Another reason for him to call an immediate snap election.
Indeed. If he wins a majority Boris then has the numbers to get the compromises needed to get the Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons with minor tweaks agreed with the EU without being reliant on the DUP and ERG hardliners or hoping for rebel Labour MPs
The key point to note is that average wages are very low.
My instinct based on my ties to the constituency albeit some years ago is that if the recall petition succeeds the Tories will win, because the voters will be severely pissed off at being asked to vote again for something that didn't incur a prison sentence and will enjoy seeing many people pontificating about them look stupid.
Another reason for him to call an immediate snap election.
Indeed. If he wins a majority Boris then has the numbers to get the compromises needed to get the Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons with minor tweaks agreed with the EU without being reliant on the DUP and ERG hardliners or hoping for rebel Labour MPs
And how does he win that election then - presumably there will be some specifics in a manifesto designed to appeal to current Brexit party backers he will presumably be bound by?
Thanks Alastair. This is interesting in that it's one benefit that is going to be denied to the much maligned baby boomer generation. You know, the one we're told repeatedly has had it all.
My dad (aged 73 in August) rightly points out that this is far worse for anyone who's been in receipt of the benefit than those like him (well, me actually as I pay it) who won't ever get it.
The key point to note is that average wages are very low.
My instinct based on my ties to the constituency albeit some years ago is that if the recall petition succeeds the Tories will win, because the voters will be severely pissed off at being asked to vote again for something that didn't incur a prison sentence and will enjoy seeing many people pontificating about them look stupid.
But I could be wrong.
FPT
My instinct is if the Tories pick the right candidate, they can win.
It is wrong to look at this seat through a London-centric lens.
And I am not sure the LibDems have chosen wisely because Brecon and Radnorshire is not pb.com.
Well, yes, I got that far, but I think your language was perhaps a little thoughtless.
OK point noted and taken. "Fine" in isolation was not apt. However, just finally on this, all I was trying to do was provide ballast. This is needed lest we sink under the weight of too much anti-Corbyn bias.
If the breaking news had been that Venezuela had lost all its juice there would have been a flood of posts highlighting this and contemplating the similar calamities which would doubtless befall the UK should Jeremy ever get in.
Fair enough, I take that sort of thing on the chin, but in this case the story is a good news one for Venezuela, in that every country in South America EXCEPT them is in a pickle on power. They are 'fine' in this regard. Venezuela is Top of the Class today on this matter of not having a full national power cut down there in South America - and so I wanted to bring this to people's attention.
Since Venezuela has had nationwide power outages in the recent past, one of which lasted a week and for which it has still given no very convincing explanation, that doesn't really stand up either (and I can't remember it making waves on PB, tbh).
I must say I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for pensioners on this. Rich pensioners should not be getting benefits, whether free TV licences or cold weather payments or whatever.
As for funding of the BBC, why not subscription - like Netflix?
Another reason for him to call an immediate snap election.
Indeed. If he wins a majority Boris then has the numbers to get the compromises needed to get the Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons with minor tweaks agreed with the EU without being reliant on the DUP and ERG hardliners or hoping for rebel Labour MPs
And how does he win that election then - presumably there will be some specifics in a manifesto designed to appeal to current Brexit party backers he will presumably be bound by?
He will promise to Leave by October Deal or No Deal, if the election is held in late summer or early September he then gets the majority to deliver that
The key point to note is that average wages are very low.
My instinct based on my ties to the constituency albeit some years ago is that if the recall petition succeeds the Tories will win, because the voters will be severely pissed off at being asked to vote again for something that didn't incur a prison sentence and will enjoy seeing many people pontificating about them look stupid.
But I could be wrong.
True. If Boris is leader enjoying a honeymoon and the Tories pick a local farmer they will hold it, if not it may be a Brexit Party v LDs battle and the LDs likely win it
Thanks Alastair. This is interesting in that it's one benefit that is going to be denied to the much maligned baby boomer generation. You know, the one we're told repeatedly has had it all.
My dad (aged 73 in August) rightly points out that this is far worse for anyone who's been in receipt of the benefit than those like him (well, me actually as I pay it) who won't ever get it.
£155 is about one weeks worth of pension credit and it is hardly a major loss relative to other boomer gains such as huge housing equity simply by virtue of age and sitting on your settee, final salary pensions, free university education, state pension at 60 to 65, free bus travel etc that have been worth in total hundreds of thousands or pounds (if not millions in some cases) relative to today's young people. Many of their homes alone are worth up to 100 times what they paid for them in the late 60s or early 70s - they hardly earned that!
I expect for many £155 is an evening out at a posh restaurant or the theatre - well those who eat biscuits in bed and listen to radio 4 anyway.
I must say I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for pensioners on this. Rich pensioners should not be getting benefits, whether free TV licences or cold weather payments or whatever.
As for funding of the BBC, why not subscription - like Netflix?
Or pay per view, like Sky?
My key concern is that people need a TV licence to watch other channels even if they never watch the Beeb, even if they only ever watch Sky, which still strikes me as ridiculous.
I don't on the whole mind paying it, given I'm comfortably off and use many BBC services (albeit not the TV very much) but it is an anachronism in need of reform.
I must say I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for pensioners on this. Rich pensioners should not be getting benefits, whether free TV licences or cold weather payments or whatever.
As for funding of the BBC, why not subscription - like Netflix?
As with the WASPI, the baby boomer generation seem to resist being asked to make any sacrifice. (that generation isn't getting the benefit now, but will be the biggest medium term losers)
The key point to note is that average wages are very low.
My instinct based on my ties to the constituency albeit some years ago is that if the recall petition succeeds the Tories will win, because the voters will be severely pissed off at being asked to vote again for something that didn't incur a prison sentence and will enjoy seeing many people pontificating about them look stupid.
But I could be wrong.
Powys does not equal B&R... with plenty of non-agri busi ess around Newtown.
But if Farming is 11%, Industry 11% and tourism 17% .... what do everyone elsr do?
The key point to note is that average wages are very low.
My instinct based on my ties to the constituency albeit some years ago is that if the recall petition succeeds the Tories will win, because the voters will be severely pissed off at being asked to vote again for something that didn't incur a prison sentence and will enjoy seeing many people pontificating about them look stupid.
But I could be wrong.
Powys does not equal B&R... with plenty of non-agri busi ess around Newtown.
But if Farming is 11%, Industry 11% and tourism 17% .... what do everyone elsr do?
Local government is also quite important, and retirement properties are popular.
I must say I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for pensioners on this. Rich pensioners should not be getting benefits, whether free TV licences or cold weather payments or whatever.
As for funding of the BBC, why not subscription - like Netflix?
As with the WASPI, the baby boomer generation seem to resist being asked to make any sacrifice. (that generation isn't getting the benefit now, but will be the biggest medium term losers)
The plea in the tweet in the header is on behalf of "our pensioners" not "us pensioners," and seems to come from an organization which just likes protesting about stuff in general. Is there any evidence that the well-heeled over 75s are resisting this?
Edit: or about-to-be over 75s, to reflect your own edit?
I must say I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for pensioners on this. Rich pensioners should not be getting benefits, whether free TV licences or cold weather payments or whatever.
As for funding of the BBC, why not subscription - like Netflix?
Subscription will not work, you need the scale of the license fee to make it affordable to all. The BBC does a lot more than Netflix etc.
Since Venezuela has had nationwide power outages in the recent past, one of which lasted a week and for which it has still given no very convincing explanation, that doesn't really stand up either (and I can't remember it making waves on PB, tbh).
I was quite prepared to drop this, but if you insist. I does stand up - my point - unless you are saying (and correctly) that there have previously been BBC front page stories about power cuts in Venezuela that have attracted no posts on PB from people keen to exploit the anti-Corbyn angle. If that is the case, then OK I'm in the wrong and will donate £5 to a charity of your choice so long as it's SHELTER. But if it is not the case, which I'm confident it isn't, it means that YOU are in the wrong, which I think you are.
I must say I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for pensioners on this. Rich pensioners should not be getting benefits, whether free TV licences or cold weather payments or whatever.
As for funding of the BBC, why not subscription - like Netflix?
Subscription will not work, you need the scale of the license fee to make it affordable to all. The BBC does a lot more than Netflix etc.
Interesting stuff about how other countries do it - tv license fees are more common than I thought in foreign parts
Another reason for him to call an immediate snap election.
Indeed. If he wins a majority Boris then has the numbers to get the compromises needed to get the Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons with minor tweaks agreed with the EU without being reliant on the DUP and ERG hardliners or hoping for rebel Labour MPs
This is so confusing.
I thought a day or two ago Johnson's triumphant snap election was going to be fought on a No Deal platform, in order for all the Brexit Party supporters to vote Tory.
Now it's going to be called in order essentially to pass Theresa May's deal, with only cosmetic changes?
So how does he get the Brexit lot to vote Tory? Is he going to pretend he's aiming for No Deal, only to present the Commons with Meaningful Vote Number [I've lost count] a few weeks later?
Well, yes, I got that far, but I think your language was perhaps a little thoughtless.
OK point noted and taken. "Fine" in isolation was not apt. However, just finally on this, all I was trying to do was provide ballast. This is needed lest we sink under the weight of too much anti-Corbyn bias.
If the breaking news had been that Venezuela had lost all its juice there would have been a flood of posts highlighting this and contemplating the similar calamities which would doubtless befall the UK should Jeremy ever get in.
Fair enough, I take that sort of thing on the chin, but in this case the story is a good news one for Venezuela, in that every country in South America EXCEPT them is in a pickle on power. They are 'fine' in this regard. Venezuela is Top of the Class today on this matter of not having a full national power cut down there in South America - and so I wanted to bring this to people's attention.
Since Venezuela has had nationwide power outages in the recent past, one of which lasted a week and for which it has still given no very convincing explanation, that doesn't really stand up either (and I can't remember it making waves on PB, tbh).
I must say I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for pensioners on this. Rich pensioners should not be getting benefits, whether free TV licences or cold weather payments or whatever.
As for funding of the BBC, why not subscription - like Netflix?
As with the WASPI, the baby boomer generation seem to resist being asked to make any sacrifice. (that generation isn't getting the benefit now, but will be the biggest medium term losers)
The plea in the tweet in the header is on behalf of "our pensioners" not "us pensioners," and seems to come from an organization which just likes protesting about stuff in general. Is there any evidence that the well-heeled over 75s are resisting this?
Edit: or about-to-be over 75s, to reflect your own edit?
Benefits should be universal, otherwise support for the system from the better-off slowly falls away and the people who need them to survive are increasingly despised and made to feel 2nd. class citizens.
See Thatcher, Margaret. Her regime was the first to call means-testing 'targeting'. It sounds nice and ultra-logical and took people in thoroughly but it needs an army of admin. staff to read 25 pp. forms.
A.k.a. a f****** stupid way to run a welfare state. AFAIK not the approach proposed by Beveridge.
Incidentally I'm mostly gardening but I read this during a brief break. Means-tested benefits incense me because a lot of people who are entitled to them don't claim.
They say that it is demeaning. (It is.) Pension credit, for instance, reportedly involves an intrusive 45 min interview too. So much for the promised 'flat rate pension'.
The over-75 licence fee is another example of how ill-considered the 2017 Tory manifesto was.
It appeared not to understand that the Government had very recently off-loaded both the cost and responsibility for setting the terms of the over 75s concession to the BBC. So it was in no position to promise, as it did, to would continue the benefit. Or at least it failed to realise, to keep the promise, it would need to commit additional funds should the BBC decide not to cover it from the licence fee any more.
Although this wasn't an election issue in 2017, the "back of a fag packet" approach to a manifesto very much was, and it was social care in particular that was latched onto.
If it is to be Johnson now, and noting he has no interest in policy detail himself, he'd better delegate it to some really serious people (I believe he has a brother). Otherwise history will repeat itself on this, and we'll also be doomed to further policy paralysis even after Brexit has been resolved one way or another.
Well, yes, I got that far, but I think your language was perhaps a little thoughtless.
OK point noted and taken. "Fine" in isolation was not apt. However, just finally on this, all I was trying to do was provide ballast. This is needed lest we sink under the weight of too much anti-Corbyn bias.
If the breaking news had been that Venezuela had lost all its juice there would have been a flood of posts highlighting this and contemplating the similar calamities which would doubtless befall the UK should Jeremy ever get in.
Fair enough, I take that sort of thing on the chin, but in this case the story is a good news one for Venezuela, in that every country in South America EXCEPT them is in a pickle on power. They are 'fine' in this regard. Venezuela is Top of the Class today on this matter of not having a full national power cut down there in South America - and so I wanted to bring this to people's attention.
Since Venezuela has had nationwide power outages in the recent past, one of which lasted a week and for which it has still given no very convincing explanation, that doesn't really stand up either (and I can't remember it making waves on PB, tbh).
Another reason for him to call an immediate snap election.
Indeed. If he wins a majority Boris then has the numbers to get the compromises needed to get the Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons with minor tweaks agreed with the EU without being reliant on the DUP and ERG hardliners or hoping for rebel Labour MPs
This is so confusing.
I thought a day or two ago Johnson's triumphant snap election was going to be fought on a No Deal platform, in order for all the Brexit Party supporters to vote Tory.
Now it's going to be called in order essentially to pass Theresa May's deal, with only cosmetic changes?
So how does he get the Brexit lot to vote Tory? Is he going to pretend he's aiming for No Deal, only to present the Commons with Meaningful Vote Number [I've lost count] a few weeks later?
Even with Boris about 13% of voters will still vote Brexit Party with Yougov ie UKIP 2015 levels, Boris can ignore them and just aim for the Tory to Brexit Party defectors who are putting the Brexit Party over 20% but are not No Deal fanatics.
So provided Boris gets a majority and a few tweaks to the backstop from the EU he can say we will leave the EU with a Deal, if not of course he can say he will still have a majority in the Commons for a No Deal Brexit
Another reason for him to call an immediate snap election.
Indeed. If he wins a majority Boris then has the numbers to get the compromises needed to get the Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons with minor tweaks agreed with the EU without being reliant on the DUP and ERG hardliners or hoping for rebel Labour MPs
This is so confusing.
I thought a day or two ago Johnson's triumphant snap election was going to be fought on a No Deal platform, in order for all the Brexit Party supporters to vote Tory.
Now it's going to be called in order essentially to pass Theresa May's deal, with only cosmetic changes?
So how does he get the Brexit lot to vote Tory? Is he going to pretend he's aiming for No Deal, only to present the Commons with Meaningful Vote Number [I've lost count] a few weeks later?
Sorry - I saw the answer to this after I'd posted.
And this will only grow as the next generation don't have any real interest in Auntie, with all the youngsters I interact with basically never watch the BBC. YouTube and Netflix are the go to, unless they want to watch live sport (and then its all illegal streams).
The whole media industry has to change. People don't read newspapers, don't watch news at set times, etc etc etc. It will have to go through the same revolution music has, where we now have Spotify.
Sky will have to adapt as well. They are fighting a losing battle for their exclusive live sports coverage, like the music industry did with illegal music downloads.
It's an incredibly audacious move by the BBC. Under the 2015 LF settlement the BBC took on funding of over 75 Licence Fees in return for:
1) BBC stopping paying £150m re broadband rollout 2) LF being extended to cover I Player 3) LF rising again in line with CPI
Put the above three changes together, plus household growth (ie new homes being built) and the BBC said the whole package (ie with BBC funding ALL over 75 LFs) added up to "flat cash", or a 10% real terms cut - assuming 2% inflation for 5 years. And the BBC thought this was a good deal which they could manage with.
Indeed it was much more generous than most public services.
Now suddenly the BBC is going to boost its income by £500m above what had previously been expected. And nobody in the media is close enough to the numbers to have realised what is going on.
Furthermore, the Govt started phasing out its funding of over 75 LFs in April 2018. In the year ended March 2019 the BBC managed fine without 1/3 of this funding. Now, this year (year ended March 2020) the BBC is managing fine without 2/3 of this funding.
So when the BBC starts charging non Pension Credit over 75s for their LF in June 2020 it's actually going to mean a significant RISE in BBC income compared to the current year.
That's right, the BBC is going to start charging non Pension Credit over 75s in order to BOOST its income.
The whole thing is absolutely unbelievable and nobody appears to realise what is going on.
Another reason for him to call an immediate snap election.
Indeed. If he wins a majority Boris then has the numbers to get the compromises needed to get the Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons with minor tweaks agreed with the EU without being reliant on the DUP and ERG hardliners or hoping for rebel Labour MPs
This is so confusing.
I thought a day or two ago Johnson's triumphant snap election was going to be fought on a No Deal platform, in order for all the Brexit Party supporters to vote Tory.
Now it's going to be called in order essentially to pass Theresa May's deal, with only cosmetic changes?
So how does he get the Brexit lot to vote Tory? Is he going to pretend he's aiming for No Deal, only to present the Commons with Meaningful Vote Number [I've lost count] a few weeks later?
Even with Boris about 13% of voters will still vote Brexit Party with Yougov ie UKIP 2015 levels, Boris can ignore them and just aim for the Tory to Brexit Party defectors who are putting the Brexit Party over 20% but are not No Deal fanatics.
So provided Boris gets a majority and a few tweaks to the backstop he can say we will leave the EU with a Deal, if not of course he can say he will still have a majority in the Commons for a No Deal Brexit
But those YouGov numbers you keep quoting as if they're Holy Writ would obviously change according to what policy Johnson went into an election with. Presumably if he was advocating a Deal, TBP would be rather higher, and if No Deal, rather lower.
Unless he can really squeeze the Brexit Party, I doubt he can get a majority, let alone a really big majority of the kind he'd need to force May's Deal through the Commons.
True. If Boris is leader enjoying a honeymoon and the Tories pick a local farmer they will hold it, if not it may be a Brexit Party v LDs battle and the LDs likely win it
This seat is in Wales and when it comes to the campaign Labour have a certain Barry Gardiner to throw at it - do not discount.
Another reason for him to call an immediate snap election.
Indeed. If he wins a majority Boris then has the numbers to get the compromises needed to get the Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons with minor tweaks agreed with the EU without being reliant on the DUP and ERG hardliners or hoping for rebel Labour MPs
This is so confusing.
I thought a day or two ago Johnson's triumphant snap election was going to be fought on a No Deal platform, in order for all the Brexit Party supporters to vote Tory.
Now it's going to be called in order essentially to pass Theresa May's deal, with only cosmetic changes?
So how does he get the Brexit lot to vote Tory? Is he going to pretend he's aiming for No Deal, only to present the Commons with Meaningful Vote Number [I've lost count] a few weeks later?
It depends if you see Brexit Party voters as ideological "leave with no deal" votes or more pragmatic "I'm not interested in the detail - just for f***'s sake get on with leaving" votes.
If it's predominantly the latter, which I suspect it is, all that matters is winning a vote on SOMETHING in the House of Commons. If it's the former, then only "no deal" will do... but you'd better hope against hope that the Pollyannas are right on the economic consequences of that.
True. If Boris is leader enjoying a honeymoon and the Tories pick a local farmer they will hold it, if not it may be a Brexit Party v LDs battle and the LDs likely win it
This seat is in Wales and when it comes to the campaign Labour have a certain Barry Gardiner to throw at it - do not discount.
The over-75 licence fee is another example of how ill-considered the 2017 Tory manifesto was.
It appeared not to understand that the Government had very recently off-loaded both the cost and responsibility for setting the terms of the over 75s concession to the BBC. So it was in no position to promise, as it did, to would continue the benefit. Or at least it failed to realise, to keep the promise, it would need to commit additional funds should the BBC decide not to cover it from the licence fee any more.
Although this wasn't an election issue in 2017, the "back of a fag packet" approach to a manifesto very much was, and it was social care in particular that was latched onto.
If it is to be Johnson now, and noting he has no interest in policy detail himself, he'd better delegate it to some really serious people (I believe he has a brother). Otherwise history will repeat itself on this, and we'll also be doomed to further policy paralysis even after Brexit has been resolved one way or another.
You're quite right - the 2017 Con manifesto was nonsensical re the BBC LF - as responsibility had been transferred to the BBC under the 2015 LF settlement.
Apparently the Con party has now said the 2017 manifesto was a mistake in this regard - which arose because the 2017 GE was called at short notice and they therefore just copy and pasted the relevant section from the 2015 manifesto without realising that that section needed to be updated.
Yes, the above seems unbelievable but that is what apparently happened.
The key point to note is that average wages are very low.
My instinct based on my ties to the constituency albeit some years ago is that if the recall petition succeeds the Tories will win, because the voters will be severely pissed off at being asked to vote again for something that didn't incur a prison sentence and will enjoy seeing many people pontificating about them look stupid.
But I could be wrong.
Powys does not equal B&R... with plenty of non-agri busi ess around Newtown.
But if Farming is 11%, Industry 11% and tourism 17% .... what do everyone elsr do?
Benefits should be universal, otherwise support for the system from the better-off slowly falls away and the people who need them to survive are increasingly despised and made to feel 2nd. class citizens.
See Thatcher, Margaret. Her regime was the first to call means-testing 'targeting'. It sounds nice and ultra-logical and took people in thoroughly but it needs an army of admin. staff to read 25 pp. forms.
A.k.a. a f****** stupid way to run a welfare state. AFAIK not the approach proposed by Beveridge.
Incidentally I'm mostly gardening but I read this during a brief break. Means-tested benefits incense me because a lot of people who are entitled to them don't claim.
They say that it is demeaning. (It is.) Pension credit, for instance, reportedly involves an intrusive 45 min interview too. So much for the promised 'flat rate pension'.
The logical destination of this line of thinking is the Universal Basic Income. Paid to every adult at the same rate. Enough to live on 'no frills', and the vast majority supplement it with their own labours. Set it just high enough and abolish all benefits. Utopian, of course, and not affordable, but I like it as an aspiration and (possibly) a direction of travel too.
Imagine all the people, living without fear and insecurity ...
Another reason for him to call an immediate snap election.
Indeed. If he wins a majority Boris then has the numbers to get the compromises needed to get the Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons with minor tweaks agreed with the EU without being reliant on the DUP and ERG hardliners or hoping for rebel Labour MPs
This is so confusing.
I thought a day or two ago Johnson's triumphant snap election was going to be fought on a No Deal platform, in order for all the Brexit Party supporters to vote Tory.
Now it's going to be called in order essentially to pass Theresa May's deal, with only cosmetic changes?
So how does he get the Brexit lot to vote Tory? Is he going to pretend he's aiming for No Deal, only to present the Commons with Meaningful Vote Number [I've lost count] a few weeks later?
Yes, I cannot square that circle either. I don't want no deal, and I don't think Johnson would win a majority on it, but it seems a damn sight easier to get a higher number of MPs by going for that than get some compromise through.
We've had so much brinkmanship I don't think much of anyone is exercised by compromises now.
I must say I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for pensioners on this. Rich pensioners should not be getting benefits, whether free TV licences or cold weather payments or whatever.
As for funding of the BBC, why not subscription - like Netflix?
As with the WASPI, the baby boomer generation seem to resist being asked to make any sacrifice. (that generation isn't getting the benefit now, but will be the biggest medium term losers)
The plea in the tweet in the header is on behalf of "our pensioners" not "us pensioners," and seems to come from an organization which just likes protesting about stuff in general. Is there any evidence that the well-heeled over 75s are resisting this?
Edit: or about-to-be over 75s, to reflect your own edit?
Benefits should be universal, otherwise support for the system from the better-off slowly falls away and the people who need them to survive are increasingly despised and made to feel 2nd. class citizens.
See Thatcher, Margaret. Her regime was the first to call means-testing 'targeting'. It sounds nice and ultra-logical and took people in thoroughly but it needs an army of admin. staff to read 25 pp. forms.
A.k.a. a f****** stupid way to run a welfare state. AFAIK not the approach proposed by Beveridge.
Incidentally I'm mostly gardening but I read this during a brief break. Means-tested benefits incense me because a lot of people who are entitled to them don't claim.
They say that it is demeaning. (It is.) Pension credit, for instance, reportedly involves an intrusive 45 min interview too. So much for the promised 'flat rate pension'.
If benefits are going to be universal, as Beveridge wanted, there will have to be fewer of them or they need to be at a much lower rate or taxes will have to rise significantly or, more likely, a combination of all three.
Far better to have good benefits for those who need them and good public services for all than shower money on all and sundry regardless and have inadequate services, inadequate benefits and rich people getting money they don't need.
Another reason for him to call an immediate snap election.
Indeed. If he wins a majority Boris then has the numbers to get the compromises needed to get the Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons with minor tweaks agreed with the EU without being reliant on the DUP and ERG hardliners or hoping for rebel Labour MPs
This is so confusing.
I thought a day or two ago Johnson's triumphant snap election was going to be fought on a No Deal platform, in order for all the Brexit Party supporters to vote Tory.
Now it's going to be called in order essentially to pass Theresa May's deal, with only cosmetic changes?
So how does he get the Brexit lot to vote Tory? Is he going to pretend he's aiming for No Deal, only to present the Commons with Meaningful Vote Number [I've lost count] a few weeks later?
Even with Boris about 13% of voters will still vote Brexit Party with Yougov ie UKIP 2015 levels, Boris can ignore them and just aim for the Tory to Brexit Party defectors who are putting the Brexit Party over 20% but are not No Deal fanatics.
So provided Boris gets a majority and a few tweaks to the backstop he can say we will leave the EU with a Deal, if not of course he can say he will still have a majority in the Commons for a No Deal Brexit
But those YouGov numbers you keep quoting as if they're Holy Writ would obviously change according to what policy Johnson went into an election with. Presumably if he was advocating a Deal, TBP would be rather higher, and if No Deal, rather lower.
Unless he can really squeeze the Brexit Party, I doubt he can get a majority, let alone a really big majority of the kind he'd need to force May's Deal through the Commons.
If he was advocating Brexit with a Deal only and not No Deal ie Rory Stewart's policy or a Deal or further extension ie Hunt or Gove's policy then obviously TBP would be higher.
However Boris' policy of Leave the EU with a Deal or No Deal in October would slash TBP back to just the No Deal hardliners.
Hence Yougov has the Tories getting an overall majority under Boris, the only Tory leadership contender who gets a majority, as TBP falls back from over 20% to just 13% with the Tories rising to almost 30%.
Free TV licence should have gone age ago...in fact it should never have been.
If there are poor pensioners that are much more efficient ways of adding £150 a year to their income, and then they can choose to spend it on telly tax.
It is ridiculous expensive perk and although the BBC are restricting it, they are doing so in a way which requires more red tape / admin.
Another reason for him to call an immediate snap election.
Indeed. If he wins a majority Boris then has the numbers to get the compromises needed to get the Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons with minor tweaks agreed with the EU without being reliant on the DUP and ERG hardliners or hoping for rebel Labour MPs
This is so confusing.
I thought a day or two ago Johnson's triumphant snap election was going to be fought on a No Deal platform, in order for all the Brexit Party supporters to vote Tory.
Now it's going to be called in order essentially to pass Theresa May's deal, with only cosmetic changes?
So how does he get the Brexit lot to vote Tory? Is he going to pretend he's aiming for No Deal, only to present the Commons with Meaningful Vote Number [I've lost count] a few weeks later?
Even with Boris about 13% of voters will still vote Brexit Party with Yougov ie UKIP 2015 levels, Boris can ignore them and just aim for the Tory to Brexit Party defectors who are putting the Brexit Party over 20% but are not No Deal fanatics.
So provided Boris gets a majority and a few tweaks to the backstop from the EU he can say we will leave the EU with a Deal, if not of course he can say he will still have a majority in the Commons for a No Deal Brexit
Forget your obsession with opinion polling. Not only do you base far too much of your opinions on them you then turn them into concrete facts. There is no certainty Boris would get a working majority with vast swathes of Scotland, London and the south voting either SNP or Lib Dems. At best Boris may achieve largest party but the deadlock would continue
As for extreme ERG members threatening to go to TBP that is fine by me no matter the consequences or how badly it effects the party. I do not want to share my party with Faragists and UKIPPERS
It's an incredibly audacious move by the BBC. Under the 2015 LF settlement the BBC took on funding of over 75 Licence Fees in return for:
1) BBC stopping paying £150m re broadband rollout 2) LF being extended to cover I Player 3) LF rising again in line with CPI
Put the above three changes together, plus household growth (ie new homes being built) and the BBC said the whole package (ie with BBC funding ALL over 75 LFs) added up to "flat cash", or a 10% real terms cut - assuming 2% inflation for 5 years. And the BBC thought this was a good deal which they could manage with.
Indeed it was much more generous than most public services.
Now suddenly the BBC is going to boost its income by £500m above what had previously been expected. And nobody in the media is close enough to the numbers to have realised what is going on.
Furthermore, the Govt started phasing out its funding of over 75 LFs in April 2018. In the year ended March 2019 the BBC managed fine without 1/3 of this funding. Now, this year (year ended March 2020) the BBC is managing fine without 2/3 of this funding.
So when the BBC starts charging non Pension Credit over 75s for their LF in June 2020 it's actually going to mean a significant RISE in BBC income compared to the current year.
That's right, the BBC is going to start charging non Pension Credit over 75s in order to BOOST its income.
The whole thing is absolutely unbelievable and nobody appears to realise what is going on.
Wrong. The money was given by the government to the BBC as a subsidy. They are now stopping that money. They told the BBC "you decide whether you want to keep funding over 75s" and the BBC said (quite understandably) no.
Since Venezuela has had nationwide power outages in the recent past, one of which lasted a week and for which it has still given no very convincing explanation, that doesn't really stand up either (and I can't remember it making waves on PB, tbh).
I was quite prepared to drop this, but if you insist. I does stand up - my point - unless you are saying (and correctly) that there have previously been BBC front page stories about power cuts in Venezuela that have attracted no posts on PB from people keen to exploit the anti-Corbyn angle. If that is the case, then OK I'm in the wrong and will donate £5 to a charity of your choice so long as it's SHELTER. But if it is not the case, which I'm confident it isn't, it means that YOU are in the wrong, which I think you are.
In the three PB threads on the same day, there was discussion of the death of Shamima Begum's baby, a pilot getting off a charge of manslaughter, and much discussion of a new coffee shop as well as Labour's contemporary antisemitism scandal and the inevitable Brexit. They were all sourced from Auntie. But I can't find any mention of Venezuela.
Otherwise, please feel free to make that donation to Shelter, a cause dear to my heart as well.
A more interesting point would be that the reason this is happening across South America is that their ageing and chronically underfunded power network cannot cope with all the demands made on it.
Isn't it a good thing we spend so much money maintaining and enhancing our power grid...ah.
The over-75 licence fee is another example of how ill-considered the 2017 Tory manifesto was.
It appeared not to understand that the Government had very recently off-loaded both the cost and responsibility for setting the terms of the over 75s concession to the BBC. So it was in no position to promise, as it did, to would continue the benefit. Or at least it failed to realise, to keep the promise, it would need to commit additional funds should the BBC decide not to cover it from the licence fee any more.
Although this wasn't an election issue in 2017, the "back of a fag packet" approach to a manifesto very much was, and it was social care in particular that was latched onto.
If it is to be Johnson now, and noting he has no interest in policy detail himself, he'd better delegate it to some really serious people (I believe he has a brother). Otherwise history will repeat itself on this, and we'll also be doomed to further policy paralysis even after Brexit has been resolved one way or another.
You're quite right - the 2017 Con manifesto was nonsensical re the BBC LF - as responsibility had been transferred to the BBC under the 2015 LF settlement.
Apparently the Con party has now said the 2017 manifesto was a mistake in this regard - which arose because the 2017 GE was called at short notice and they therefore just copy and pasted the relevant section from the 2015 manifesto without realising that that section needed to be updated.
Yes, the above seems unbelievable but that is what apparently happened.
I remember a principal who advertised a job in the faculty I was working in without talking to the faculty head first. They just pulled up the last JD and reissued it.
So we had a lot of applications for History teachers.
Shame the person who needed replacing was a physical geographer.
I must say I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for pensioners on this. Rich pensioners should not be getting benefits, whether free TV licences or cold weather payments or whatever.
As for funding of the BBC, why not subscription - like Netflix?
As with the WASPI, the baby boomer generation seem to resist being asked to make any sacrifice. (that generation isn't getting the benefit now, but will be the biggest medium term losers)
The plea in the tweet in the header is on behalf of "our pensioners" not "us pensioners," and seems to come from an organization which just likes protesting about stuff in general. Is there any evidence that the well-heeled over 75s are resisting this?
Edit: or about-to-be over 75s, to reflect your own edit?
Benefits should be universal, otherwise support for the system from the better-off slowly falls away and the people who need them to survive are increasingly despised and made to feel 2nd. class citizens.
See Thatcher, Margaret. Her regime was the first to call means-testing 'targeting'. It sounds nice and ultra-logical and took people in thoroughly but it needs an army of admin. staff to read 25 pp. forms.
A.k.a. a f****** stupid way to run a welfare state. AFAIK not the approach proposed by Beveridge.
Incidentally I'm mostly gardening but I read this during a brief break. Means-tested benefits incense me because a lot of people who are entitled to them don't claim.
They say that it is demeaning. (It is.) Pension credit, for instance, reportedly involves an intrusive 45 min interview too. So much for the promised 'flat rate pension'.
If benefits are going to be universal, as Beveridge wanted, there will have to be fewer of them or they need to be at a much lower rate or taxes will have to rise significantly or, more likely, a combination of all three.
Far better to have good benefits for those who need them and good public services for all than shower money on all and sundry regardless and have inadequate services, inadequate benefits and rich people getting money they don't need.
What you could do is give everyone a UBI plus a tax free allowance but then pick a lowish number (say £25k) above which the tax free allowance is withdrawn
I don't know why anyone would choose to get their news from Facebook.
Convenience?
It's just as convenient to listen to Radio 4.
I don't listen to Radio 4 or use Facebook, and I still don't think that is true. Facebook is used as a gateway to so many other things, that it is surely more convenient to use it for news as well.
The key point to note is that average wages are very low.
My instinct based on my ties to the constituency albeit some years ago is that if the recall petition succeeds the Tories will win, because the voters will be severely pissed off at being asked to vote again for something that didn't incur a prison sentence and will enjoy seeing many people pontificating about them look stupid.
But I could be wrong.
Powys does not equal B&R... with plenty of non-agri busi ess around Newtown.
But if Farming is 11%, Industry 11% and tourism 17% .... what do everyone elsr do?
They eat biscuits and listen to Radio 4.
Tea certainly, and Radio 4 sometimes, but biscuits in bed?!? the horror... the horror...
I don't know why anyone would choose to get their news from Facebook.
I think, to be honest to you, that PB habitues are noticably older on average than the general population and although we do have younger folks amongst our happy band, it's not that many. So things that younger folks do tend to go over our head.
I don't know why anyone would choose to get their news from Facebook.
Convenience?
It's just as convenient to listen to Radio 4.
I don't listen to Radio 4 or use Facebook, and I still don't think that is true. Facebook is used as a gateway to so many other things, that it is surely more convenient to use it for news as well.
News in the broadest sense, such as football transfers and Love Island gossip. Not important polling subgroup analysis in Little Puddleton, so not news as we know it. The youth of today!
Anyone who gets their news from a source which is in any way tailoring the news to their perceived interests is likely to be getting a form of fake news.
Wrong. The money was given by the government to the BBC as a subsidy. They are now stopping that money. They told the BBC "you decide whether you want to keep funding over 75s" and the BBC said (quite understandably) no.
So where's your extra money coming from?
No my post isn't wrong thanks.
Where's the money coming from? - Well as set out in my post the other changes were such as to leave the BBC in a flat cash position. If you don't believe me read the link below - article by BBC Director of Policy on 9 July 2015 following announcement of LF settlement. He says, quote:
"The Government’s decision to transfer the cost of the over 75s TV licence fee concession to the BBC has been widely reported – less so, the other elements of what has been agreed. To understand the net financial impact on the BBC, both sides of the equation need to be considered.
In short, the effect of the agreement will be flat cash funding for BBC content and services over the first five years of the next Charter period, after implementing a programme of £1.6 billion of cumulative savings over this Charter period by 2016/17...……….
Forecasting how all these factors will add-up over the period is complex; we anticipate that the new arrangements will result in flat cash funding for BBC services over the first five years of the next Charter period. In real terms, the licence fee funding available for BBC services will be down by around 10%.
The point now is that the BBC has shown that it can make the efficiency savings to fund that 10% real terms cut. The Govt withdrew 1/3 of the funding for over 75s LFs in 2018/19 and the BBC continued to operate perfectly well that year. Now this year (2019/20) the Govt has withdrawn 2/3 of the funding and, again, the BBC continues to operate perfectly satisfactorily.
It is a matter of fact that when the BBC starts charging over 75s for a TVL from June 2020 its income will be higher than this year. This year it is receiving 33% (from the Govt) of the amount re over 75s LFs; from June 2020 it will receive 65% (directly in cash from over 75s) (based on 35% getting Pension Credit).
Finally, note that the BBC Director of Policy went on to say:
"The way the financial settlement is structured gives the BBC some room for investment in digital transformation in the early years of the next Charter before the full cost of over 75s is absorbed. This will help us to manage the transition we all know is coming to an online world.
We believe that the substance of what has been agreed is a strong deal for the BBC in very tough circumstances."
In the three PB threads on the same day, there was discussion of the death of Shamima Begum's baby, a pilot getting off a charge of manslaughter, and much discussion of a new coffee shop as well as Labour's contemporary antisemitism scandal and the inevitable Brexit. They were all sourced from Auntie. But I can't find any mention of Venezuela.
Otherwise, please feel free to make that donation to Shelter, a cause dear to my heart as well.
A more interesting point would be that the reason this is happening across South America is that their ageing and chronically underfunded power network cannot cope with all the demands made on it.
Isn't it a good thing we spend so much money maintaining and enhancing our power grid...ah.
Right, thanks. Couple of substantive points to make -
(i) I don't think that story was on the MAIN BBC page. It was tucked away in 'World' so that is not ceteris emptor.
(ii) I would only have to find a single post about it in those PB threads since I only made a single post myself (well it's 5 now, but that's because you and I have been batting the issue back and forth) and I reckon I could probably do that if my eyes were up to it.
However, I recognize that I am trying to get off on a technicality. Substance over form, you perhaps have it.
So, SHELTER it is. Will do better than the fiver though. There is a SHELTER charity shop in St John's Wood that I frequent - it's very classy, almost like a proper boutique - and I could do with a new jacket. Down there tomorrow I will go and make the purchase. Price could be well into double digits. I like Ted Baker, despite 'hug gate'.
Power should be under communal 'not for profit' ownership IMO. If that is not an essential public utility I don't know what is.
Cast your mind back - PBers - to about November of last year. The WA has been published, and there is uproar; in particular about the backstop.
Boris Johnson, in the Telegraph, announces that he should become Prime Minister, and the first thing he would do is ask for a six month extension to renegotiate the deal.
Now, it seems, Boris Johnson is offering a renegotiation, but is not requiring the six months of extension. Indeed, an election practically precludes any renegotiation, because the absolute earliest (assuming no coronation) would be September 12 - a scant six and a half weeks before departure. (Frankly, passing the WA after that election date would be a challenge.)
So: is Boris actually promising what he argued for in November, a majority to allow him to force the EU back to the negotiating table. (Albeit with an extension.)
Or is Boris going to the country to ask for explicit No Deal?
Another reason for him to call an immediate snap election.
Indeed. If he wins a majority Boris then has the numbers to get the compromises needed to get the Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons with minor tweaks agreed with the EU without being reliant on the DUP and ERG hardliners or hoping for rebel Labour MPs
This is so confusing.
I thought a day or two ago Johnson's triumphant snap election was going to be fought on a No Deal platform, in order for all the Brexit Party supporters to vote Tory.
Now it's going to be called in order essentially to pass Theresa May's deal, with only cosmetic changes?
So how does he get the Brexit lot to vote Tory? Is he going to pretend he's aiming for No Deal, only to present the Commons with Meaningful Vote Number [I've lost count] a few weeks later?
Even with Boris about 13% of voters will still vote Brexit Party with Yougov ie UKIP 2015 levels, Boris can ignore them and just aim for the Tory to Brexit Party defectors who are putting the Brexit Party over 20% but are not No Deal fanatics.
So provided Boris gets a majority and a few tweaks to the backstop from the EU he can say we will leave the EU with a Deal, if not of course he can say he will still have a majority in the Commons for a No Deal Brexit
Forget your obsession with opinion polling. Not only do you base far too much of your opinions on them you then turn them into concrete facts. There is no certainty Boris would get a working majority with vast swathes of Scotland, London and the south voting either SNP or Lib Dems. At best Boris may achieve largest party but the deadlock would continue
As for extreme ERG members threatening to go to TBP that is fine by me no matter the consequences or how badly it effects the party. I do not want to share my party with Faragists and UKIPPERS
No there is clear polling Boris would get an overall majority on a Deal or No Deal Brexit platform actually.
What is certain is that if the Tories do not commit to deliver Brexit whether with a Deal or without one it will either be a Corbyn minority government propped up by the LDs and SNP or the Brexit Party will be the largest party in the Commons and Nigel Farage will either be Kingmaker or PM himself with support from the remaining Tory rump and the DUP
Or is Boris going to the country to ask for explicit No Deal?
Seems like it. Pull back all those BXP voters, with Labour's vote so split.
Of course, he'll then get into government, look over the precipice, and we'll be back to begging for extensions again - or if he has a decent majority, May's deal mildly tweaked will get rammed through.
However, I recognize that I am trying to get off on a technicality. Substance over form, you perhaps have it.
So, SHELTER it is. Will do better than the fiver though. There is a SHELTER charity shop in St John's Wood that I frequent - it's very classy, almost like a proper boutique - and I could do with a new jacket. Down there tomorrow I will go and make the purchase. Price could be well into double digits. I like Ted Baker, despite 'hug gate'.
Enjoy the new jacket. A double warm feeling of both wearing it and knowing you're helping the homeless by doing so?
Surely the largest unintended consequence of the BBC’s announcement, is that the government will now see more people claiming Pension Credit?
BBC should do public service announcements on how to claim, particularly between shows with an older audience.
Indeed. I wonder what is the takeup rate of these means-tested benefits aimed at the elderly? How many people who are marginally entitled can’t be bothered with the paperwork, and how many don’t even know that pension credit exists?
At least this situation draws it to people’s attention.
Cast your mind back - PBers - to about November of last year. The WA has been published, and there is uproar; in particular about the backstop.
Boris Johnson, in the Telegraph, announces that he should become Prime Minister, and the first thing he would do is ask for a six month extension to renegotiate the deal.
Now, it seems, Boris Johnson is offering a renegotiation, but is not requiring the six months of extension. Indeed, an election practically precludes any renegotiation, because the absolute earliest (assuming no coronation) would be September 12 - a scant six and a half weeks before departure. (Frankly, passing the WA after that election date would be a challenge.)
So: is Boris actually promising what he argued for in November, a majority to allow him to force the EU back to the negotiating table. (Albeit with an extension.)
Or is Boris going to the country to ask for explicit No Deal?
Or is there some other option I'm missing?
More recently in January, Boris said this:
"We don't [want] and we will not see a hard border. That would not be right.
"There are other solutions ... and we should use that [transition] period, which was called the implementation period, a period of standstill, after we come out to negotiate not just the Canada-style trade deal but also to bring in those technical solutions."
Mr Johnson said that while he would like to see an extension of the existing arrangements after 29 March on a bilateral basis between the UK and EU, he would not be in favour of an extension of Article 50.
"We would still come out but what you agree is that, subject to approval by the WTO, what you would try to do is protract the existing arrangements.
"So you have a zero tariff, zero quota arrangement for as long as it takes to get a free trade deal done."
Or is Boris going to the country to ask for explicit No Deal?
Seems like it. Pull back all those BXP voters, with Labour's vote so split.
Of course, he'll then get into government, look over the precipice, and we'll be back to begging for extensions again - or if he has a decent majority, May's deal mildly tweaked will get rammed through.
I doubt that the LibDems would poll more than 12% at a GE - with the Greens unlikely to exceed 2%. Any sign of a Boris surge will see such voters switching back to Labour.
Cast your mind back - PBers - to about November of last year. The WA has been published, and there is uproar; in particular about the backstop.
Boris Johnson, in the Telegraph, announces that he should become Prime Minister, and the first thing he would do is ask for a six month extension to renegotiate the deal.
Now, it seems, Boris Johnson is offering a renegotiation, but is not requiring the six months of extension. Indeed, an election practically precludes any renegotiation, because the absolute earliest (assuming no coronation) would be September 12 - a scant six and a half weeks before departure. (Frankly, passing the WA after that election date would be a challenge.)
So: is Boris actually promising what he argued for in November, a majority to allow him to force the EU back to the negotiating table. (Albeit with an extension.)
Or is Boris going to the country to ask for explicit No Deal?
Or is there some other option I'm missing?
More recently in January, Boris said this:
"We don't [want] and we will not see a hard border. That would not be right.
"There are other solutions ... and we should use that [transition] period, which was called the implementation period, a period of standstill, after we come out to negotiate not just the Canada-style trade deal but also to bring in those technical solutions."
Mr Johnson said that while he would like to see an extension of the existing arrangements after 29 March on a bilateral basis between the UK and EU, he would not be in favour of an extension of Article 50.
"We would still come out but what you agree is that, subject to approval by the WTO, what you would try to do is protract the existing arrangements.
"So you have a zero tariff, zero quota arrangement for as long as it takes to get a free trade deal done."
Boris seems to think that he can have technical controls on the Border in time for the Day of the Dead, yet not possible during the 18 months left of the WA. Shome mistake shurely?
Cast your mind back - PBers - to about November of last year. The WA has been published, and there is uproar; in particular about the backstop.
Boris Johnson, in the Telegraph, announces that he should become Prime Minister, and the first thing he would do is ask for a six month extension to renegotiate the deal.
Now, it seems, Boris Johnson is offering a renegotiation, but is not requiring the six months of extension. Indeed, an election practically precludes any renegotiation, because the absolute earliest (assuming no coronation) would be September 12 - a scant six and a half weeks before departure. (Frankly, passing the WA after that election date would be a challenge.)
So: is Boris actually promising what he argued for in November, a majority to allow him to force the EU back to the negotiating table. (Albeit with an extension.)
Or is Boris going to the country to ask for explicit No Deal?
Or is there some other option I'm missing?
Essentially, the suggestion seems to be that everyone in the country is so stupid that they'll believe Johnson can achieve in literally something like a week something that Theresa May failed to achieve in two years. Or rather I should say Theresa May, assisted by her foreign secretary Boris Johnson for the first 15 months of the process!
It's going to be a lot more difficult predicting the numbers for the second round compared to the first round. Raab, Javid and Stewart could all be around 32 or 33 votes.
However, I recognize that I am trying to get off on a technicality. Substance over form, you perhaps have it.
So, SHELTER it is. Will do better than the fiver though. There is a SHELTER charity shop in St John's Wood that I frequent - it's very classy, almost like a proper boutique - and I could do with a new jacket. Down there tomorrow I will go and make the purchase. Price could be well into double digits. I like Ted Baker, despite 'hug gate'.
Enjoy the new jacket. A double warm feeling of both wearing it and knowing you're helping the homeless by doing so?
Many moons ago I bought two fine books on the Royal Scots Greys and Prince of Wales Dragoon Guards in an Oxfam Book Shop. Do I get smartie points too?
Cast your mind back - PBers - to about November of last year. The WA has been published, and there is uproar; in particular about the backstop.
Boris Johnson, in the Telegraph, announces that he should become Prime Minister, and the first thing he would do is ask for a six month extension to renegotiate the deal.
Now, it seems, Boris Johnson is offering a renegotiation, but is not requiring the six months of extension. Indeed, an election practically precludes any renegotiation, because the absolute earliest (assuming no coronation) would be September 12 - a scant six and a half weeks before departure. (Frankly, passing the WA after that election date would be a challenge.)
So: is Boris actually promising what he argued for in November, a majority to allow him to force the EU back to the negotiating table. (Albeit with an extension.)
Or is Boris going to the country to ask for explicit No Deal?
Or is there some other option I'm missing?
Essentially, the suggestion seems to be that everyone in the country is so stupid that they'll believe Johnson can achieve in literally something like a week something that Theresa May failed to achieve in two years. Or rather I should say Theresa May, assisted by her foreign secretary Boris Johnson for the first 15 months of the process!
Evidence that Boris was involved in the Brexit negotiations while a Cabinet minister? I thought it was very much dealt with by May's inner circle.
Cast your mind back - PBers - to about November of last year. The WA has been published, and there is uproar; in particular about the backstop.
Boris Johnson, in the Telegraph, announces that he should become Prime Minister, and the first thing he would do is ask for a six month extension to renegotiate the deal.
Now, it seems, Boris Johnson is offering a renegotiation, but is not requiring the six months of extension. Indeed, an election practically precludes any renegotiation, because the absolute earliest (assuming no coronation) would be September 12 - a scant six and a half weeks before departure. (Frankly, passing the WA after that election date would be a challenge.)
So: is Boris actually promising what he argued for in November, a majority to allow him to force the EU back to the negotiating table. (Albeit with an extension.)
Or is Boris going to the country to ask for explicit No Deal?
Or is there some other option I'm missing?
More recently in January, Boris said this:
"We don't [want] and we will not see a hard border. That would not be right.
"There are other solutions ... and we should use that [transition] period, which was called the implementation period, a period of standstill, after we come out to negotiate not just the Canada-style trade deal but also to bring in those technical solutions."
Mr Johnson said that while he would like to see an extension of the existing arrangements after 29 March on a bilateral basis between the UK and EU, he would not be in favour of an extension of Article 50.
"We would still come out but what you agree is that, subject to approval by the WTO, what you would try to do is protract the existing arrangements.
"So you have a zero tariff, zero quota arrangement for as long as it takes to get a free trade deal done."
Boris seems to think that he can have technical controls on the Border in time for the Day of the Dead, yet not possible during the 18 months left of the WA. Shome mistake shurely?
Are you really searching for consistency in the pronouncements of the blustering bufflehead ? History would suggest such an effort is futile.
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The revolution will not be televised
Comments
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1141054/boris-johnson-news-brexit-tory-leadership-race-nigel-farage-brexit-party
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1141078/Rory-Stewart-Brexit-negotiations-Nigel-Farage-Brexit-Party-tory-leadership-race-offer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-wales-36045737
Of course, many of the industries are linked to farming.
You may find this graph of interest:
https://powys.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s8484/C39 Economic Development Strategy Appendix D.pdf
The key point to note is that average wages are very low.
My instinct based on my ties to the constituency albeit some years ago is that if the recall petition succeeds the Tories will win, because the voters will be severely pissed off at being asked to vote again for something that didn't incur a prison sentence and will enjoy seeing many people pontificating about them look stupid.
But I could be wrong.
My dad (aged 73 in August) rightly points out that this is far worse for anyone who's been in receipt of the benefit than those like him (well, me actually as I pay it) who won't ever get it.
My instinct is if the Tories pick the right candidate, they can win.
It is wrong to look at this seat through a London-centric lens.
And I am not sure the LibDems have chosen wisely because Brecon and Radnorshire is not pb.com.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Venezuelan_blackouts
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/americas/article/2189472/venezuela-paralysed-days-power-blackout-president-nicolas-maduro
https://www.wired.com/story/venezuela-power-outage-black-start/
As for funding of the BBC, why not subscription - like Netflix?
I expect for many £155 is an evening out at a posh restaurant or the theatre - well those who eat biscuits in bed and listen to radio 4 anyway.
My key concern is that people need a TV licence to watch other channels even if they never watch the Beeb, even if they only ever watch Sky, which still strikes me as ridiculous.
I don't on the whole mind paying it, given I'm comfortably off and use many BBC services (albeit not the TV very much) but it is an anachronism in need of reform.
But if Farming is 11%, Industry 11% and tourism 17% .... what do everyone elsr do?
Edit: or about-to-be over 75s, to reflect your own edit?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/08/30/towards-a-rational-immigration-policy/
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-197787,00.html
I thought a day or two ago Johnson's triumphant snap election was going to be fought on a No Deal platform, in order for all the Brexit Party supporters to vote Tory.
Now it's going to be called in order essentially to pass Theresa May's deal, with only cosmetic changes?
So how does he get the Brexit lot to vote Tory? Is he going to pretend he's aiming for No Deal, only to present the Commons with Meaningful Vote Number [I've lost count] a few weeks later?
See Thatcher, Margaret. Her regime was the first to call means-testing 'targeting'. It sounds nice and ultra-logical and took people in thoroughly but it needs an army of admin. staff to read 25 pp. forms.
A.k.a. a f****** stupid way to run a welfare state. AFAIK not the approach proposed by Beveridge.
Incidentally I'm mostly gardening but I read this during a brief break. Means-tested benefits incense me because a lot of people who are entitled to them don't claim.
They say that it is demeaning. (It is.) Pension credit, for instance, reportedly involves an intrusive 45 min interview too. So much for the promised 'flat rate pension'.
It appeared not to understand that the Government had very recently off-loaded both the cost and responsibility for setting the terms of the over 75s concession to the BBC. So it was in no position to promise, as it did, to would continue the benefit. Or at least it failed to realise, to keep the promise, it would need to commit additional funds should the BBC decide not to cover it from the licence fee any more.
Although this wasn't an election issue in 2017, the "back of a fag packet" approach to a manifesto very much was, and it was social care in particular that was latched onto.
If it is to be Johnson now, and noting he has no interest in policy detail himself, he'd better delegate it to some really serious people (I believe he has a brother). Otherwise history will repeat itself on this, and we'll also be doomed to further policy paralysis even after Brexit has been resolved one way or another.
So provided Boris gets a majority and a few tweaks to the backstop from the EU he can say we will leave the EU with a Deal, if not of course he can say he will still have a majority in the Commons for a No Deal Brexit
And this will only grow as the next generation don't have any real interest in Auntie, with all the youngsters I interact with basically never watch the BBC. YouTube and Netflix are the go to, unless they want to watch live sport (and then its all illegal streams).
The whole media industry has to change. People don't read newspapers, don't watch news at set times, etc etc etc. It will have to go through the same revolution music has, where we now have Spotify.
Sky will have to adapt as well. They are fighting a losing battle for their exclusive live sports coverage, like the music industry did with illegal music downloads.
1) BBC stopping paying £150m re broadband rollout
2) LF being extended to cover I Player
3) LF rising again in line with CPI
Put the above three changes together, plus household growth (ie new homes being built) and the BBC said the whole package (ie with BBC funding ALL over 75 LFs) added up to "flat cash", or a 10% real terms cut - assuming 2% inflation for 5 years. And the BBC thought this was a good deal which they could manage with.
Indeed it was much more generous than most public services.
Now suddenly the BBC is going to boost its income by £500m above what had previously been expected. And nobody in the media is close enough to the numbers to have realised what is going on.
Furthermore, the Govt started phasing out its funding of over 75 LFs in April 2018. In the year ended March 2019 the BBC managed fine without 1/3 of this funding. Now, this year (year ended March 2020) the BBC is managing fine without 2/3 of this funding.
So when the BBC starts charging non Pension Credit over 75s for their LF in June 2020 it's actually going to mean a significant RISE in BBC income compared to the current year.
That's right, the BBC is going to start charging non Pension Credit over 75s in order to BOOST its income.
The whole thing is absolutely unbelievable and nobody appears to realise what is going on.
Unless he can really squeeze the Brexit Party, I doubt he can get a majority, let alone a really big majority of the kind he'd need to force May's Deal through the Commons.
If it's predominantly the latter, which I suspect it is, all that matters is winning a vote on SOMETHING in the House of Commons. If it's the former, then only "no deal" will do... but you'd better hope against hope that the Pollyannas are right on the economic consequences of that.
Apparently the Con party has now said the 2017 manifesto was a mistake in this regard - which arose because the 2017 GE was called at short notice and they therefore just copy and pasted the relevant section from the 2015 manifesto without realising that that section needed to be updated.
Yes, the above seems unbelievable but that is what apparently happened.
Imagine all the people, living without fear and insecurity ...
We've had so much brinkmanship I don't think much of anyone is exercised by compromises now.
Far better to have good benefits for those who need them and good public services for all than shower money on all and sundry regardless and have inadequate services, inadequate benefits and rich people getting money they don't need.
However Boris' policy of Leave the EU with a Deal or No Deal in October would slash TBP back to just the No Deal hardliners.
Hence Yougov has the Tories getting an overall majority under Boris, the only Tory leadership contender who gets a majority, as TBP falls back from over 20% to just 13% with the Tories rising to almost 30%.
If there are poor pensioners that are much more efficient ways of adding £150 a year to their income, and then they can choose to spend it on telly tax.
It is ridiculous expensive perk and although the BBC are restricting it, they are doing so in a way which requires more red tape / admin.
As for extreme ERG members threatening to go to TBP that is fine by me no matter the consequences or how badly it effects the party. I do not want to share my party with Faragists and UKIPPERS
So where's your extra money coming from?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-47492624
In the three PB threads on the same day, there was discussion of the death of Shamima Begum's baby, a pilot getting off a charge of manslaughter, and much discussion of a new coffee shop as well as Labour's contemporary antisemitism scandal and the inevitable Brexit. They were all sourced from Auntie. But I can't find any mention of Venezuela.
Feel free to look for yourself:
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/7398/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-on-the-betting-markets-a-march-29th-uk-brexit-down-from-a-71
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/7397/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-what-might-the-tories-learn-from-labour
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/7396/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-tonight-s-brexit-news-on-how-russia-sought-to-influence-the-re
Otherwise, please feel free to make that donation to Shelter, a cause dear to my heart as well.
A more interesting point would be that the reason this is happening across South America is that their ageing and chronically underfunded power network cannot cope with all the demands made on it.
Isn't it a good thing we spend so much money maintaining and enhancing our power grid...ah.
Did a double take when I first landed here hah!
So we had a lot of applications for History teachers.
Shame the person who needed replacing was a physical geographer.
Where's the money coming from? - Well as set out in my post the other changes were such as to leave the BBC in a flat cash position. If you don't believe me read the link below - article by BBC Director of Policy on 9 July 2015 following announcement of LF settlement. He says, quote:
"The Government’s decision to transfer the cost of the over 75s TV licence fee concession to the BBC has been widely reported – less so, the other elements of what has been agreed. To understand the net financial impact on the BBC, both sides of the equation need to be considered.
In short, the effect of the agreement will be flat cash funding for BBC content and services over the first five years of the next Charter period, after implementing a programme of £1.6 billion of cumulative savings over this Charter period by 2016/17...……….
Forecasting how all these factors will add-up over the period is complex; we anticipate that the new arrangements will result in flat cash funding for BBC services over the first five years of the next Charter period. In real terms, the licence fee funding available for BBC services will be down by around 10%.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/efa49056-e32f-4e8a-b2b4-cb215e6a0bc1
Exactly as stated in my post!
The point now is that the BBC has shown that it can make the efficiency savings to fund that 10% real terms cut. The Govt withdrew 1/3 of the funding for over 75s LFs in 2018/19 and the BBC continued to operate perfectly well that year. Now this year (2019/20) the Govt has withdrawn 2/3 of the funding and, again, the BBC continues to operate perfectly satisfactorily.
It is a matter of fact that when the BBC starts charging over 75s for a TVL from June 2020 its income will be higher than this year. This year it is receiving 33% (from the Govt) of the amount re over 75s LFs; from June 2020 it will receive 65% (directly in cash from over 75s) (based on 35% getting Pension Credit).
Finally, note that the BBC Director of Policy went on to say:
"The way the financial settlement is structured gives the BBC some room for investment in digital transformation in the early years of the next Charter before the full cost of over 75s is absorbed. This will help us to manage the transition we all know is coming to an online world.
We believe that the substance of what has been agreed is a strong deal for the BBC in very tough circumstances."
(i) I don't think that story was on the MAIN BBC page. It was tucked away in 'World' so that is not ceteris emptor.
(ii) I would only have to find a single post about it in those PB threads since I only made a single post myself (well it's 5 now, but that's because you and I have been batting the issue back and forth) and I reckon I could probably do that if my eyes were up to it.
However, I recognize that I am trying to get off on a technicality. Substance over form, you perhaps have it.
So, SHELTER it is. Will do better than the fiver though. There is a SHELTER charity shop in St John's Wood that I frequent - it's very classy, almost like a proper boutique - and I could do with a new jacket. Down there tomorrow I will go and make the purchase. Price could be well into double digits. I like Ted Baker, despite 'hug gate'.
Power should be under communal 'not for profit' ownership IMO. If that is not an essential public utility I don't know what is.
Cast your mind back - PBers - to about November of last year. The WA has been published, and there is uproar; in particular about the backstop.
Boris Johnson, in the Telegraph, announces that he should become Prime Minister, and the first thing he would do is ask for a six month extension to renegotiate the deal.
Now, it seems, Boris Johnson is offering a renegotiation, but is not requiring the six months of extension. Indeed, an election practically precludes any renegotiation, because the absolute earliest (assuming no coronation) would be September 12 - a scant six and a half weeks before departure. (Frankly, passing the WA after that election date would be a challenge.)
So: is Boris actually promising what he argued for in November, a majority to allow him to force the EU back to the negotiating table. (Albeit with an extension.)
Or is Boris going to the country to ask for explicit No Deal?
Or is there some other option I'm missing?
They certainly do a lot of whining and demanding free stuff on the basis that:
A. We paid our taxes; and/or
B. We fought in the war. Despite, in most cases, being too young.
Surely the largest unintended consequence of the BBC’s announcement, is that the government will now see more people claiming Pension Credit?
What is certain is that if the Tories do not commit to deliver Brexit whether with a Deal or without one it will either be a Corbyn minority government propped up by the LDs and SNP or the Brexit Party will be the largest party in the Commons and Nigel Farage will either be Kingmaker or PM himself with support from the remaining Tory rump and the DUP
Of course, he'll then get into government, look over the precipice, and we'll be back to begging for extensions again - or if he has a decent majority, May's deal mildly tweaked will get rammed through.
At least this situation draws it to people’s attention.
"We don't [want] and we will not see a hard border. That would not be right.
"There are other solutions ... and we should use that [transition] period, which was called the implementation period, a period of standstill, after we come out to negotiate not just the Canada-style trade deal but also to bring in those technical solutions."
Mr Johnson said that while he would like to see an extension of the existing arrangements after 29 March on a bilateral basis between the UK and EU, he would not be in favour of an extension of Article 50.
"We would still come out but what you agree is that, subject to approval by the WTO, what you would try to do is protract the existing arrangements.
"So you have a zero tariff, zero quota arrangement for as long as it takes to get a free trade deal done."
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0110/1022479-boris-johnson-brexit/
History would suggest such an effort is futile.