The Tories have been putting party before country for the past 20 years at least, what makes you think things will be different now?
Yes but which Tory Party is it now? There are several, plus I think it's not over-dramatising to say we are in a period of national crisis and hence peoples' sense of duty might be prodded into action.
I have just topped up on Stewart. I seem to have become a fan. I can't be the only one although for me it's Rudd out of preference.
Those NHS posters could backfire. To a lot of people the NHS isn’t the sacred cow “envy of the world” it’s treated as.
Equally one see how the argument that “Corbyn can’t be trusted because he’s never met a terrorist he doesn’t like” worked. Truth is irrelevant to religious believers. See also evangelists and the pussy grabber.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > Tory leadership election could turn into a play-off between a No Dealer and a Revoker. Only one way the swivel-eyed membership, complete with gammonite entryists, will jump in that contest. > > No, I expect it will end in a play-off between a No Dealer and a relatively sane Leaver. That is because in the penultimate round the moderates amongst MPs will swing behind whoever looks best placed to beat the No Dealer, even if in previous rounds they have supported a Remainer.
The question is whether the original referendum vote will genuinely be a litmus test amongst the membership. It didn't look like it was last time (see the YouGov polling with May > Boris).
But this time might well be different: the membership has changed (a bit) and the stakes now seem higher. But can the Hunt/Javid supporters know that? I can't see them jumping ship to a Leadsom / Mordaunt type if their man has clearly got enough votes to top the poll...
> @DavidL said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > @Scott_P said: > > > https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1129037573974876160 > > > > The government really ought to publish the advice they have received on the impact of a No Deal Brexit, in full, before the WAB is presented. > > > > Maybe it is less bad than feared. Or very much worse. Or a bit meh. Who knows? But MPs should know before they vote again. > > > > And contestants for the Tory party leadership should also know. So that we don't get fed a load of bullshit about what something that was never in anyone's manifestos in 2017 or canvassed during the referendum campaign actually means in practice. > > Who would believe the assessments? No one. We were supposed to have a recession immediately after voting leave. Employment is up well over 1m since then. 1m. > > A major part of Brexit is, as Gove almost said, we are fed up of experts who seek to give a spurious credibility to their own opinions by skewing the data or building in assumptions which are not warranted. They have been caught out repeatedly and the defence is, well, things changed or the government or the bank reacted to what had happened. Well, yes.
Whether or not they are believed is a secondary consideration. They ought to be made transparent. For instance, one of the matters which was reported was about the chemicals needed for our water supplies and how they could not, apparently, be stockpiled here. Let's get all the information out there, including detailed information from the EU about their No Deal planning and what they would do in the event that Britain decided to leave without any sort of agreement.
MPs should have all the relevant information before they vote for the last time on this deal.
The fact that assessments made in 2016 turned out to be wrong does not mean that assessments made now about what No Deal means in practice will also be wrong.
> @dixiedean said: > Current leaflet score. LD 2, Lab 1, UKIP 1. > Surprised no Brexit contact. Or maybe they know we are not their target market? Removes tin foil.
Had Labour, Green, Change and Independent leaflets today. Haven't seen anything else other than the postal vote ballot paper last Friday.
> @GIN1138 said: > > @david_herdson said: > > The betting value is now with "No Brexit before 2022" > > > > https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1129027231806840832 > > Unless of course the first part of the contest finished up with only one candidate standing so it doesn't go to a members ballot again - A scenario nobody can entirely rule out as Theresa May only became leader during the last leadership contest by accident. > > No on an say an accident won't happen again and in which case we could have a new PM by July.
That will not happen. There are so many candidates the process will be followed with hustings and then the members vote. I hope someone will break through but as long as the process is followed the party must come in behind the new leader and cabinet, and yes, even if that is Boris
I've probably asked this before, but if so I forgot the answer.
Suppose May decides to revoke (perhaps if the EU actually did refuse an extension so the choice became no deal or revocation). Would that require a vote in the Commons, or can she do it unilaterally?
> @OblitusSumMe said: > What proportion of May's Cabinet will survive under a new PM? > > Grayling's departure we can hope is already inked in. Who else is doomed?
I think it is legitimate for Dave to have said I'm going to give you the opportunity to choose but you would be really, really dumb to choose Option A.
The question is whether the original referendum vote will genuinely be a litmus test amongst the membership. It didn't look like it was last time (see the YouGov polling with May > Boris).
But this time might well be different: the membership has changed (a bit) and the stakes now seem higher. But can the Hunt/Javid supporters know that? I can't see them jumping ship to a Leadsom / Mordaunt type if their man has clearly got enough votes to top the poll...
Yes, it will be a difficult call. But I think that is the calculation that moderate MPs will have to make, they won't want to offer a sensible candidate who has no chance with the membership and thereby pass the leadership to a loon (or to Boris).
> @Morris_Dancer said: > I've probably asked this before, but if so I forgot the answer. > > Suppose May decides to revoke (perhaps if the EU actually did refuse an extension so the choice became no deal or revocation). Would that require a vote in the Commons, or can she do it unilaterally?
I've asked this too. Answer came there none.
If she's on her way out anyway and the Tories have already been slaughtered in the polls she may as well do it and let her successor sort the mess out afterwards while she is on a walking holiday in Tierra del Fuego.
> @GarethoftheVale2 said: > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > What proportion of May's Cabinet will survive under a new PM? > > > > Grayling's departure we can hope is already inked in. Who else is doomed? > > Hammond, Fox, Lidington
> @Cyclefree said: > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > I've probably asked this before, but if so I forgot the answer. > > > > Suppose May decides to revoke (perhaps if the EU actually did refuse an extension so the choice became no deal or revocation). Would that require a vote in the Commons, or can she do it unilaterally? > > I've asked this too. Answer came there none.
> @dr_spyn said: > > @dixiedean said: > > Current leaflet score. LD 2, Lab 1, UKIP 1. > > Surprised no Brexit contact. Or maybe they know we are not their target market? Removes tin foil. > > Had Labour, Green, Change and Independent leaflets today. Haven't seen anything else other than the postal vote ballot paper last Friday. > > Nothing from LDs, Tory Brexit or UKIP. > >
The question is whether the original referendum vote will genuinely be a litmus test amongst the membership. It didn't look like it was last time (see the YouGov polling with May > Boris).
But this time might well be different: the membership has changed (a bit) and the stakes now seem higher. But can the Hunt/Javid supporters know that? I can't see them jumping ship to a Leadsom / Mordaunt type if their man has clearly got enough votes to top the poll...
Yes, it will be a difficult call. But I think that is the calculation that moderate MPs will have to make, they won't want to offer a sensible candidate who has no chance with the membership and thereby pass the leadership to a loon (or to Boris).
The optimum approach from their perspective is to push whoever into third. Subtly.
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @GIN1138 said: > > > @david_herdson said: > > > The betting value is now with "No Brexit before 2022" > > > > > > https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1129027231806840832 > > > > Unless of course the first part of the contest finished up with only one candidate standing so it doesn't go to a members ballot again - A scenario nobody can entirely rule out as Theresa May only became leader during the last leadership contest by accident. > > > > No on an say an accident won't happen again and in which case we could have a new PM by July. > > That will not happen. There are so many candidates the process will be followed with hustings and then the members vote. I hope someone will break through but as long as the process is followed the party must come in behind the new leader and cabinet, and yes, even if that is Boris
No, not Boris. He is not fit to be PM or leader. I hope he loses his seat at the next election. Very few of the likely candidates have shown any loyalty. They are in no position to demand it.
I see that HarperCollins have got fed up waiting for the return on the rumoured million dollar advance they gave David Cameron nearly three years ago. That will certainly be a very interesting read.
Bloody Marxist Corbyn will expropriate everything, and turn the country into Venezuela and drive all the productive people...
Hang on.
The difference is that the Tories tried it*, it didn’t work, so they are shifting it back to public provision.
Corbyn seems to want to nationalise everything he sees and a lot he doesn’t, regardless of merit. He’s ideological not pragmatic.
* setting aside the fact that it is f*****g idiotic to try to privatise what should be a basic part of government’s function. Which I freely admit could undermine my argument** 😆
** so I’m going with Grayling is a fool if the highest order rather than the government is ideological
> @Cyclefree said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > > @david_herdson said: > > > > The betting value is now with "No Brexit before 2022" > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1129027231806840832 > > > > > > Unless of course the first part of the contest finished up with only one candidate standing so it doesn't go to a members ballot again - A scenario nobody can entirely rule out as Theresa May only became leader during the last leadership contest by accident. > > > > > > No on an say an accident won't happen again and in which case we could have a new PM by July. > > > > That will not happen. There are so many candidates the process will be followed with hustings and then the members vote. I hope someone will break through but as long as the process is followed the party must come in behind the new leader and cabinet, and yes, even if that is Boris > > No, not Boris. He is not fit to be PM or leader. I hope he loses his seat at the next election. Very few of the likely candidates have shown any loyalty. They are in no position to demand it.
I do not want Boris but if he wins the contest I expect the party to accept it, though one or two mps may leave
Mr. Mark, any chance of inside line on the weather?
Miss Cyclefree, as things stand, we may find out.
Mr. Sandpit, had I more in my Betfair account and no bets already, I might be tempted that way. The exchange odds are currently a bit longer than I'd like (2.7 for Hamilton about 4.3 for Bottas).
Mr. Nabavi/Mr. Glenn, cheers.
Miss Cyclefree (2), Boris isn't fit to be a Cabinet minister, let alone PM.
The question is whether the original referendum vote will genuinely be a litmus test amongst the membership. It didn't look like it was last time (see the YouGov polling with May > Boris).
But this time might well be different: the membership has changed (a bit) and the stakes now seem higher. But can the Hunt/Javid supporters know that? I can't see them jumping ship to a Leadsom / Mordaunt type if their man has clearly got enough votes to top the poll...
Yes, it will be a difficult call. But I think that is the calculation that moderate MPs will have to make, they won't want to offer a sensible candidate who has no chance with the membership and thereby pass the leadership to a loon (or to Boris).
The optimum approach from their perspective is to push whoever into third. Subtly.
It's going to be a fascinating dance. I very much expect to see vote tallies falling for some candidates as the rounds proceed (i.e. MPs will switch their preferences as they see the way the window is blowing). This happened to an extent last time but I'm sure will be more the case this time.
> @williamglenn said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > I've asked this too. Answer came there none. > > My understanding is that she can do it unilaterally, but it hasn't been tested.
Well she could do it and call her memoirs "Apres moi, le deluge".
> @Morris_Dancer said: > Mr. Mark, any chance of inside line on the weather? > > Miss Cyclefree, as things stand, we may find out. > > Mr. Sandpit, had I more in my Betfair account and no bets already, I might be tempted that way. The exchange odds are currently a bit longer than I'd like (2.7 for Hamilton about 4.3 for Bottas). > > Mr. Nabavi/Mr. Glenn, cheers. > > Miss Cyclefree (2), Boris isn't fit to be a Cabinet minister, let alone PM.
> @Charles said: > > @Stereotomy said: > > > Probation will be renationalised after disastrous Grayling reforms https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/16/part-privatisation-probation-sevices-to-be-reversed-offender-management-nationalised-chris-grayling > > > > Bloody Marxist Corbyn will expropriate everything, and turn the country into Venezuela and drive all the productive people... > > Hang on. > > The difference is that the Tories tried it*, it didn’t work, so they are shifting it back to public provision. > > Corbyn seems to want to nationalise everything he sees and a lot he doesn’t, regardless of merit. He’s ideological not pragmatic. > > * setting aside the fact that it is f*****g idiotic to try to privatise what should be a basic part of government’s function. Which I freely admit could undermine my argument** 😆 > > ** so I’m going with Grayling is a fool if the highest order rather than the government is ideological
Justice should never be privatised.
The next thing which should be reversed is the destruction of what was once a pretty good national forensic service.
Edit: also he was warned in advance that it would be a disaster and still went ahead. And the disaster occurred precisely as predicted. So he is even more culpable.
> @Morris_Dancer said: > Mr. Rentool, if I offered to double the real wealth of the poorest, but triple it for the wealthiest (increasing inequality), would you accept that, or refuse? > > Or, if given the choice between that and halving the real wealth of the poorest but reducing it by two-thirds for the wealthiest (decreasing inequality), which would you prefer?
I would prefer to live in a society at ease with itself, where the few do not become obscenely wealthy by parasitising the many.
We don't need more wealth we just need an equitable distribution.
> @MarqueeMark said: > > @GarethoftheVale2 said: > > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > What proportion of May's Cabinet will survive under a new PM? > > > > > > Grayling's departure we can hope is already inked in. Who else is doomed? > > > > Hammond, Fox, Lidington > > Barclay, Gauke, Rudd, Clark, Fox......
> Justice should never be privatised. > > The next thing which should be reversed is the destruction of what was once a pretty good national forensic service. > > Edit: also he was warned in advance that it would be a disaster and still went ahead. And the disaster occurred precisely as predicted. So he is even more culpable.
There's so much to do simply in fixing the mistakes of the recent past, let alone in dealing with new problems.
So far we've had a Labour, LD and Brexit leaflet. The latter was described by wife as 'confusing' whereas Vince Cable, she thought, sent her a nice letter! We've also had something from a group called the English Democrats who don't appear to want my vote as they suggest 'if you are English'. And so on. As Mr G will surely understand, that is a massive turn-off as far as I am concerned.
However this morning we went to see our IFA and he supports Brexit. He'd be happy with a Common Market but not a political union. I'm still taking his financial advice, though!
But I have zero sympathy for her. She started off by refusing to be honest with the public about the trade offs , went chasing fawning Daily Mail headlines .
She doesn’t like immigrants and her final descent into wretchedness was her queue jumper comments aimed at EU nationals .
A horrible woman who thinks popping off to church once a week makes her a good Christian . Actions speak louder than words . Good riddance to her when she finally leaves No 10.
> > The government really ought to publish the advice they have received on the impact of a No Deal Brexit, in full, before the WAB is presented.
> >
> > Maybe it is less bad than feared. Or very much worse. Or a bit meh. Who knows? But MPs should know before they vote again.
> >
> > And contestants for the Tory party leadership should also know. So that we don't get fed a load of bullshit about what something that was never in anyone's manifestos in 2017 or canvassed during the referendum campaign actually means in practice.
>
> Who would believe the assessments? No one. We were supposed to have a recession immediately after voting leave. Employment is up well over 1m since then. 1m.
>
> A major part of Brexit is, as Gove almost said, we are fed up of experts who seek to give a spurious credibility to their own opinions by skewing the data or building in assumptions which are not warranted. They have been caught out repeatedly and the defence is, well, things changed or the government or the bank reacted to what had happened. Well, yes.
Whether or not they are believed is a secondary consideration. They ought to be made transparent. For instance, one of the matters which was reported was about the chemicals needed for our water supplies and how they could not, apparently, be stockpiled here. Let's get all the information out there, including detailed information from the EU about their No Deal planning and what they would do in the event that Britain decided to leave without any sort of agreement.
MPs should have all the relevant information before they vote for the last time on this deal.
The fact that assessments made in 2016 turned out to be wrong does not mean that assessments made now about what No Deal means in practice will also be wrong.
The issue is that the media is broken
MPs don’t take the time to read this stuff (they are too busy being glorified social workers), the media misrepresents in search of clickbait and the 24 hr cycle kicks in
> @AndyJS said: > "Inequality driving 'deaths of despair' > > Widening inequalities in pay, health and opportunities in the UK are undermining trust in democracy, says an Institute for Fiscal Studies report. > The think tank warns of runaway incomes for high earners but rises in "deaths of despair", such as from addiction and suicide, among the poorest. > It warns of risks to "centre-ground" politics from stagnating pay and divides in health and education." > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-48229037 > > > "Opioid painkillers: Alarm bells are ringing" > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48297011
I hope we don't develop a similar opioid crisis as America .
> @nico67 said: > May is becoming a tragic figure . > > But I have zero sympathy for her. She started off by refusing to be honest with the public about the trade offs , went chasing fawning Daily Mail headlines . > > She doesn’t like immigrants and her final descent into wretchedness was her queue jumper comments aimed at EU nationals . > > A horrible woman who thinks popping off to church once a week makes her a good Christian . Actions speak louder than words . Good riddance to her when she finally leaves No 10.
Not sure about your last paragraph. 'You who is without sin first cast the stone'
@Charles. Sorry, IPad not liking quoting again... It could be said that the Tories have been privatising everything they see, regardless of merit. That is an ideology too. One which seems to have run its course.
> @Charles said: > > @DavidL said: > > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > @Scott_P said: > > > > > https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1129037573974876160 > > > > > > > > > > The government really ought to publish the advice they have received on the impact of a No Deal Brexit, in full, before the WAB is presented. > > > > > > > > Maybe it is less bad than feared. Or very much worse. Or a bit meh. Who knows? But MPs should know before they vote again. > > > > > > > > And contestants for the Tory party leadership should also know. So that we don't get fed a load of bullshit about what something that was never in anyone's manifestos in 2017 or canvassed during the referendum campaign actually means in practice. > > > > > > Who would believe the assessments? No one. We were supposed to have a recession immediately after voting leave. Employment is up well over 1m since then. 1m. > > > > > > A major part of Brexit is, as Gove almost said, we are fed up of experts who seek to give a spurious credibility to their own opinions by skewing the data or building in assumptions which are not warranted. They have been caught out repeatedly and the defence is, well, things changed or the government or the bank reacted to what had happened. Well, yes. > > > > Whether or not they are believed is a secondary consideration. They ought to be made transparent. For instance, one of the matters which was reported was about the chemicals needed for our water supplies and how they could not, apparently, be stockpiled here. Let's get all the information out there, including detailed information from the EU about their No Deal planning and what they would do in the event that Britain decided to leave without any sort of agreement. > > > > MPs should have all the relevant information before they vote for the last time on this deal. > > > > The fact that assessments made in 2016 turned out to be wrong does not mean that assessments made now about what No Deal means in practice will also be wrong. > > The issue is that the media is broken > > MPs don’t take the time to read this stuff (they are too busy being glorified social workers), the media misrepresents in search of clickbait and the 24 hr cycle kicks in > > Our political system is broken.
Nonetheless it should still be published. If then things turn out to be as predicted, no-one can't say they weren't warned. We have to stop legislators disclaiming responsibility because they weren't told about the consequences. And we have to make those who act in defiance of advice take responsibility for their actions.
Not cry betrayal and blame others when things don't go their way.
I know, I know: I'm wishing for the moon and stars and being hopelessly naive. But still, publish and be damned.
As she'll presumably stay on as PM during a leadership contest she should pass Brown (2 years and 319 days) The Duke Of Wellington (2 years and 320 days) and Neville Chamberlain (2 years and 348 days)
James Callaghan at 3 years 29 days and Henry Addington at 3 years and 54 days look do'able if it goes to a members ballot but the Duke Of Portland 3 years and 82 days looks safe.
> @dixiedean said: > @Charles. Sorry, IPad not liking quoting again... > It could be said that the Tories have been privatising everything they see, regardless of merit. That is an ideology too. > One which seems to have run its course.
There is a balance to be struck but Corbyn wants to wreck the capitalist system as he takes us towards Venezeula. That is madness
> @dixiedean said: > @Charles. Sorry, IPad not liking quoting again... > It could be said that the Tories have been privatising everything they see, regardless of merit. That is an ideology too. > One which seems to have run its course.
It is indeed. And I have some sympathy with @SandyRentool. Huge disparities in wealth are not good for a cohesive society. The question is how to get something which is fair which does not cause at least as many problems as it solves.
> @nico67 said: > May is becoming a tragic figure . > > But I have zero sympathy for her. She started off by refusing to be honest with the public about the trade offs , went chasing fawning Daily Mail headlines . > > She doesn’t like immigrants and her final descent into wretchedness was her queue jumper comments aimed at EU nationals . > > A horrible woman who thinks popping off to church once a week makes her a good Christian . Actions speak louder than words . Good riddance to her when she finally leaves No 10.
Correct. May bears a heavy burden of responsibility for the disastrous mess she has made of both her country and her party.
It is true that she inherited a very difficult position. But she made it many times worse by her own actions. History will not be kind to her, she will be a strong competitor with her predecessor for the title of worst British PM in the modern era.
> > > Unless of course the first part of the contest finished up with only one candidate standing so it doesn't go to a members ballot again - A scenario nobody can entirely rule out as Theresa May only became leader during the last leadership contest by accident.
> > >
> > > No on an say an accident won't happen again and in which case we could have a new PM by July.
> >
> > That will not happen. There are so many candidates the process will be followed with hustings and then the members vote. I hope someone will break through but as long as the process is followed the party must come in behind the new leader and cabinet, and yes, even if that is Boris
>
> No, not Boris. He is not fit to be PM or leader. I hope he loses his seat at the next election. Very few of the likely candidates have shown any loyalty. They are in no position to demand it.
I do not want Boris but if he wins the contest I expect the party to accept it, though one or two mps may leave
TM needs to invite her succession after the vote in early June but stay as caretaker to allow a proper contest. Judging by the media obsessions that should ensure nothing else will be discussed until it has concluded
So a summer full of interest in the conservative party but nothing happens otherwise
> Bloody Marxist Corbyn will expropriate everything, and turn the country into Venezuela and drive all the productive people...
>
> Hang on.
>
> The difference is that the Tories tried it*, it didn’t work, so they are shifting it back to public provision.
>
> Corbyn seems to want to nationalise everything he sees and a lot he doesn’t, regardless of merit. He’s ideological not pragmatic.
>
> * setting aside the fact that it is f*****g idiotic to try to privatise what should be a basic part of government’s function. Which I freely admit could undermine my argument** 😆
>
> ** so I’m going with Grayling is a fool if the highest order rather than the government is ideological
Justice should never be privatised.
The next thing which should be reversed is the destruction of what was once a pretty good national forensic service.
Edit: also he was warned in advance that it would be a disaster and still went ahead. And the disaster occurred precisely as predicted. So he is even more culpable.
I agree on the principle and the forensic specific. Our politicians know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Grayling should have never been let anywhere near cabinet
The idea that people would be happier if they were poorer, but those wealthier lost even more, seems utterly crackers to me.
What's important is helping the poorest to achieve more so they have not only sufficient for a reasonable life but extra for disposable income and saving.
Shafting the rich and the middle class does nothing to help the poor. Hacking down those who pay most in taxation only deprives those at the lower end.
Relativities are important though.
If you live in a 3 bedroom semi and everybody else has a 5 bed detached you will feel - with justification - dirt poor.
Conversely if you live in a cramped bedsit but everybody else is two to a ridge tent you will feel - again with justification - king of the hill.
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > Not sure about your last paragraph. 'You who is without sin first cast the stone'
She's done a lot of avoidable damage to innocent people, and only some of it can be ascribed to stupidity. We don't have to be perfect to stand in judgement over the records of others. Indeed, democracy is predicated on the fact that we all have that right.
> @ah009 said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > Not sure about your last paragraph. 'You who is without sin first cast the stone' > > She's done a lot of avoidable damage to innocent people, and only some of it can be ascribed to stupidity. > We don't have to be perfect to stand in judgement over the records of others. Indeed, democracy is predicated on the fact that we all have that right.
I have no problem with criticism of her but I never like to judge a person's faith
We just got a 'Change UK' leaflet through the postbox. A bit meh really: it looks a little more slick and professional than the Lib Dem ones, but there's not much text, and one side is blank with a merged picture of the EU flag and the Union Jack, with text imploring you to put it in y our window.
This feels like rather wasted space. Perhaps a bit like Change UK ...
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > I have no problem with criticism of her but I never like to judge a person's faith
Fully understand where you're coming from there. I guess one question would be to what extent she's made her faith part of her politics and her political campaigning. In May's case, the answer is "somewhat".
The idea that people would be happier if they were poorer, but those wealthier lost even more, seems utterly crackers to me.
What's important is helping the poorest to achieve more so they have not only sufficient for a reasonable life but extra for disposable income and saving.
Shafting the rich and the middle class does nothing to help the poor. Hacking down those who pay most in taxation only deprives those at the lower end.
I agree with you but many do not. The idea that it is OK to suffer provided your enemies suffer more is well established and predates Brexit. Although Brexit did provide a good example of such, with people opining that "no deal" would be acceptable because the EU will suffer more.
A lot of the inequality is coming not from the average person becoming poorer but the richer becoming much richer. This is mostly driven by technology shifts. Technology is often expensive and benefits the wealthy who can afford it.
As an example we are planning to buy a system to instantly identify a bacteria using DNA analysis. The investment costs at least £50k but cuts the time to do identification from 2 weeks to 1 day for some key mycobacteria. This is a game changer and the smaller labs who cant afford the cost of the machine and the educated staff to run it are basically been shut out of a major revenue stream. Society benefits massively from the technology but only a few labs make money from it.
Our company is able to pay better than average wages which means we get better and more loyal staff which means we can implement more new technology which means we make more money. And so on.
Is the answer to slow down technology ? Not sure in healthcare this is possible. Is the answer to give more people access to more technology? Yes but hard to implement. Is the answer to try and tax those who have the new technology? Yes but only in a way that keeps them onside as you risk them moving on.
The greatest inequality in the UK is who pays the taxes. The top 1% pay 30% of all taxes. It seems that the Government has got it about right.
Comments
Some days to go, though, so could easily change.
> > @Stereotomy said:
> > Probation will be renationalised after disastrous Grayling reforms https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/16/part-privatisation-probation-sevices-to-be-reversed-offender-management-nationalised-chris-grayling
>
> Is there anything that man has touched which has not turned to ashes? Imagine if he were to stand for leader and win, the queues to get out of the country would stretch to Aberdeen, probably.
He wouldn't need a dragon to destroy Kings Landing.
> Probation will be renationalised after disastrous Grayling reforms https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/16/part-privatisation-probation-sevices-to-be-reversed-offender-management-nationalised-chris-grayling
Bloody Marxist Corbyn will expropriate everything, and turn the country into Venezuela and drive all the productive people...
Hang on.
I have just topped up on Stewart. I seem to have become a fan. I can't be the only one although for me it's Rudd out of preference.
> > @NickPalmer said:
> > > @logical_song said:
> > > > @Cyclefree said:
> > > > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > > https://twitter.com/harpercollinsuk/status/1129008809454784515?s=21
> > > >
> > > > Isn't that just before conference season?
> > > >
> > > > Revenge being eaten cold?
> > >
> > > ... and not long before Brexit Day Mk2
> >
> > I think "Theresa - my part in her rise and fall" would be a catchier title.
>
> "Whoops!" - would have been more precise.
"I was rather good".
And other rejected titles.....
> Tory leadership election could turn into a play-off between a No Dealer and a Revoker. Only one way the swivel-eyed membership, complete with gammonite entryists, will jump in that contest.
>
> No, I expect it will end in a play-off between a No Dealer and a relatively sane Leaver. That is because in the penultimate round the moderates amongst MPs will swing behind whoever looks best placed to beat the No Dealer, even if in previous rounds they have supported a Remainer.
The question is whether the original referendum vote will genuinely be a litmus test amongst the membership. It didn't look like it was last time (see the YouGov polling with May > Boris).
But this time might well be different: the membership has changed (a bit) and the stakes now seem higher. But can the Hunt/Javid supporters know that? I can't see them jumping ship to a Leadsom / Mordaunt type if their man has clearly got enough votes to top the poll...
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > > @Scott_P said:
> > > https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1129037573974876160
> >
> > The government really ought to publish the advice they have received on the impact of a No Deal Brexit, in full, before the WAB is presented.
> >
> > Maybe it is less bad than feared. Or very much worse. Or a bit meh. Who knows? But MPs should know before they vote again.
> >
> > And contestants for the Tory party leadership should also know. So that we don't get fed a load of bullshit about what something that was never in anyone's manifestos in 2017 or canvassed during the referendum campaign actually means in practice.
>
> Who would believe the assessments? No one. We were supposed to have a recession immediately after voting leave. Employment is up well over 1m since then. 1m.
>
> A major part of Brexit is, as Gove almost said, we are fed up of experts who seek to give a spurious credibility to their own opinions by skewing the data or building in assumptions which are not warranted. They have been caught out repeatedly and the defence is, well, things changed or the government or the bank reacted to what had happened. Well, yes.
Whether or not they are believed is a secondary consideration. They ought to be made transparent. For instance, one of the matters which was reported was about the chemicals needed for our water supplies and how they could not, apparently, be stockpiled here. Let's get all the information out there, including detailed information from the EU about their No Deal planning and what they would do in the event that Britain decided to leave without any sort of agreement.
MPs should have all the relevant information before they vote for the last time on this deal.
The fact that assessments made in 2016 turned out to be wrong does not mean that assessments made now about what No Deal means in practice will also be wrong.
> Current leaflet score. LD 2, Lab 1, UKIP 1.
> Surprised no Brexit contact. Or maybe they know we are not their target market? Removes tin foil.
Had Labour, Green, Change and Independent leaflets today. Haven't seen anything else other than the postal vote ballot paper last Friday.
Nothing from LDs, Tory Brexit or UKIP.
Grayling's departure we can hope is already inked in. Who else is doomed?
> > @david_herdson said:
> > The betting value is now with "No Brexit before 2022"
> >
> > https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1129027231806840832
>
> Unless of course the first part of the contest finished up with only one candidate standing so it doesn't go to a members ballot again - A scenario nobody can entirely rule out as Theresa May only became leader during the last leadership contest by accident.
>
> No on an say an accident won't happen again and in which case we could have a new PM by July.
That will not happen. There are so many candidates the process will be followed with hustings and then the members vote. I hope someone will break through but as long as the process is followed the party must come in behind the new leader and cabinet, and yes, even if that is Boris
Suppose May decides to revoke (perhaps if the EU actually did refuse an extension so the choice became no deal or revocation). Would that require a vote in the Commons, or can she do it unilaterally?
> F1: current forecast is, apparently, for rain in Monaco (Saturday).
>
> Some days to go, though, so could easily change.
Fair chance of qualifying being impacted. Currently, later in the race could also be wet.
Good Lady Wifi off to Cannes tomorrow. Not impressed at having to pack the rainwear for the Croisette.....
> What proportion of May's Cabinet will survive under a new PM?
>
> Grayling's departure we can hope is already inked in. Who else is doomed?
Hammond, Fox, Lidington
And lo...
> Dave should have chosen the title 'Told You So'
"Oh Fuck" would have been more accurate.
> I've probably asked this before, but if so I forgot the answer.
>
> Suppose May decides to revoke (perhaps if the EU actually did refuse an extension so the choice became no deal or revocation). Would that require a vote in the Commons, or can she do it unilaterally?
I've asked this too. Answer came there none.
If she's on her way out anyway and the Tories have already been slaughtered in the polls she may as well do it and let her successor sort the mess out afterwards while she is on a walking holiday in Tierra del Fuego.
> > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > What proportion of May's Cabinet will survive under a new PM?
> >
> > Grayling's departure we can hope is already inked in. Who else is doomed?
>
> Hammond, Fox, Lidington
Barclay, Gauke, Rudd, Clark, Fox......
> > @Morris_Dancer said:
> > I've probably asked this before, but if so I forgot the answer.
> >
> > Suppose May decides to revoke (perhaps if the EU actually did refuse an extension so the choice became no deal or revocation). Would that require a vote in the Commons, or can she do it unilaterally?
>
> I've asked this too. Answer came there none.
No-one knows for sure.
> > @dixiedean said:
> > Current leaflet score. LD 2, Lab 1, UKIP 1.
> > Surprised no Brexit contact. Or maybe they know we are not their target market? Removes tin foil.
>
> Had Labour, Green, Change and Independent leaflets today. Haven't seen anything else other than the postal vote ballot paper last Friday.
>
> Nothing from LDs, Tory Brexit or UKIP.
>
>
Brexit, UKIP, Labour here (Totnes).
>
> I've asked this too. Answer came there none.
My understanding is that she can do it unilaterally, but it hasn't been tested.
> https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1129045108714856449
What a wholly fucking pointless metric......
> > @GIN1138 said:
> > > @david_herdson said:
> > > The betting value is now with "No Brexit before 2022"
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1129027231806840832
> >
> > Unless of course the first part of the contest finished up with only one candidate standing so it doesn't go to a members ballot again - A scenario nobody can entirely rule out as Theresa May only became leader during the last leadership contest by accident.
> >
> > No on an say an accident won't happen again and in which case we could have a new PM by July.
>
> That will not happen. There are so many candidates the process will be followed with hustings and then the members vote. I hope someone will break through but as long as the process is followed the party must come in behind the new leader and cabinet, and yes, even if that is Boris
No, not Boris. He is not fit to be PM or leader. I hope he loses his seat at the next election. Very few of the likely candidates have shown any loyalty. They are in no position to demand it.
Corbyn seems to want to nationalise everything he sees and a lot he doesn’t, regardless of merit. He’s ideological not pragmatic.
* setting aside the fact that it is f*****g idiotic to try to privatise what should be a basic part of government’s function. Which I freely admit could undermine my argument** 😆
** so I’m going with Grayling is a fool if the highest order rather than the government is ideological
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > > @david_herdson said:
> > > > The betting value is now with "No Brexit before 2022"
> > > >
> > > > https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1129027231806840832
> > >
> > > Unless of course the first part of the contest finished up with only one candidate standing so it doesn't go to a members ballot again - A scenario nobody can entirely rule out as Theresa May only became leader during the last leadership contest by accident.
> > >
> > > No on an say an accident won't happen again and in which case we could have a new PM by July.
> >
> > That will not happen. There are so many candidates the process will be followed with hustings and then the members vote. I hope someone will break through but as long as the process is followed the party must come in behind the new leader and cabinet, and yes, even if that is Boris
>
> No, not Boris. He is not fit to be PM or leader. I hope he loses his seat at the next election. Very few of the likely candidates have shown any loyalty. They are in no position to demand it.
I do not want Boris but if he wins the contest I expect the party to accept it, though one or two mps may leave
Miss Cyclefree, as things stand, we may find out.
Mr. Sandpit, had I more in my Betfair account and no bets already, I might be tempted that way. The exchange odds are currently a bit longer than I'd like (2.7 for Hamilton about 4.3 for Bottas).
Mr. Nabavi/Mr. Glenn, cheers.
Miss Cyclefree (2), Boris isn't fit to be a Cabinet minister, let alone PM.
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > Dave should have chosen the title 'Told You So'
>
> "Oh Fuck" would have been more accurate.
Full Continental Brexit.
https://twitter.com/PerthshireMags/status/1129045391092195329
> > @MarqueeMark said:
> > > @Scott_P said:
> > > https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1129037573974876160
> >
> > Steel doesn't weep.....
>
> Maybe that's why she won't leave.
>
> "If it could weep, it could arise and go" (Elizabeth Barrett Browning).
I've visited EBB's grave in Florence. Maintained by a nun. She believes that EBB was poisoned - by Robert Browning.....
> > @Cyclefree said:
> >
> > I've asked this too. Answer came there none.
>
> My understanding is that she can do it unilaterally, but it hasn't been tested.
Well she could do it and call her memoirs "Apres moi, le deluge".
> Mr. Mark, any chance of inside line on the weather?
>
> Miss Cyclefree, as things stand, we may find out.
>
> Mr. Sandpit, had I more in my Betfair account and no bets already, I might be tempted that way. The exchange odds are currently a bit longer than I'd like (2.7 for Hamilton about 4.3 for Bottas).
>
> Mr. Nabavi/Mr. Glenn, cheers.
>
> Miss Cyclefree (2), Boris isn't fit to be a Cabinet minister, let alone PM.
She is a tad busy, but I can ask!
> > @Stereotomy said:
>
> > Probation will be renationalised after disastrous Grayling reforms https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/16/part-privatisation-probation-sevices-to-be-reversed-offender-management-nationalised-chris-grayling
>
>
>
> Bloody Marxist Corbyn will expropriate everything, and turn the country into Venezuela and drive all the productive people...
>
> Hang on.
>
> The difference is that the Tories tried it*, it didn’t work, so they are shifting it back to public provision.
>
> Corbyn seems to want to nationalise everything he sees and a lot he doesn’t, regardless of merit. He’s ideological not pragmatic.
>
> * setting aside the fact that it is f*****g idiotic to try to privatise what should be a basic part of government’s function. Which I freely admit could undermine my argument** 😆
>
> ** so I’m going with Grayling is a fool if the highest order rather than the government is ideological
Justice should never be privatised.
The next thing which should be reversed is the destruction of what was once a pretty good national forensic service.
Edit: also he was warned in advance that it would be a disaster and still went ahead. And the disaster occurred precisely as predicted. So he is even more culpable.
> Mr. Rentool, if I offered to double the real wealth of the poorest, but triple it for the wealthiest (increasing inequality), would you accept that, or refuse?
>
> Or, if given the choice between that and halving the real wealth of the poorest but reducing it by two-thirds for the wealthiest (decreasing inequality), which would you prefer?
I would prefer to live in a society at ease with itself, where the few do not become obscenely wealthy by parasitising the many.
We don't need more wealth we just need an equitable distribution.
> > @GarethoftheVale2 said:
> > > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > What proportion of May's Cabinet will survive under a new PM?
> > >
> > > Grayling's departure we can hope is already inked in. Who else is doomed?
> >
> > Hammond, Fox, Lidington
>
> Barclay, Gauke, Rudd, Clark, Fox......
Fox is doubly doomed then. Good.
> Dave should have chosen the title 'Told You So'
>
> Won’t that be the title of George Osborne’s memoir?
That will be "Louise".....
Make it stop!!!
> > @MarqueeMark said:
> > > @GarethoftheVale2 said:
> > > > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > > What proportion of May's Cabinet will survive under a new PM?
> > > >
> > > > Grayling's departure we can hope is already inked in. Who else is doomed?
> > >
> > > Hammond, Fox, Lidington
> >
> > Barclay, Gauke, Rudd, Clark, Fox......
>
> Fox is doubly doomed then. Good.
He needs to be on every list, doubled with Grayling just in case either slips through.....
> Justice should never be privatised.
>
> The next thing which should be reversed is the destruction of what was once a pretty good national forensic service.
>
> Edit: also he was warned in advance that it would be a disaster and still went ahead. And the disaster occurred precisely as predicted. So he is even more culpable.
There's so much to do simply in fixing the mistakes of the recent past, let alone in dealing with new problems.
We've also had something from a group called the English Democrats who don't appear to want my vote as they suggest 'if you are English'. And so on.
As Mr G will surely understand, that is a massive turn-off as far as I am concerned.
However this morning we went to see our IFA and he supports Brexit. He'd be happy with a Common Market but not a political union.
I'm still taking his financial advice, though!
But I have zero sympathy for her. She started off by refusing to be honest with the public about the trade offs , went chasing fawning Daily Mail headlines .
She doesn’t like immigrants and her final descent into wretchedness was her queue jumper comments aimed at EU nationals .
A horrible woman who thinks popping off to church once a week makes her a good Christian . Actions speak louder than words . Good riddance to her when she finally leaves No 10.
MPs don’t take the time to read this stuff (they are too busy being glorified social workers), the media misrepresents in search of clickbait and the 24 hr cycle kicks in
Our political system is broken.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1129047779517640704
> "Inequality driving 'deaths of despair'
>
> Widening inequalities in pay, health and opportunities in the UK are undermining trust in democracy, says an Institute for Fiscal Studies report.
> The think tank warns of runaway incomes for high earners but rises in "deaths of despair", such as from addiction and suicide, among the poorest.
> It warns of risks to "centre-ground" politics from stagnating pay and divides in health and education."
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-48229037
>
>
> "Opioid painkillers: Alarm bells are ringing"
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48297011
I hope we don't develop a similar opioid crisis as America .
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KG4USJgZhoc
> May is becoming a tragic figure .
>
> But I have zero sympathy for her. She started off by refusing to be honest with the public about the trade offs , went chasing fawning Daily Mail headlines .
>
> She doesn’t like immigrants and her final descent into wretchedness was her queue jumper comments aimed at EU nationals .
>
> A horrible woman who thinks popping off to church once a week makes her a good Christian . Actions speak louder than words . Good riddance to her when she finally leaves No 10.
Not sure about your last paragraph. 'You who is without sin first cast the stone'
It could be said that the Tories have been privatising everything they see, regardless of merit. That is an ideology too.
One which seems to have run its course.
> > @DavidL said:
>
> > > @Cyclefree said:
>
> > > > @Scott_P said:
>
> > > > https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1129037573974876160
>
>
>
> > >
>
> > > The government really ought to publish the advice they have received on the impact of a No Deal Brexit, in full, before the WAB is presented.
>
> > >
>
> > > Maybe it is less bad than feared. Or very much worse. Or a bit meh. Who knows? But MPs should know before they vote again.
>
> > >
>
> > > And contestants for the Tory party leadership should also know. So that we don't get fed a load of bullshit about what something that was never in anyone's manifestos in 2017 or canvassed during the referendum campaign actually means in practice.
>
> >
>
> > Who would believe the assessments? No one. We were supposed to have a recession immediately after voting leave. Employment is up well over 1m since then. 1m.
>
> >
>
> > A major part of Brexit is, as Gove almost said, we are fed up of experts who seek to give a spurious credibility to their own opinions by skewing the data or building in assumptions which are not warranted. They have been caught out repeatedly and the defence is, well, things changed or the government or the bank reacted to what had happened. Well, yes.
>
>
>
> Whether or not they are believed is a secondary consideration. They ought to be made transparent. For instance, one of the matters which was reported was about the chemicals needed for our water supplies and how they could not, apparently, be stockpiled here. Let's get all the information out there, including detailed information from the EU about their No Deal planning and what they would do in the event that Britain decided to leave without any sort of agreement.
>
>
>
> MPs should have all the relevant information before they vote for the last time on this deal.
>
>
>
> The fact that assessments made in 2016 turned out to be wrong does not mean that assessments made now about what No Deal means in practice will also be wrong.
>
> The issue is that the media is broken
>
> MPs don’t take the time to read this stuff (they are too busy being glorified social workers), the media misrepresents in search of clickbait and the 24 hr cycle kicks in
>
> Our political system is broken.
Nonetheless it should still be published. If then things turn out to be as predicted, no-one can't say they weren't warned. We have to stop legislators disclaiming responsibility because they weren't told about the consequences. And we have to make those who act in defiance of advice take responsibility for their actions.
Not cry betrayal and blame others when things don't go their way.
I know, I know: I'm wishing for the moon and stars and being hopelessly naive. But still, publish and be damned.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1129045108714856449
As she'll presumably stay on as PM during a leadership contest she should pass Brown (2 years and 319 days) The Duke Of Wellington (2 years and 320 days) and Neville Chamberlain (2 years and 348 days)
James Callaghan at 3 years 29 days and Henry Addington at 3 years and 54 days look do'able if it goes to a members ballot but the Duke Of Portland 3 years and 82 days looks safe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_tenure
> @Charles. Sorry, IPad not liking quoting again...
> It could be said that the Tories have been privatising everything they see, regardless of merit. That is an ideology too.
> One which seems to have run its course.
There is a balance to be struck but Corbyn wants to wreck the capitalist system as he takes us towards Venezeula. That is madness
> @Charles. Sorry, IPad not liking quoting again...
> It could be said that the Tories have been privatising everything they see, regardless of merit. That is an ideology too.
> One which seems to have run its course.
It is indeed. And I have some sympathy with @SandyRentool. Huge disparities in wealth are not good for a cohesive society. The question is how to get something which is fair which does not cause at least as many problems as it solves.
The serious (not politicians) players I know from previous governments are serious people. They know what matters and what doesn’t
> May is becoming a tragic figure .
>
> But I have zero sympathy for her. She started off by refusing to be honest with the public about the trade offs , went chasing fawning Daily Mail headlines .
>
> She doesn’t like immigrants and her final descent into wretchedness was her queue jumper comments aimed at EU nationals .
>
> A horrible woman who thinks popping off to church once a week makes her a good Christian . Actions speak louder than words . Good riddance to her when she finally leaves No 10.
Correct. May bears a heavy burden of responsibility for the disastrous mess she has made of both her country and her party.
It is true that she inherited a very difficult position. But she made it many times worse by her own actions. History will not be kind to her, she will be a strong competitor with her predecessor for the title of worst British PM in the modern era.
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1129045108714856449
>
> What a wholly fucking pointless metric......
Indeed. It's dismal if they've given it more than a passing thought. Self-absorbed and utterly superficial.
I say that about few people
> @Scott_P said:
> https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1129045108714856449
>
> As she'll presumably stay on as PM during a leadership contest she should pass Brown (2 years and 319 days) The Duke Of Wellington (2 years and 320 days) and Neville Chamberlain (2 years and 348 days)
>
> James Callaghan at 3 years 29 days and Henry Addington at 3 years and 54 days look do'able if it goes to a members ballot but the Duke Of Portland 3 years and 82 days looks safe)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_tenure
TM needs to invite her succession after the vote in early June but stay as caretaker to allow a proper contest. Judging by the media obsessions that should ensure nothing else will be discussed until it has concluded
So a summer full of interest in the conservative party but nothing happens otherwise
Grayling should have never been let anywhere near cabinet
If you live in a 3 bedroom semi and everybody else has a 5 bed detached you will feel - with justification - dirt poor.
Conversely if you live in a cramped bedsit but everybody else is two to a ridge tent you will feel - again with justification - king of the hill.
> Not sure about your last paragraph. 'You who is without sin first cast the stone'
She's done a lot of avoidable damage to innocent people, and only some of it can be ascribed to stupidity.
We don't have to be perfect to stand in judgement over the records of others. Indeed, democracy is predicated on the fact that we all have that right.
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > Not sure about your last paragraph. 'You who is without sin first cast the stone'
>
> She's done a lot of avoidable damage to innocent people, and only some of it can be ascribed to stupidity.
> We don't have to be perfect to stand in judgement over the records of others. Indeed, democracy is predicated on the fact that we all have that right.
I have no problem with criticism of her but I never like to judge a person's faith
This feels like rather wasted space. Perhaps a bit like Change UK ...
> I have no problem with criticism of her but I never like to judge a person's faith
Fully understand where you're coming from there. I guess one question would be to what extent she's made her faith part of her politics and her political campaigning. In May's case, the answer is "somewhat".
> https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1129057137089536005
If only more extreme Europhiles had joined them and been on the way to oblivion too. It would make the next Parliament a better place.
Technology is often expensive and benefits the wealthy who can afford it.
As an example we are planning to buy a system to instantly identify a bacteria using DNA analysis. The investment costs at least £50k but cuts the time to do identification from 2 weeks to 1 day for some key mycobacteria. This is a game changer and the smaller labs who cant afford the cost of the machine and the educated staff to run it are basically been shut out of a major revenue stream. Society benefits massively from the technology but only a few labs make money from it.
Our company is able to pay better than average wages which means we get better and more loyal staff which means we can implement more new technology which means we make more money. And so on.
Is the answer to slow down technology ? Not sure in healthcare this is possible.
Is the answer to give more people access to more technology? Yes but hard to implement.
Is the answer to try and tax those who have the new technology? Yes but only in a way that keeps them onside as you risk them moving on.
The greatest inequality in the UK is who pays the taxes. The top 1% pay 30% of all taxes. It seems that the Government has got it about right.