'we all know why we're here and what the real problem is'. At which point I made my excuses and left.
So you never found out why they were there and what the real problem was?
The deficit has just come in at its lowest for what, !8 years? And Debt as % of GDP is now falling steadily.
So why on earth is he proposing new taxes - it's totally unnecessary.
And even if his proposals were the "right thing" to do for inter-generational fairness it is blindingly obvious that they will be politically toxic and cost masses of votes.
Plus they would never get through the Commons even with a Con Majority Govt - many Con MPs would never vote for them.
The whole thing feels like what you would expect to hear from an academic / ivory tower - the Conservatives need to distance themselves as far as possible from anything like this.
I think you're being a little generous. It's more accurate to say that debt-to-GDP appears to be finally on a gently descending curve. (Until the next recession):
Labour winning an NEV of about 30%, Conservative 29%, Lib Dem 14%, Others 27%.
How do others get 27% when we are talking about the local elections..
Big votes for independents and minor parties.
How many of which are actually standing in the locals?
A lot of minor party supporters are going to be disappointed when they see their ballot paper this week.
There are 2,600 Greens, 1,400 UKIP, 2,700 Independents, local parties etc.
But no Brexit Party, no CUKs and some seats with no Lab or LD.
The Con vote could hold up more than expected, because of the lack of alternatives.
For the locals. For the EU elections, we’re completely Donald Ducked.
260 Conservatives have been returned unopposed already or are guaranteed election, due to a shortage of opponents.
Back in 2004 and 2014, when the local and euro elections were held on the same day, there was a lot of split-ticket voting, with people who backed UKIP at EU level backing other parties (mostly Conservatives) at local level.
That misses my point: why, when Corbyn is so keen on pointless gestures, is Labour not making a pointless gesture *now*, when its failure to do so is costing it support? The only answer surely is that the leadership doesn't want to be trapped into having to deliver on it if it turns out - as you rightly note - to be a genuine commitment rather than a gesture.
My answer would be similar but slightly different. They will not offer it now because if they do they are stuck with it. Not stuck with having to deliver it - they can't, they're the Opposition - but stuck with having to offer it again should there come a pre Brexit general election. That would be a stupid position to put themselves in. They need to be making that decision at the time of such an election based on the conditions prevailing then. Will it help us win? Why try and answer that now? Much better to stay flexible.
Question back for you. You say down thread that the clear best thing for Labour is for Brexit to happen BEFORE a general election. So if Corbyn & Co agree with you they will find a way of letting the WA pass yes?
Sadly for them, no. I don't think there is a way for Labour to let Brexit happen without being tainted by association. If there was such a way then yes, that's what I think Corbyn would aim for.
If they hadn't spent so much time trashing May's deal, they might have been better praising its many Remain-light features, supported the WA, caused havoc for the government during the passage of the Implementation Bill, and then brought the government down with the aid of the DUP and/or ERG Ultras once the deed was done.
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
Mr. Nabavi, it's like when the EU was insisting the Withdrawal Agreement was set in stone and could not be reopened. Unless a customs union was desired, of course, in which case...
Yep - it's why I liked the original approach of taking it out of inheritance. While it may have destroyed my inheritance it was both better than the current gamble and the other option of increasing taxes.
The thing is that the money does need to come from somewhere the question is really only one of where.
I agree with you. I liked Burnham's Death Tax and I liked Timothy's Dementia Tax. They both had head & heart in the right place. Fund social care out of late lifers' housing wealth (payment deferred until death if necessary) and put a floor in so that people cannot be left with nothing at all to pass on (unless they had nothing at all to start with).
The deficit has just come in at its lowest for what, !8 years? And Debt as % of GDP is now falling steadily.
So why on earth is he proposing new taxes - it's totally unnecessary.
And even if his proposals were the "right thing" to do for inter-generational fairness it is blindingly obvious that they will be politically toxic and cost masses of votes.
Plus they would never get through the Commons even with a Con Majority Govt - many Con MPs would never vote for them.
The whole thing feels like what you would expect to hear from an academic / ivory tower - the Conservatives need to distance themselves as far as possible from anything like this.
Perhaps he was thinking about intergenerational fairness and sustainable government finances - you know, like a responsible MP?
Talking up new taxes for the 50-68? age range won't suddenly make people in their 20s think hmm I'm going to vote Tory. Pensioners will be exempt anyway unless the NI limit is being extended indefinitely, and people in their 30s and 40s are going to be thinking... shit that's a tax I'll be paying in my 50s and 60s.
Not everything in politics should be about the immediate polling impact. And some things should be done (in the right way and at the right time) even when there's a negative immediate polling impact because getting the medium- and long-term stuff right still pays a dividend if you're reasonably competent.
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
That misses my point: why, when Corbyn is so keen on pointless gestures, is Labour not making a pointless gesture *now*, when its failure to do so is costing it support? The only answer surely is that the leadership doesn't want to be trapped into having to deliver on it if it turns out - as you rightly note - to be a genuine commitment rather than a gesture.
My answer would be similar but slightly different. They will not offer it now because if they do they are stuck with it. Not stuck with having to deliver it - they can't, they're the Opposition - but stuck with having to offer it again should there come a pre Brexit general election. That would be a stupid position to put themselves in. They need to be making that decision at the time of such an election based on the conditions prevailing then. Will it help us win? Why try and answer that now? Much better to stay flexible.
Question back for you. You say down thread that the clear best thing for Labour is for Brexit to happen BEFORE a general election. So if Corbyn & Co agree with you they will find a way of letting the WA pass yes?
Sadly for them, no. I don't think there is a way for Labour to let Brexit happen without being tainted by association. If there was such a way then yes, that's what I think Corbyn would aim for.
If they hadn't spent so much time trashing May's deal, they might have been better praising its many Remain-light features, supported the WA, caused havoc for the government during the passage of the Implementation Bill, and then brought the government down with the aid of the DUP and/or ERG Ultras once the deed was done.
But the vast majority of Labour Party members, and (probably) a majority of MPs, want to reverse Brexit altogether. They will never support any deal as they hope, probably correctly, that the best chance of achieving a reversal is to block all ways out.
Yep - it's why I liked the original approach of taking it out of inheritance. While it may have destroyed my inheritance it was both better than the current gamble and the other option of increasing taxes.
The thing is that the money does need to come from somewhere the question is really only one of where.
I agree with you. I liked Burnham's Death Tax and I liked Timothy's Dementia Tax. They both had head & heart in the right place. Fund social care out of late lifers' housing wealth (payment deferred until death if necessary) and put a floor in so that people cannot be left with nothing at all to pass on (unless they had nothing at all to start with).
Indeed. One of the great 'crimes' of May's 2017 campaign was the way in which she took some very sensible and valid ideas and so mishandled them as to make them utterly toxic. She has poisoned the whole debate around late life care.
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
Sadly for them, no. I don't think there is a way for Labour to let Brexit happen without being tainted by association. If there was such a way then yes, that's what I think Corbyn would aim for.
If they hadn't spent so much time trashing May's deal, they might have been better praising its many Remain-light features, supported the WA, caused havoc for the government during the passage of the Implementation Bill, and then brought the government down with the aid of the DUP and/or ERG Ultras once the deed was done.
Yes, I thought at one time they would do that. But no, it appears not. I now cannot see Brexit happening this side of a GE. Meaning there WILL be that pre Brexit election and we will see if I am right about them pivoting to Ref/Remain at that point and winning it.
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
This is true, but it's also the EU which is walking away from close co-operation with us. A lose-lose outcome.
That misses my point: why, when Corbyn is so keen on pointless gestures, is Labour not making a pointless gesture *now*, when its failure to do so is costing it support? The only answer surely is that the leadership doesn't want to be trapped into having to deliver on it if it turns out - as you rightly note - to be a genuine commitment rather than a gesture.
My answer would be similar but slightly different. They will not offer it now because if they do they are stuck with it. Not stuck with having to deliver it - they can't, they're the Opposition - but stuck with having to offer it again should there come a pre Brexit general election. That would be a stupid position to put themselves in. They need to be making that decision at the time of such an election based on the conditions prevailing then. Will it help us win? Why try and answer that now? Much better to stay flexible.
Question back for you. You say down thread that the clear best thing for Labour is for Brexit to happen BEFORE a general election. So if Corbyn & Co agree with you they will find a way of letting the WA pass yes?
Sadly for them, no. I don't think there is a way for Labour to let Brexit happen without being tainted by association. If there was such a way then yes, that's what I think Corbyn would aim for.
If they hadn't spent so much time trashing May's deal, they might have been better praising its many Remain-light features, supported the WA, caused havoc for the government during the passage of the Implementation Bill, and then brought the government down with the aid of the DUP and/or ERG Ultras once the deed was done.
Indeed. One of the great 'crimes' of May's 2017 campaign was the way in which she took some very sensible and valid ideas and so mishandled them as to make them utterly toxic. She has poisoned the whole debate around late life care.
It's such a massive and controversial issue that I think it might need bipartisan agreement to get anything substantial done. Otherwise, one party proposes something, the other puts 'tax' on the end of it - the papers weigh in with a load of scaremongering to shift units to their elderly readerships - bob's your uncle, it's dead in the water.
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
But why on earth should students from Canada or China pay way more than students from Bulgaria or Portugal? It is, for starters, discriminatory against the first, and also probably bad for the education business in Britain, seeing as there are 500 million EU citizens but 6 billion global non-EU citizens. The latter market - the rest of the world - is worth far more.
As Richard Nabavi says this is have-and-eat-cakery from the EU.
I voted Remain but this is NOT a logical argument for Remain.
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
But why on earth should students from Canada or China pay way more than students from Bulgaria or Portugal? It is, for starters, discriminatory against the first, and also probably bad for the education business in Britain, seeing as there are 500 million EU citizens but 6 billion global non-EU citizens. The latter market - the rest of the world - is worth far more.
As Richard Nabavi says this is have-and-eat-cakery from the EU.
I voted Remain but this is NOT a logical argument for Remain.
Have Canada or China offered the UK a similar reciprocal arrangement? If not then it's a bogus comparison.
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
But why on earth should students from Canada or China pay way more than students from Bulgaria or Portugal? It is, for starters, discriminatory against the first, and also probably bad for the education business in Britain, seeing as there are 500 million EU citizens but 6 billion global non-EU citizens. The latter market - the rest of the world - is worth far more.
As Richard Nabavi says this is have-and-eat-cakery from the EU.
I voted Remain but this is NOT a logical argument for Remain.
Have Canada or China offered the UK a similar reciprocal arrangement? If not then it's a bogus comparison.
Far more EU students attend UK universities than the other way round. This is a hopeless argument for Remain, when there are millions of good arguments for Remain, so I'm not sure why anyone is pushing it. The EU's cherry picking is actually going to help the Leave campaign if it gets traction.
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
But why on earth should students from Canada or China pay way more than students from Bulgaria or Portugal? It is, for starters, discriminatory against the first, and also probably bad for the education business in Britain, seeing as there are 500 million EU citizens but 6 billion global non-EU citizens. The latter market - the rest of the world - is worth far more.
As Richard Nabavi says this is have-and-eat-cakery from the EU.
I voted Remain but this is NOT a logical argument for Remain.
Imagine if there was an EU university where students from England paid more than students from Germany, France, Bulgaria, Spain - imagine the outrage ?!?!?!?!
They exist:
Glasgow Edinburgh Heriot Watt St Andrews Dundee Strathclyde Stirling etc..
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
But why on earth should students from Canada or China pay way more than students from Bulgaria or Portugal? It is, for starters, discriminatory against the first, and also probably bad for the education business in Britain, seeing as there are 500 million EU citizens but 6 billion global non-EU citizens. The latter market - the rest of the world - is worth far more.
As Richard Nabavi says this is have-and-eat-cakery from the EU.
I voted Remain but this is NOT a logical argument for Remain.
Have Canada or China offered the UK a similar reciprocal arrangement? If not then it's a bogus comparison.
Far more EU students attend UK universities than the other way round. This is a hopeless argument for Remain, when there are millions of good arguments for Remain, so I'm not sure why anyone is pushing it. The EU's cherry picking is actually going to help the Leave campaign if it gets traction.
This is a very David Cameron way of thinking about Europe.
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
But why on earth should students from Canada or China pay way more than students from Bulgaria or Portugal? It is, for starters, discriminatory against the first, and also probably bad for the education business in Britain, seeing as there are 500 million EU citizens but 6 billion global non-EU citizens. The latter market - the rest of the world - is worth far more.
As Richard Nabavi says this is have-and-eat-cakery from the EU.
I voted Remain but this is NOT a logical argument for Remain.
Imagine if there was an EU university where students from England paid more than students from Germany, France, Bulgaria, Spain - imagine the outrage ?!?!?!?!
They exist:
Glasgow Edinburgh Heriot Watt St Andrews Dundee Strathclyde Stirling etc..
Yes. It has always surprised me that this anomaly does not generate more anger. I presume it will be legally corrected, IF we actually Brexit.
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
But why on earth should students from Canada or China pay way more than students from Bulgaria or Portugal? It is, for starters, discriminatory against the first, and also probably bad for the education business in Britain, seeing as there are 500 million EU citizens but 6 billion global non-EU citizens. The latter market - the rest of the world - is worth far more.
As Richard Nabavi says this is have-and-eat-cakery from the EU.
I voted Remain but this is NOT a logical argument for Remain.
Imagine if there was an EU university where students from England paid more than students from Germany, France, Bulgaria, Spain - imagine the outrage ?!?!?!?!
They exist:
Glasgow Edinburgh Heriot Watt St Andrews Dundee Strathclyde Stirling etc..
Yes. It has always surprised me that this anomaly does not generate more anger. I presume it will be legally corrected, IF we actually Brexit.
It is a disasterous policy for Scottish students - the Universities in Scotland fill up with as many English students as possible as they mean more revenue.
Indeed. One of the great 'crimes' of May's 2017 campaign was the way in which she took some very sensible and valid ideas and so mishandled them as to make them utterly toxic. She has poisoned the whole debate around late life care.
I suspect Corbyn, Milne and Murray are going to do the same to good ideas like the state ownership of natural monopolies, and employee participation in corporate governance.
I'm enjoying this interview with Stephen Bush (two parts so far), but this last line was a bit of a jolt:
"we literally don’t know the circumstances of Labour’s next internal election. It could be after a successful Corbyn-led government. It could be after a disastrous Corbyn-led government. It could be after a defeat like the one people expected in 2017, or a carbon copy of the 2015 result. It could be after the sudden and unexpected death of Corbyn."
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
But why on earth should students from Canada or China pay way more than students from Bulgaria or Portugal? It is, for starters, discriminatory against the first, and also probably bad for the education business in Britain, seeing as there are 500 million EU citizens but 6 billion global non-EU citizens. The latter market - the rest of the world - is worth far more.
As Richard Nabavi says this is have-and-eat-cakery from the EU.
I voted Remain but this is NOT a logical argument for Remain.
Imagine if there was an EU university where students from England paid more than students from Germany, France, Bulgaria, Spain - imagine the outrage ?!?!?!?!
They exist:
Glasgow Edinburgh Heriot Watt St Andrews Dundee Strathclyde Stirling etc..
Equally their degrees are 4 years long rather than 3 so were rarely a popular choice except in Scotland..
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
But why on earth should students from Canada or China pay way more than students from Bulgaria or Portugal? It is, for starters, discriminatory against the first, and also probably bad for the education business in Britain, seeing as there are 500 million EU citizens but 6 billion global non-EU citizens. The latter market - the rest of the world - is worth far more.
As Richard Nabavi says this is have-and-eat-cakery from the EU.
I voted Remain but this is NOT a logical argument for Remain.
Imagine if there was an EU university where students from England paid more than students from Germany, France, Bulgaria, Spain - imagine the outrage ?!?!?!?!
They exist:
Glasgow Edinburgh Heriot Watt St Andrews Dundee Strathclyde Stirling etc..
Yes. It has always surprised me that this anomaly does not generate more anger. I presume it will be legally corrected, IF we actually Brexit.
It is indefensible, and another example of the failure of the British government to think things through with respect to Scotland.
It is a perverse outcome of EU membership, but it could be addressed (or have been addressed) without Brexit.
Yep - it's why I liked the original approach of taking it out of inheritance. While it may have destroyed my inheritance it was both better than the current gamble and the other option of increasing taxes.
The thing is that the money does need to come from somewhere the question is really only one of where.
I agree with you. I liked Burnham's Death Tax and I liked Timothy's Dementia Tax. They both had head & heart in the right place. Fund social care out of late lifers' housing wealth (payment deferred until death if necessary) and put a floor in so that people cannot be left with nothing at all to pass on (unless they had nothing at all to start with).
Absolutely not. The dementia tax was a disaster on the doorstep and the Death Tax and higher inheritance tax also deeply unpopular.
Fund social care out of higher National Insurance on over 50s, it would raise a lot and most people actually support raising NI to pay for healthcare
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
It's actually a good negotiating tactic, saying to the EU, if you treat the UK like any other "third country" well, two can play at that game.
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
But why on earth should students from Canada or China pay way more than students from Bulgaria or Portugal? It is, for starters, discriminatory against the first, and also probably bad for the education business in Britain, seeing as there are 500 million EU citizens but 6 billion global non-EU citizens. The latter market - the rest of the world - is worth far more.
As Richard Nabavi says this is have-and-eat-cakery from the EU.
I voted Remain but this is NOT a logical argument for Remain.
Imagine if there was an EU university where students from England paid more than students from Germany, France, Bulgaria, Spain - imagine the outrage ?!?!?!?!
They exist:
Glasgow Edinburgh Heriot Watt St Andrews Dundee Strathclyde Stirling etc..
Yes. It has always surprised me that this anomaly does not generate more anger. I presume it will be legally corrected, IF we actually Brexit.
It is indefensible, and another example of the failure of the British government to think things through with respect to Scotland.
It is a perverse outcome of EU membership, but it could be addressed (or have been addressed) without Brexit.
Of which, the simplest would be electing a Scottish Government that charged Scottish students tuition fees. Good luck with that.
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
It's actually a good negotiating tactic, saying to the EU, if you treat the UK like any other "third country" well, two can play at that game.
Except the students are a net benefit to the UK, so it's the usual shooting ourselves in the foot.
There would need to be a major volte face by McCluskey for Labour to come out in favour of a second referendum. Even that might not be enough with Labour unlikely to rebuild their support in Scotland.
The Tories need to recognise its no deal or no Brexit, get shot of May and get on with life after Brexit if they are to have any chance of reversing the damage May, Hammond, Clark, Grayling have done.
Frankly, neither party is worth voting for at the moment but the danger McDonnell poses to the economy is by far the greatest.
It isn't, more MPs have voted for May's Deal or Deal plus Customs Union than No Deal or revoke Article 50 in the indicative votes and Deal plus Customs Union was also closer to a majority than EUref2
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
It's actually a good negotiating tactic, saying to the EU, if you treat the UK like any other "third country" well, two can play at that game.
Except the students are a net benefit to the UK, so it's the usual shooting ourselves in the foot.
You seem to think there is a limited pool of students hoping to come to the UK, so we must get what we can from the EU. This is nonsense. China alone could probably fill every UK university with overseas students.
The fact is the EU keenly wants us gone from EU institutions when it benefits their companies - see the way they have excluded us from Galileo. But when it advantages them to co-operate with the UK - and this is a good example, as more EU students go to the UK's superior universities than the other way around - suddenly they are all in favour of integration, despite Brexit.
Just because Leave is a silly idea does not mean the EU is always right, or even moral.
Determined EU students will still come to the UK, because we have good universities. After Brexit, our universities will have more room for higher paying non-EU students.
So this issue, as I say, is not a positive for Remain, especially when they are many better arguments.
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
It's actually a good negotiating tactic, saying to the EU, if you treat the UK like any other "third country" well, two can play at that game.
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
It's actually a good negotiating tactic, saying to the EU, if you treat the UK like any other "third country" well, two can play at that game.
Except the students are a net benefit to the UK, so it's the usual shooting ourselves in the foot.
Students from the EU run at a colossal loss for UK universities.
Yep - it's why I liked the original approach of taking it out of inheritance. While it may have destroyed my inheritance it was both better than the current gamble and the other option of increasing taxes.
The thing is that the money does need to come from somewhere the question is really only one of where.
I agree with you. I liked Burnham's Death Tax and I liked Timothy's Dementia Tax. They both had head & heart in the right place. Fund social care out of late lifers' housing wealth (payment deferred until death if necessary) and put a floor in so that people cannot be left with nothing at all to pass on (unless they had nothing at all to start with).
Absolutely not. The dementia tax was a disaster on the doorstep and the Death Tax and higher inheritance tax also deeply unpopular.
Fund social care out of higher National Insurance on over 50s, it would raise a lot and most people actually support raising NI to pay for healthcare
Pensioners should also be hit with NI where appropriate. It is ridiculous if they are earning that they don't pay this considering the costs the state is having to bear.
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
But why on earth should students from Canada or China pay way more than students from Bulgaria or Portugal? It is, for starters, discriminatory against the first, and also probably bad for the education business in Britain, seeing as there are 500 million EU citizens but 6 billion global non-EU citizens. The latter market - the rest of the world - is worth far more.
As Richard Nabavi says this is have-and-eat-cakery from the EU.
I voted Remain but this is NOT a logical argument for Remain.
Imagine if there was an EU university where students from England paid more than students from Germany, France, Bulgaria, Spain - imagine the outrage ?!?!?!?!
They exist:
Glasgow Edinburgh Heriot Watt St Andrews Dundee Strathclyde Stirling etc..
Yes. It has always surprised me that this anomaly does not generate more anger. I presume it will be legally corrected, IF we actually Brexit.
It is indefensible, and another example of the failure of the British government to think things through with respect to Scotland.
It is a perverse outcome of EU membership, but it could be addressed (or have been addressed) without Brexit.
Of which, the simplest would be electing a Scottish Government that charged Scottish students tuition fees. Good luck with that.
That is one possibility.
Alternatively, the government could say it is not willing to countenance discrimination against English, Irish and Welsh students in Scotland and legislate for the Scottish Exec to pay for it. The numbers at present at least are not significant - 5000 a year? - so approx £50m pa. The U.K. government could sweeten the deal if it wished.
It should have been considered as part of the overall devo max solution.
This is rather funny - remind me, which of the two negotiating teams has been insisting on 'no cherry-picking' and that the UK would become a third-party country with no special status?
It's a very good example of how self-defeating it is for Britain to be walking away from close co-operation with its closest neighbours. It is now going to be much less likely to get the brightest and best from round the EU coming to study here. The more that Britain withdraws from the mainstream, the more damage it will suffer.
It's actually a good negotiating tactic, saying to the EU, if you treat the UK like any other "third country" well, two can play at that game.
Except the students are a net benefit to the UK, so it's the usual shooting ourselves in the foot.
You seem to think there is a limited pool of students hoping to come to the UK, so we must get what we can from the EU. This is nonsense. China alone could probably fill every UK university with overseas students.
The fact is the EU keenly wants us gone from EU institutions when it benefits their companies - see the way they have excluded us from Galileo. But when it advantages them to co-operate with the UK - and this is a good example, as more EU students go to the UK's superior universities than the other way around - suddenly they are all in favour of integration, despite Brexit.
Just because Leave is a silly idea does not mean the EU is always right, or even moral.
Determined EU students will still come to the UK, because we have good universities. After Brexit, our universities will have more room for higher paying non-EU students.
So this issue, as I say, is not a positive for Remain, especially when they are many better arguments.
That wasn’t my argument so you’re projecting somewhat. I don’t think this is a Leave/Remain campaign issue. “Look at how they bully us” is hardly an unprecedented argument.
Yep - it's why I liked the original approach of taking it out of inheritance. While it may have destroyed my inheritance it was both better than the current gamble and the other option of increasing taxes.
The thing is that the money does need to come from somewhere the question is really only one of where.
I agree with you. I liked Burnham's Death Tax and I liked Timothy's Dementia Tax. They both had head & heart in the right place. Fund social care out of late lifers' housing wealth (payment deferred until death if necessary) and put a floor in so that people cannot be left with nothing at all to pass on (unless they had nothing at all to start with).
Absolutely not. The dementia tax was a disaster on the doorstep and the Death Tax and higher inheritance tax also deeply unpopular.
Fund social care out of higher National Insurance on over 50s, it would raise a lot and most people actually support raising NI to pay for healthcare
Pensioners should also be hit with NI where appropriate. It is ridiculous if they are earning that they don't pay this considering the costs the state is having to bear.
Comments
McDonnell I would be fine with. He's younger and smarter than Corbyn. Crucially, he is more flexible and gives the impression that he thinks posturing less important than governing.
What on earth is wrong with Owen Smith? He wouldn't necessarily be my first choice but by the woefully low standards in both Parties I'd say he's well above par.
Question back for you. You say down thread that the clear best thing for Labour is for Brexit to happen BEFORE a general election. So if Corbyn & Co agree with you they will find a way of letting the WA pass yes?
Now, my predictive track record on the WA is appalling, but it seems perfectly likely that the government will pass the WA, or a WA with a CU, at the next opportunity (post the council elections) in an MV4.
I think the success of the Brexit Party, and the failure of CUK/LDs/Greens to ally, means that the balance has shifted back toward passing a deal - any deal.
May can then retire. Johnson can take over. Corbyn can be content that the Tory Party is probably fatally wounded. Farage’s fox is shot, so are the CUKs, etc. No?
A lot of minor party supporters are going to be disappointed when they see their ballot paper this week.
Abbott is probably not up to being leader but has more good points than some of her detractors allow.
Owen Smith: a bit meh but in the land of the blind etc.....
The Tories need to recognise its no deal or no Brexit, get shot of May and get on with life after Brexit if they are to have any chance of reversing the damage May, Hammond, Clark, Grayling have done.
Frankly, neither party is worth voting for at the moment but the danger McDonnell poses to the economy is by far the greatest.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6971771/Moment-woman-punches-Greggs-customer-head-violent-brawl.html
Pensioners will be exempt anyway unless the NI limit is being extended indefinitely, and people in their 30s and 40s are going to be thinking... shit that's a tax I'll be paying in my 50s and 60s.
I left after the Referendum result.
At which point I made my excuses and left.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48091971
Poor write up of the "case study". No mention if what degree or grade.
The thing is that the money does need to come from somewhere the question is really only one of where.
Any case, I'd better not develop the theme. I was (rightly) yellow carded yesterday for going on about the 'Blazer Brigade'.
The Con vote could hold up more than expected, because of the lack of alternatives.
For the locals. For the EU elections, we’re completely Donald Ducked.
An answer of "no, none at all" would certainly have rang bells.
Tell Them Again.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/government-debt-to-gdp
Back in 2004 and 2014, when the local and euro elections were held on the same day, there was a lot of split-ticket voting, with people who backed UKIP at EU level backing other parties (mostly Conservatives) at local level.
If they hadn't spent so much time trashing May's deal, they might have been better praising its many Remain-light features, supported the WA, caused havoc for the government during the passage of the Implementation Bill, and then brought the government down with the aid of the DUP and/or ERG Ultras once the deed was done.
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1122878678495571969/photo/1
Anyone care to take an educated guess at the repayment rate of UK student loans advanced to EU citizens?
But steady the buffs - much water, much bridge.
Can you imagine an entertaining story about (say) Michael Gove's campaign manger along these lines ?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/29/lis-smith-buttigieg-2020-president-campaign-manager-226756
As Richard Nabavi says this is have-and-eat-cakery from the EU.
I voted Remain but this is NOT a logical argument for Remain.
There are some good stories in our politics too e.g 'Brexit: The Uncivil War'
They exist:
Glasgow
Edinburgh
Heriot Watt
St Andrews
Dundee
Strathclyde
Stirling
etc..
"we literally don’t know the circumstances of Labour’s next internal election. It could be after a successful Corbyn-led government. It could be after a disastrous Corbyn-led government. It could be after a defeat like the one people expected in 2017, or a carbon copy of the 2015 result. It could be after the sudden and unexpected death of Corbyn."
https://www.thesocialreview.co.uk/2019/04/29/stephen-bush-interview-part-2/
It is a perverse outcome of EU membership, but it could be addressed (or have been addressed) without Brexit.
Fund social care out of higher National Insurance on over 50s, it would raise a lot and most people actually support raising NI to pay for healthcare
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nhs-funding-crisis-raising-national-insurance-half-british-people-yougov-poll-1p-in-the-pound-simon-a7525326.html
The fact is the EU keenly wants us gone from EU institutions when it benefits their companies - see the way they have excluded us from Galileo. But when it advantages them to co-operate with the UK - and this is a good example, as more EU students go to the UK's superior universities than the other way around - suddenly they are all in favour of integration, despite Brexit.
Just because Leave is a silly idea does not mean the EU is always right, or even moral.
Determined EU students will still come to the UK, because we have good universities. After Brexit, our universities will have more room for higher paying non-EU students.
So this issue, as I say, is not a positive for Remain, especially when they are many better arguments.
Alternatively, the government could say it is not willing to countenance discrimination against English, Irish and Welsh students in Scotland and legislate for the Scottish Exec to pay for it. The numbers at present at least are not significant - 5000 a year? - so approx £50m pa. The U.K. government could sweeten the deal if it wished.
It should have been considered as part of the overall devo max solution.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1122915588345671680
Both sides pretending in run up to locals. Corbyn will not do a deal. Simples.
https://twitter.com/bigleaguepol/status/1122901360192761856
That must be a 1/3 of an entire CLP?
Because it’s a perfectly normal thing to do when you’ve been sexually assaulted to spin it out into some kind of box set entertainment for the media.