May considering the Merkel route as her successors are not up to the job she has to unresign? Perhaps she will put her Withdrawal Agreement through again to ensure her successor cannot pursue No Deal and risk losing a VONC?
If May doesn't resign she risks losing a VONC.
AIUI, the plan is to dissolve Parliament before the new Tory leader is announced. She can't lose a vote if Parliament is not sitting. Pushing back any change of PM possibly till late September. If the new leader can win a VONC that is.
The usual remainers were here blaiming it on Brexit without a shred of evidence, because they so painfully want it to be so.
"Without a shred of evidence", what, like quotes from the business 3 years ago saying "if Brexit goes ahead we will close factories". I mean, the evidence is their words. Now, if you think car manufacturers are actually part of project fear and are only closing their factories out of ideological pro EU zeal and not business factors created by an environment they warned about years in advance; okay. The lizard people will see you now.
And if we had voted to remain, those jobs would be safe? Get real.
The would be safer. Personally the sneering tone from pro-Brexit armchair economists is exactly why support for Brexit is fading away like snow on a hot day.
It is not that Brexit brings the Night army to Bridgend. It is the incremental economic decisions that erode our investment and undermine our global competitiveness, and that is exactly what is happening.
Several Tories think that if they don't enact Brexit they will be obliterated. In fact it is if they DO enact it, against the growing majority who oppose Brexit that will obliterate them.
Another stupid Remainer myth. There is no 'growing majority' who oppose Brexit.
a wish is not a claim on reality... If you are so certain, why not support a PV?
Because I said I opposed it even if Leave had a massive majority. There are basic principles involved. Something that Remainers seem to lack.
If you ask people on $1 a day whether someone with not just food and shelter, but free health care and a state pension worth several hundred thousand dollars all guaranteed are in poverty they would certainly find it bizarre and many would find it offensive.
This absolute vs relative poverty discussion is a bit of a sideshow I think. In reality when we talk about poverty it is always relative poverty we are talking about. If you ask people to set an absolute poverty line it will always be set relative to what people consider to be an adequate basic standard of living based on their own experience - and so will always be higher in richer societies. In Victorian times it was normal to have children dying in infancy, to have dirty clothes, to live in insanitary housing, and so if we think nobody in Britain should live like that today (and hopefully even PB Tories agree with that) then you have already set the poverty line way higher than a Vicorian social reformer would have. Like with most economic questions it is better to be specific. Define what you think is an acceptable minimum standard of living based on specific criteria. In a wealthy country like the UK I would say sanitary housing with sufficient space, access to a healthy diet so children can grow properly, a short inexpensive domestic summer holiday, children able to attend school trips, a warm home, a television, a mobile phone. That probably works out at around 2/3 of median income I would guess.
The usual remainers were here blaiming it on Brexit without a shred of evidence, because they so painfully want it to be so.
"Without a shred of evidence", what, like quotes from the business 3 years ago saying "if Brexit goes ahead we will close factories". I mean, the evidence is their words. Now, if you think car manufacturers are actually part of project fear and are only closing their factories out of ideological pro EU zeal and not business factors created by an environment they warned about years in advance; okay. The lizard people will see you now.
And if we had voted to remain, those jobs would be safe? Get real.
The would be safer. Personally the sneering tone from pro-Brexit armchair economists is exactly why support for Brexit is fading away like snow on a hot day.
It is not that Brexit brings the Night army to Bridgend. It is the incremental economic decisions that erode our investment and undermine our global competitiveness, and that is exactly what is happening.
Several Tories think that if they don't enact Brexit they will be obliterated. In fact it is if they DO enact it, against the growing majority who oppose Brexit that will obliterate them.
Another stupid Remainer myth. There is no 'growing majority' who oppose Brexit.
a wish is not a claim on reality... If you are so certain, why not support a PV?
Because I said I opposed it even if Leave had a massive majority. There are basic principles involved. Something that Remainers seem to lack.
I think you conceded that you'd support a second referendum if a party promising one won a general election?
But that's not true, is it? Parliament is still sovereign and the MPs can VONC the government.
It is true - candidates are discussing proroguing Parliament to force through a No Deal departure and the next PM will be chosen by the (rather righter wing) members of the Conservative Party.
While it's unlikely that the most insane right wing candidate will win and close Parliament until November you cannot claim some candidates haven't discussed it.
How does closing parliament happen? Could Tory MPs not act to no confidence the government before the winner of the contest becomes PM?
In fact, could they not do it if Raab makes the final 2?
How do you attend Parliament if it's not in session that day / week?
The Prime Minister cannot stop MPs attending Parliament if the Speaker agrees to recall them. The quorum is only 40. What will the PM do? Arrest them?
The wilder Leavers have visions of Boris Johnson riding the no deal Brexit bomb like Doctor Strangelove.
Actually it's remainers who are talking up this possibility.
It's Conservative MPs trying to persuade their unhinged colleagues and members to make them PM who are talking about this possibility.
How on Earth does that become "remainers"?
This bidding and outbidding to see who can come up with the more ludicrous plan in order to humour the delusions of Tory members is not a healthy feature of this contest.
Can I just blow my own trumpet here, because I think I was the first person to spot this looming problem, and I was derided for my pains.
I know it's gauche, but what the hell.
Oh God. Is this her latest plan to go on and on and on and...
the constitution demands she goes on.
Indeed so. More uncharted waters. Corbyn as next PM has got to come in now. I couldn't see the circumstances in which it was possible before. As you say. A PM in situ, but not fighting an election is unprecedented. As is a PM not the leader of a Party...
The optics are of May clinging on forever but her constitutional position is correct. Nevertheless I'm covering the small hole I had on our old friend David Lidington (pbuh) in the next PM market.
The optics are of May clinging on forever but her constitutional position is correct. Nevertheless I'm covering the small hole I had on our old friend David Lidington (pbuh) in the next PM market.
Betting post for quick typists. There is once again an arb on Andrea Leadsom between next PM and next Conservative leader on Betfair.
Wealth warning: it is possible that these will not be the same person in the circumstances Alastair Meeks warned about: that the next party leader cannot command a majority so Theresa May remains until ... your guess is as good as mine.
The optics are of May clinging on forever but her constitutional position is correct. Nevertheless I'm covering the small hole I had on our old friend David Lidington (pbuh) in the next PM market.
Good idea.
He's been good business for me, have a green number of £550 against him at a negative cost of £50.
My car insurance renewal was down by a tenner from last year. Another friend on Facebook has reported the same - Is the true aggregate price coming down, and so a negative effect on inflation incoming ?
Probably not. The industry as a whole finally returned to profitability a few years ago and immediately started pushing premiums down. There are some signs that the reforms on whiplash etc are starting to have an effect, but the impact of any change to the Ogden discount rate later this year (assuming any Govt time can be found for it) will probably swamp any softening of rates occurring elsewhere.
My feel is that company specific and policyholder specific factors will be far bigger drivers of renewal prices than any marketwide downwards movement that may be occurring.
May's spokesman has said she will not resign unless she can tell the Queen that the successor is likely to command confidence.
What this means is that whoever wins the Tory leadership contest must also keep all of the Conservative MPs within the whip, as well as keeping the DUP on board.
I do hope everyone's profits for next Conservative leader are on that market rather than the next Prime Minister market, at least in relation to the more controversial candidates. Otherwise you might be taking an unnecessary risk.
There has also been an opportunity, by laying on the next Prime Minister market and backing on the next Conservative leader market, to build up large positions on other possible next Prime Ministers essentially for free (especially if you had already built up good positions courtesy of the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and Jeremy Corbyn). I expect that opportunity will diminish in the wake of this announcement.
Betting post for quick typists. There is once again an arb on Andrea Leadsom between next PM and next Conservative leader on Betfair.
Wealth warning: it is possible that these will not be the same person in the circumstances Alastair Meeks warned about: that the next party leader cannot command a majority so Theresa May remains until ... your guess is as good as mine.
Gosh. We could even have a situation where a Tory leader is elected, fights an election, loses, and resigns, without ever appearing at the despatch box!
May's spokesman has said she will not resign unless she can tell the Queen that the successor is likely to command confidence.
What this means is that whoever wins the Tory leadership contest must also keep all of the Conservative MPs within the whip, as well as keeping the DUP on board.
I do hope everyone's profits for next Conservative leader are on that market rather than the next Prime Minister market, at least in relation to the more controversial candidates. Otherwise you might be taking an unnecessary risk.
There has also been an opportunity, by laying on the next Prime Minister market and backing on the next Conservative leader market, to build up large positions on other possible next Prime Ministers essentially for free (especially if you had already built up good positions courtesy of the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and Jeremy Corbyn). I expect that opportunity will diminish in the wake of this announcement.
It gives those MPs who have been outspoken about not serving under Boris the option of preventing him ever becoming PM. Which is probably what Mrs M has in mind.
Betting post for quick typists. There is once again an arb on Andrea Leadsom between next PM and next Conservative leader on Betfair.
Wealth warning: it is possible that these will not be the same person in the circumstances Alastair Meeks warned about: that the next party leader cannot command a majority so Theresa May remains until ... your guess is as good as mine.
Both prices are far too short.
I'm going mad. Is there an exchange market on PM? Or is that a sportbook market?
Gosh. We could even have a situation where a Tory leader is elected, fights an election, loses, and resigns, without ever appearing at the despatch box!
If the election results in a hung parliament where no-one can agree on a government, May could stay PM even after that.
Betting post for quick typists. There is once again an arb on Andrea Leadsom between next PM and next Conservative leader on Betfair.
Wealth warning: it is possible that these will not be the same person in the circumstances Alastair Meeks warned about: that the next party leader cannot command a majority so Theresa May remains until ... your guess is as good as mine.
Both prices are far too short.
I'm going mad. Is there an exchange market on PM? Or is that a sportbook market?
If you ask people on $1 a day whether someone with not just food and shelter, but free health care and a state pension worth several hundred thousand dollars all guaranteed are in poverty they would certainly find it bizarre and many would find it offensive.
This absolute vs relative poverty discussion is a bit of a sideshow I think. In reality when we talk about poverty it is always relative poverty we are talking about. If you ask people to set an absolute poverty line it will always be set relative to what people consider to be an adequate basic standard of living based on their own experience - and so will always be higher in richer societies. In Victorian times it was normal to have children dying in infancy, to have dirty clothes, to live in insanitary housing, and so if we think nobody in Britain should live like that today (and hopefully even PB Tories agree with that) then you have already set the poverty line way higher than a Vicorian social reformer would have. Like with most economic questions it is better to be specific. Define what you think is an acceptable minimum standard of living based on specific criteria. In a wealthy country like the UK I would say sanitary housing with sufficient space, access to a healthy diet so children can grow properly, a short inexpensive domestic summer holiday, children able to attend school trips, a warm home, a television, a mobile phone. That probably works out at around 2/3 of median income I would guess.
When a billion people do live on 1 dollar a day it is not a sideshow. We have made great progress in reducing that over the last 50 years, but there is more to be done. Just because the problems of the real poor are thankfully not in sight here in the UK doesnt mean we should redefine what poverty is.
Betting post for quick typists. There is once again an arb on Andrea Leadsom between next PM and next Conservative leader on Betfair.
Wealth warning: it is possible that these will not be the same person in the circumstances Alastair Meeks warned about: that the next party leader cannot command a majority so Theresa May remains until ... your guess is as good as mine.
Both prices are far too short.
I'm going mad. Is there an exchange market on PM? Or is that a sportbook market?
May's spokesman has said she will not resign unless she can tell the Queen that the successor is likely to command confidence.
What this means is that whoever wins the Tory leadership contest must also keep all of the Conservative MPs within the whip, as well as keeping the DUP on board.
I do hope everyone's profits for next Conservative leader are on that market rather than the next Prime Minister market, at least in relation to the more controversial candidates. Otherwise you might be taking an unnecessary risk.
There has also been an opportunity, by laying on the next Prime Minister market and backing on the next Conservative leader market, to build up large positions on other possible next Prime Ministers essentially for free (especially if you had already built up good positions courtesy of the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and Jeremy Corbyn). I expect that opportunity will diminish in the wake of this announcement.
BiB - Bugger. That said, Raab is the one candidate in with a chance that I haven't actually backed. Boris will do what he has to to get into Number 10.
Betting post for quick typists. There is once again an arb on Andrea Leadsom between next PM and next Conservative leader on Betfair.
Wealth warning: it is possible that these will not be the same person in the circumstances Alastair Meeks warned about: that the next party leader cannot command a majority so Theresa May remains until ... your guess is as good as mine.
Both prices are far too short.
I'm going mad. Is there an exchange market on PM? Or is that a sportbook market?
Boris's blurted out, rushed, announcement that he would No Deal in October no matter what may turn out to be the thing that actually stops him ever becoming PM.
Boris's blurted out, rushed, announcement that he would No Deal in October no matter what may turn out to be the thing that actually stops him ever becoming PM.
Only if BF makes clear what they mean by leaving. The book is leadership of party, not PM.
I looked at that 290 and was tempted, but risk that BF wont pay up.
Betfair have been all over the place on their rules. I'm red on June and July now, but in the money if it somehow gets strung out till August or later.
Maybe the best option is just for May to unresign, kick the can down the road again in October, and stay on as PM while various brexiteers fail to command confidence of house, while also surviving voncs by Corbyn (because any tory voting for a vonc against may would be kicked out). She could just do it all the way to 2022, who knows what the political landscape will look like by then.
Her announcement makes it very very easy to vote against Boris Raab or Sam Giyah whoever wins the leadership contest.
Can I just blow my own trumpet here, because I think I was the first person to spot this looming problem, and I was derided for my pains.
I know it's gauche, but what the hell.
Oh God. Is this her latest plan to go on and on and on and...
the constitution demands she goes on.
Indeed so. More uncharted waters. Corbyn as next PM has got to come in now. I couldn't see the circumstances in which it was possible before. As you say. A PM in situ, but not fighting an election is unprecedented. As is a PM not the leader of a Party...
It happens quite a bit in Germany, like at the moment.
Gosh. We could even have a situation where a Tory leader is elected, fights an election, loses, and resigns, without ever appearing at the despatch box!
If the election results in a hung parliament where no-one can agree on a government, May could stay PM even after that.
Mmm. I fear that could be drifting into fantasy. Surely, if no one can agree who should lead a Government, the one thing all could agree on is not Theresa May. Wouldn't it?
That market has been bizarre. 2019 went odds on at a time when the chances of a general election this year looked like a longshot and then went out beyond 3/1 as the chances of a 2019 general election seemed to get much stronger.
“Morning G, sign of the times and way England is heading. Worse to come I would think.”
English footie fans making comments about the war and the Germans before big games has been going on for decades.
It’s nothing new nor a ‘sign of the times’!
But even more prevalent than previously and shows the calibre of the morons.
My favourite chant by England fans in recent years was at Park Head in November 2014:
You all voted no, You all voted no, You can't live without us, You all voted no.
A familiar tune to the plastic paddies at that venue - "Why don't you go home, the famine is over, why don't you go home" was popular for a while until some had a sense of humour failure about it.
You naughty Huns with your ability to give and take a joke.
What's your opinion on 'Up to our knees in Fenian blood', banter or sectarian?
Gosh. We could even have a situation where a Tory leader is elected, fights an election, loses, and resigns, without ever appearing at the despatch box!
If the election results in a hung parliament where no-one can agree on a government, May could stay PM even after that.
Mmm. I fear that could be drifting into fantasy. Surely, if no one can agree who should lead a Government, the one thing all could agree on is not Theresa May. Wouldn't it?
One last Lidington surge in the PM betting market would be nice.
If you ask people on $1 a day whether someone with not just food and shelter, but free health care and a state pension worth several hundred thousand dollars all guaranteed are in poverty they would certainly find it bizarre and many would find it offensive.
'OnlyLivingBoy' puts it well and accurately in his post at 1.10 IMO.
Or relatively well and accurately, I should say, since I do not agree that the distinction between absolute and relative is a sideshow. I think it's important.
Essentially you are saying that the word 'poverty' is a strict binary absolutist affair.
I do not agree. I think it can be validly qualified with 'relative'. Furthermore it needs to be in many cases.
1. My wife is relatively pregnant. 2. I am relatively short. 3. My brother is relatively wealthy. 4. My sister is relatively poor. 5. My brother lives in relative opulence. 6. My sister lives in relative poverty.
For me, the odd one out is (1) and that is the ONLY odd one out.
As a matter of interest, what about 'hungry' and 'suffering'?
My car insurance renewal was down by a tenner from last year. Another friend on Facebook has reported the same - Is the true aggregate price coming down, and so a negative effect on inflation incoming ?
I knocked a lot off my dad'd insurance this year, which surprised me.
£190 ! Cheapest in years.
Mine's not coming down. Nearly four grand. I am considering a Day of the Jackal style identity theft to be reborn without three speeding bans on my record.
Gosh. We could even have a situation where a Tory leader is elected, fights an election, loses, and resigns, without ever appearing at the despatch box!
If the election results in a hung parliament where no-one can agree on a government, May could stay PM even after that.
Mmm. I fear that could be drifting into fantasy. Surely, if no one can agree who should lead a Government, the one thing all could agree on is not Theresa May. Wouldn't it?
In practice you have to be right. In essence, May's shenannigans simply precipitate an immediate GE - she doesn't survive that.
My car insurance renewal was down by a tenner from last year. Another friend on Facebook has reported the same - Is the true aggregate price coming down, and so a negative effect on inflation incoming ?
I knocked a lot off my dad'd insurance this year, which surprised me.
£190 ! Cheapest in years.
Mine's not coming down. Nearly four grand. I am considering a Day of the Jackal style identity theft to be reborn without three speeding bans on my record.
Your driving life sounds more exciting than mine though to be fair.
There is something really wrong with the counting process if ballot papers stolen from a previous round are not picked up if printed on the same paper color
The usual remainers were here blaiming it on Brexit without a shred of evidence, because they so painfully want it to be so.
"Without a shred of evidence", what, like quotes from the business 3 years ago saying "if Brexit goes ahead we will close factories". I mean, the evidence is their words. Now, if you think car manufacturers are actually part of project fear and are only closing their factories out of ideological pro EU zeal and not business factors created by an environment they warned about years in advance; okay. The lizard people will see you now.
And if we had voted to remain, those jobs would be safe? Get real.
The would be safer. Personally the sneering tone from pro-Brexit armchair economists is exactly why support for Brexit is fading away like snow on a hot day.
It is not that Brexit brings the Night army to Bridgend. It is the incremental economic decisions that erode our investment and undermine our global competitiveness, and that is exactly what is happening.
Several Tories think that if they don't enact Brexit they will be obliterated. In fact it is if they DO enact it, against the growing majority who oppose Brexit that will obliterate them.
Another stupid Remainer myth. There is no 'growing majority' who oppose Brexit.
a wish is not a claim on reality... If you are so certain, why not support a PV?
Because I said I opposed it even if Leave had a massive majority. There are basic principles involved. Something that Remainers seem to lack.
That has to rank as one of your most stupid statements to date Richard. Most "remainers" including myself have very strong principles.
They are the principles that state that wrecking our economy for the sake of a referendum result that probably wouldn't carry now is not just dumb it is criminal.
They are also the principles that state that the most important foreign policy volte face that the country has done in half a century should not be based upon phony prospectuses and possible hostile foreign interference.
And then, the most important of all for me, the principle that narrow minded nationalism, with its lies and divisive hatreds, should never be allowed to prevail anywhere, let alone the United Kingdom.
Gosh. We could even have a situation where a Tory leader is elected, fights an election, loses, and resigns, without ever appearing at the despatch box!
If the election results in a hung parliament where no-one can agree on a government, May could stay PM even after that.
Mmm. I fear that could be drifting into fantasy. Surely, if no one can agree who should lead a Government, the one thing all could agree on is not Theresa May. Wouldn't it?
The trouble is the only way for her to be dug out if she decides to stay is for Parliament to actually vote her out. Something they continue to seem to be remarkably reluctant to do.
My car insurance renewal was down by a tenner from last year. Another friend on Facebook has reported the same - Is the true aggregate price coming down, and so a negative effect on inflation incoming ?
I knocked a lot off my dad'd insurance this year, which surprised me.
£190 ! Cheapest in years.
Mine's not coming down. Nearly four grand. I am considering a Day of the Jackal style identity theft to be reborn without three speeding bans on my record.
Your driving life sounds more exciting than mine though to be fair.
At the moment it sounds more like one of those James May programmes where he dismantles a bit of machinery and reassembles it. Though with more colourful language.
Does May's announcement hurt Boris in the Tory leader contest ?
I think both Hunt and Gove would get the support of the commons. The seventh hell spectacle of Boris being blocked by May might be on a few MPs minds.
Con members (the ones that are left) will be spitting feathers if Boris is blocked from the final two because Theresa is threatening to carry on squatting in Downing St.
That has to rank as one of your most stupid statements to date Richard. Most "remainers" including myself have very strong principles.
They are the principles that state that wrecking our economy for the sake of a referendum result that probably wouldn't carry now is not just dumb it is criminal.
They are also the principles that state that the most important foreign policy volte face that the country has done in half a century should not be based upon phony prospectuses and possible hostile foreign interference.
And then, the most important of all for me, the principle that narrow minded nationalism, with its lies and divisive hatreds, should never be allowed to prevail anywhere, let alone the United Kingdom.
Those principles clearly don't extend to keeping ones word and abiding by democratic decisions. All the rest is your usual fantasy bollocks with no basis in fact.
If you ask people on $1 a day whether someone with not just food and shelter, but free health care and a state pension worth several hundred thousand dollars all guaranteed are in poverty they would certainly find it bizarre and many would find it offensive.
'OnlyLivingBoy' puts it well and accurately in his post at 1.10 IMO.
Or relatively well and accurately, I should say, since I do not agree that the distinction between absolute and relative is a sideshow. I think it's important.
Essentially you are saying that the word 'poverty' is a strict binary absolutist affair.
I do not agree. I think it can be validly qualified with 'relative'. Furthermore it needs to be in many cases.
1. My wife is relatively pregnant. 2. I am relatively short. 3. My brother is relatively wealthy. 4. My sister is relatively poor. 5. My brother lives in relative opulence. 6. My sister lives in relative poverty.
For me, the odd one out is (1) and that is the ONLY odd one out.
As a matter of interest, what about 'hungry' and 'suffering'?
Can you be relatively hungry?
Can you be 'suffering relatively badly'?
Hunger is incredibly rare in the uk and anywhere in the west. Actually it’s rare in much of the world now. With the exception of war zones, hunger has been eliminated.
That doesn’t mean that there is nobody who goes hungry because of some mismanagement, unexpected bill, change of circumstance, mental illness or a series of poor decisions.
But we’ve ending up tweaking the statistical nature of poverty to be disconnected from people’s perception. Destitution is closer to what people think of when they think of poverty. And it’s more single young men who end up in this state.
May considering the Merkel route as her successors are not up to the job she has to unresign? Perhaps she will put her Withdrawal Agreement through again to ensure her successor cannot pursue No Deal and risk losing a VONC?
What do you mean the Merkel route? Merkel has been absolutely clear on this. She resigned from party leader. She will not be the "Spizenkandidatin" at the next election, meaning she ceases to be Chancellor once a new government has formed following the next Bundestag election. There is nothing shameful about this at all.
There is something really wrong with the counting process if ballot papers stolen from a previous round are not picked up if printed on the same paper color
I guess it’s a lack of trust and honour. People are now so polarised in their views about a number of issues, that them, thinking they are on the ‘side of the angels’ is sufficient to justify themselves cheating.
Does May's announcement hurt Boris in the Tory leader contest ?
I think both Hunt and Gove would get the support of the commons. The seventh hell spectacle of Boris being blocked by May might be on a few MPs minds.
If she attempted to block Boris becoming PM the erg would force a vote of no confidence in the government in collaboration with opposition or the 22 committee would change the rules allowing a VONC in TM
Australia right back into this against the Windies. Not going to be much short of 300 now. How will Gale bat after 50 overs in the field? Much may turn on that.
Edit and Smith goes. But that might actually increase the run rate although he has the capacity to turn it up himself.
Hunger is incredibly rare in the uk and anywhere in the west. Actually it’s rare in much of the world now. With the exception of war zones, hunger has been eliminated.
That doesn’t mean that there is nobody who goes hungry because of some mismanagement, unexpected bill, change of circumstance, mental illness or a series of poor decisions.
But we’ve ending up tweaking the statistical nature of poverty to be disconnected from people’s perception. Destitution is closer to what people think of when they think of poverty. And it’s more single young men who end up in this state.
Destitute, for me, means in EXTREME poverty and is more of an absolutist word like pregnant.
To say that somebody is 'relatively' destitute is not meaningful.
But, as I say, I have no problem with 'relative poverty'. I think it is a term that we need.
If you ask people on $1 a day whether someone with not just food and shelter, but free health care and a state pension worth several hundred thousand dollars all guaranteed are in poverty they would certainly find it bizarre and many would find it offensive.
'OnlyLivingBoy' puts it well and accurately in his post at 1.10 IMO.
Or relatively well and accurately, I should say, since I do not agree that the distinction between absolute and relative is a sideshow. I think it's important.
Essentially you are saying that the word 'poverty' is a strict binary absolutist affair.
I do not agree. I think it can be validly qualified with 'relative'. Furthermore it needs to be in many cases.
1. My wife is relatively pregnant. 2. I am relatively short. 3. My brother is relatively wealthy. 4. My sister is relatively poor. 5. My brother lives in relative opulence. 6. My sister lives in relative poverty.
For me, the odd one out is (1) and that is the ONLY odd one out.
As a matter of interest, what about 'hungry' and 'suffering'?
Can you be relatively hungry?
Can you be 'suffering relatively badly'?
It is not binary, but as someone who believes in equality, when 1 in 7 people do live in real poverty, then find someone else who is in the richest 1 in 7 is claiming to be in poverty it causes confusion and leads to errors in policy.
For example, would people be so upset at foreign aid if they understood 1 in 7 of us live on $1 a day and what that means in practice compared to the 14 million relatively poor in the UK? Simply put, people believing there are 14 million poor people in the UK will worsen the lives of the billion poorest.
Would people be happier if they saw how good the UK is (in many things, not just the economy) compared to the rest of the world, rather than always focussing on the negative.
It also leads to short term measures to support the poorest rather than the more important task of increasing equality of opportunity.
3. My brother is relatively wealthy. 4. My sister is relatively poor. 5. My brother lives in relative opulence. 6. My sister lives in relative poverty.
3 & 4 are fine, 5 & 6 could be misleading. Someone on $2 a day amongst others on $1 a day is relatively wealthy but does not live in any form of opulence.
That this should even need saying is a measure of how barmy and un-Conservative so many Tories have become.
Proroguing Parliament indeed. This is the action of dictators not Democrats.
And a clear sign that a decade in opposition would help to focus minds and refresh away from the heat of battle.
Very hard to disagree with this. The painful lessons learned during the Blair hegemony seemed to have been readily forgotten, not least by some of the numpties that caused them. Yes, Mr Cash, I am talking about you. Muppet.
Some people might take this as a message that, you know, your fellow MPs don't rate you very highly and its maybe someone else's turn. I can't even see her being particularly transfer friendly if others dropped out.
It is not binary, but as someone who believes in equality, when 1 in 7 people do live in real poverty, then find someone else who is in the richest 1 in 7 is claiming to be in poverty it causes confusion and leads to errors in policy.
For example, would people be so upset at foreign aid if they understood 1 in 7 of us live on $1 a day and what that means in practice compared to the 14 million relatively poor in the UK? Simply put, people believing there are 14 million poor people in the UK will worsen the lives of the billion poorest.
Would people be happier if they saw how good the UK is (in many things, not just the economy) compared to the rest of the world, rather than always focussing on the negative.
It also leads to short term measures to support the poorest rather than the more important task of increasing equality of opportunity.
3. My brother is relatively wealthy. 4. My sister is relatively poor. 5. My brother lives in relative opulence. 6. My sister lives in relative poverty.
3 & 4 are fine, 5 & 6 could be misleading. Someone on $2 a day amongst others on $1 a day is relatively wealthy but does not live in any form of opulence.
OK - I do get where you are coming from - but I think we ought to be able to recognize the truth that we are well off compared to most, but at the same time have an aspiration to eliminate 'relative poverty' in our own country - defined as x% of the average standard of living.
Perhaps substitute 'unacceptable domestic inequality' if preferred.
Comments
Like with most economic questions it is better to be specific. Define what you think is an acceptable minimum standard of living based on specific criteria. In a wealthy country like the UK I would say sanitary housing with sufficient space, access to a healthy diet so children can grow properly, a short inexpensive domestic summer holiday, children able to attend school trips, a warm home, a television, a mobile phone. That probably works out at around 2/3 of median income I would guess.
Can you sing it for me please?
As you say. A PM in situ, but not fighting an election is unprecedented. As is a PM not the leader of a Party...
Wealth warning: it is possible that these will not be the same person in the circumstances Alastair Meeks warned about: that the next party leader cannot command a majority so Theresa May remains until ... your guess is as good as mine.
https://order-order.com/2019/06/06/punters-demand-stewards-inquiry-mays-resignation-date-bets/
My feel is that company specific and policyholder specific factors will be far bigger drivers of renewal prices than any marketwide downwards movement that may be occurring.
I do hope everyone's profits for next Conservative leader are on that market rather than the next Prime Minister market, at least in relation to the more controversial candidates. Otherwise you might be taking an unnecessary risk.
There has also been an opportunity, by laying on the next Prime Minister market and backing on the next Conservative leader market, to build up large positions on other possible next Prime Ministers essentially for free (especially if you had already built up good positions courtesy of the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and Jeremy Corbyn). I expect that opportunity will diminish in the wake of this announcement.
Voice not THAT bad - not bad at all in fact - but OK maybe not give up the day job.
So, obviously that is what the Tory membership will do.
(and thanks)
Predictit market - prices look far more correct than Betfair quite honestly.
I looked at that 290 and was tempted, but risk that BF wont pay up.
Her announcement makes it very very easy to vote against Boris Raab or Sam Giyah whoever wins the leadership contest.
Wouldn't it?
You naughty Huns with your ability to give and take a joke.
What's your opinion on 'Up to our knees in Fenian blood', banter or sectarian?
I think both Hunt and Gove would get the support of the commons. The seventh hell spectacle of Boris being blocked by May might be on a few MPs minds.
Or relatively well and accurately, I should say, since I do not agree that the distinction between absolute and relative is a sideshow. I think it's important.
Essentially you are saying that the word 'poverty' is a strict binary absolutist affair.
I do not agree. I think it can be validly qualified with 'relative'. Furthermore it needs to be in many cases.
1. My wife is relatively pregnant.
2. I am relatively short.
3. My brother is relatively wealthy.
4. My sister is relatively poor.
5. My brother lives in relative opulence.
6. My sister lives in relative poverty.
For me, the odd one out is (1) and that is the ONLY odd one out.
As a matter of interest, what about 'hungry' and 'suffering'?
Can you be relatively hungry?
Can you be 'suffering relatively badly'?
They are the principles that state that wrecking our economy for the sake of a referendum result that probably wouldn't carry now is not just dumb it is criminal.
They are also the principles that state that the most important foreign policy volte face that the country has done in half a century should not be based upon phony prospectuses and possible hostile foreign interference.
And then, the most important of all for me, the principle that narrow minded nationalism, with its lies and divisive hatreds, should never be allowed to prevail anywhere, let alone the United Kingdom.
Though with more colourful language.
NEW THREAD
That doesn’t mean that there is nobody who goes hungry because of some mismanagement, unexpected bill, change of circumstance, mental illness or a series of poor decisions.
But we’ve ending up tweaking the statistical nature of poverty to be disconnected from people’s perception. Destitution is closer to what people think of when they think of poverty. And it’s more single young men who end up in this state.
I guess it’s a lack of trust and honour. People are now so polarised in their views about a number of issues, that them, thinking they are on the ‘side of the angels’ is sufficient to justify themselves cheating.
Edit and Smith goes. But that might actually increase the run rate although he has the capacity to turn it up himself.
To say that somebody is 'relatively' destitute is not meaningful.
But, as I say, I have no problem with 'relative poverty'. I think it is a term that we need.
For example, would people be so upset at foreign aid if they understood 1 in 7 of us live on $1 a day and what that means in practice compared to the 14 million relatively poor in the UK? Simply put, people believing there are 14 million poor people in the UK will worsen the lives of the billion poorest.
Would people be happier if they saw how good the UK is (in many things, not just the economy) compared to the rest of the world, rather than always focussing on the negative.
It also leads to short term measures to support the poorest rather than the more important task of increasing equality of opportunity.
3. My brother is relatively wealthy.
4. My sister is relatively poor.
5. My brother lives in relative opulence.
6. My sister lives in relative poverty.
3 & 4 are fine, 5 & 6 could be misleading. Someone on $2 a day amongst others on $1 a day is relatively wealthy but does not live in any form of opulence.
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1136614891542982657
Some people might take this as a message that, you know, your fellow MPs don't rate you very highly and its maybe someone else's turn. I can't even see her being particularly transfer friendly if others dropped out.
Perhaps substitute 'unacceptable domestic inequality' if preferred.