For all our problems with Crossrail and the delivery of large infrastructure projects, it's good to see that Germany are leading the way in such things:
Berlin Brandenburg is still not open, seven years late. Although the cause of the problems are very different to those of Crossrail.
That is quite the most amazing clusterf*** of a project. It would have been much faster and cheaper to have just bulldozed the whole building and started again with a new one.
It would also have been much cheaper and faster to hire somebody vaguely competent to design it in the first place...
Corbyn too frail to be PM, fears civil service Labour leader ‘propped up’ by advisers
Senior civil servants have become increasingly concerned about Jeremy Corbyn’s health and warned that he may be forced to stand down as Labour leader because he is not up to the job “physically or mentally”.
This story could change everything:: Brexit, Next GE, Next Labour Leader, etc, etc.
This is just the latest installment of anti-Corbyn propaganda from The Times.
They fear him.
Nope - they don't like the Tories and know that Labour under a slightly less left wing leader would be 20+ points ahead.
You think Labour's position in the polls is due to voters suddenly realising they're left wing, not their Brexit compromise position?
YouGov are helping covering all the bases so everyone is happy...
People who don't like Corbyn can just pay attention to the regular YouGov polls and celebrate Labour being in 4th and doomed, the people who like Corbyn can just pay attention to other polls and celebrate Labour being in 1st and well positioned for the next election.
It doesn't help in terms of arguments though, especially if you have people arguing 'dishonestly' or maybe from genuine ignorance...
Where are you on this? Surely you can see Labour have a teensy weensy problem. To win power from opposition you have to be 10-20 points clear.
Labour might well be the largest party, and able to get confidence and supply from Lib Dems and SNP, but they are nowhere near an overall majority.
On such an arrangement, the Liberal Democrats would be likely to quickly lose the soft Conservative votes they'd just won over in the South.
An exact inversion of what happened to them during the coalition years.
If the LibDems are pushing Labour toward killing off Brexit, those Tory remainers wont be unhappy.
They will be unhappy with the economic and tax policies such a Government might pursue as well as the pet hobby horses of the Left.
I'm sure we've discussed it before but Labour's policy of a land tax to replace Council tax is a good starting point for creating the wealth taxes we need to replace the increasing demands that will need to be placed on consumption and income taxes....
For all our problems with Crossrail and the delivery of large infrastructure projects, it's good to see that Germany are leading the way in such things:
Berlin Brandenburg is still not open, seven years late. Although the cause of the problems are very different to those of Crossrail.
It's a classic of the genre. Political rather than programme leadership. No coherent client design. A rogue architect. Continual scope change whilst the project was in flight. And screwing the supply chain to the floor (a very common behaviour) in the belief it will save money and then setting up no clear integration authority.
Airports are intricate and carefully controlled traffic management and sales businesses to well defined rules. Railways are highly complex bottom to top fully integrated systems to entirely inflexible rules - a house of cards where any one thing being out throws the whole thing out. There's a ridiculous amount of regulation over them with no wiggle room or short cuts.
The programme management model must be respected for both and you need strong client leadership, with the politicians out of it, freeze the scope, let the professionals integrate it with the needs of the future operator and fully integrate the supply chain into delivery.
The hardest thing? Accepting theres always a degree of delivery risk. Complex programmes are not 100% predictable in the way traditional building or construction projects are.
YouGov are helping covering all the bases so everyone is happy...
People who don't like Corbyn can just pay attention to the regular YouGov polls and celebrate Labour being in 4th and doomed, the people who like Corbyn can just pay attention to other polls and celebrate Labour being in 1st and well positioned for the next election.
It doesn't help in terms of arguments though, especially if you have people arguing 'dishonestly' or maybe from genuine ignorance...
Where are you on this? Surely you can see Labour have a teensy weensy problem. To win power from opposition you have to be 10-20 points clear.
Labour might well be the largest party, and able to get confidence and supply from Lib Dems and SNP, but they are nowhere near an overall majority.
On such an arrangement, the Liberal Democrats would be likely to quickly lose the soft Conservative votes they'd just won over in the South.
An exact inversion of what happened to them during the coalition years.
If the LibDems are pushing Labour toward killing off Brexit, those Tory remainers wont be unhappy.
They will be unhappy with the economic and tax policies such a Government might pursue as well as the pet hobby horses of the Left.
I'm sure we've discussed it before but Labour's policy of a land tax to replace Council tax is a good starting point for creating the wealth taxes we need to replace the increasing demands that will need to be placed on consumption and income taxes....
That's not a graph of productivity but of productivity change between 2010 and 2018 and which shows all the Western European countries struggling on productivity growth.
Though there certainly is a point where extra hours worked leads to a decline in productivity per hour.
The problem is that point varies between people, occupations and countries.
Also, the measurement of productivity is hugely flawed, as OGH Jnr did an extremely good video on a while back.
Re Working Hours. It really depends on job, if you commute etc etc etc.
I work very long hours, and I generally work 7 days a week. But I do something I really enjoy, I have zero commute, I set my own hours, I am able to take breaks whenever I want both during the day and in general.
For all our problems with Crossrail and the delivery of large infrastructure projects, it's good to see that Germany are leading the way in such things:
Berlin Brandenburg is still not open, seven years late. Although the cause of the problems are very different to those of Crossrail.
It's a classic of the genre. Political rather than programme leadership. No coherent client design. A rogue architect. Continual scope change whilst the project was in flight. And screwing the supply chain to the floor (a very common behaviour) in the belief it will save money and then setting up no clear integration authority.
Airports are intricate and carefully controlled traffic management and sales businesses to well defined rules. Railways are highly complex bottom to top fully integrated systems to entirely inflexible rules - a house of cards where any one thing being out throws the whole thing out. There's a ridiculous amount of regulation over them with no wiggle room or short cuts.
The programme management model must be respected for both and you need strong client leadership, with the politicians out of it, freeze the scope, let the professionals integrate it with the needs of the future operator and fully integrate the supply chain into delivery.
The hardest thing? Accepting theres always a degree of delivery risk. Complex programmes are not 100% predictable in the way traditional building or construction projects are.
Keeping politicians out of it when politicians are the customer is easier said than done.
According to the BBC, The Times has a headline suggesting that 'A Times investigation claims senior civil servants are increasingly concerned about Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's health. The paper says officials warned Mr Corbyn, 70, may be forced to stand down from the job because he was not "physically or mentally" fit for it, and had become "too frail". A party spokesman said Mr Corbyn was in good health and led an active life.'
Hmmm.
I think the civil service is worried about how smart he is
According to the BBC, The Times has a headline suggesting that 'A Times investigation claims senior civil servants are increasingly concerned about Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's health. The paper says officials warned Mr Corbyn, 70, may be forced to stand down from the job because he was not "physically or mentally" fit for it, and had become "too frail". A party spokesman said Mr Corbyn was in good health and led an active life.'
Hmmm.
I think the civil service is worried about how smart he is
Well, he looks much smarter now he's done his tie up.
YouGov are helping covering all the bases so everyone is happy...
People who don't like Corbyn can just pay attention to the regular YouGov polls and celebrate Labour being in 4th and doomed, the people who like Corbyn can just pay attention to other polls and celebrate Labour being in 1st and well positioned for the next election.
It doesn't help in terms of arguments though, especially if you have people arguing 'dishonestly' or maybe from genuine ignorance...
Where are you on this? Surely you can see Labour have a teensy weensy problem. To win power from opposition you have to be 10-20 points clear.
Labour might well be the largest party, and able to get confidence and supply from Lib Dems and SNP, but they are nowhere near an overall majority.
On such an arrangement, the Liberal Democrats would be likely to quickly lose the soft Conservative votes they'd just won over in the South.
An exact inversion of what happened to them during the coalition years.
If the LibDems are pushing Labour toward killing off Brexit, those Tory remainers wont be unhappy.
They will be unhappy with the economic and tax policies such a Government might pursue as well as the pet hobby horses of the Left.
I'm sure we've discussed it before but Labour's policy of a land tax to replace Council tax is a good starting point for creating the wealth taxes we need to replace the increasing demands that will need to be placed on consumption and income taxes....
You think that's going to be popular?
Wealth taxes are essential going forward and we are one of the few European countries not to have them. Council tax reform or at least a revaluation is required.
A land tax of some form at some level resolves both those issues and the latter reason justifies it without the first being too obvious...
As for popularity Brexit will probably trump everything so there's a lot you could sneak in...
Even C and S would require new leadership of either party, no way would LDs support Jezza or Bozza.
Not worth speculating on until we know the exact numbers. In 2010 the numbers fell to make only one option viable. Perhaps C and S rather than formal coalition would have been better, but many aspects of the Coalition were a golden period of good government, particularly compared to the omnishambles that followed.
I think voters will want a hint. It seems likely that there will be no overall majority, and quite likely that the only people in a position to form a government are Jezza and Bozza, but only with at least C and S from the LibDems. Possible LibDem positions before the election:
1. In that situation we will offer C and S to Bozza, if we get concessions. 2. In that situation we will offer C and S to Jezza, if we get concessions. 3. We will refuse both and force yet another election. 4. We might do 1 or 2, we'll have to see after the election. 5. We're not telling you, so there.
4 seems logical, but reduces tactical support from people who really dislike Bozza and/or Jezza. 3 sounds wearisome. 1 or 2 will thoroughly alienate half the potential tactical vote while inspiring the other half. 5 will annoy everyone.
I suspect they'll go for 4, as the course of least resistance, with a cover of "Actually we hope for an overall majority ourselves".
That would give Labour a pretty effective line of attack. 'Remember what the LibDems did last time they held the balance of power - they became the Tories Little Helpers. They are not to be trusted to not do so again!'
Received my letter from the Beeb yesterday, telling me about the new arrangements for over-75's TV licences. For some reason it's in printed in fairly large print; looks about a 20 font! It also seems to say that although my previous licence year was March to February the new one will be June to May, as will be everyone else. Why do I wonder about the system coping?
I received mine yesterday but of course here in Wales we receive two separate notifications. One in Welsh, one in English
I very much doubt it will not continue one way or another. Seems politicians of all parties are demanding the matter to be resolved in favour of pensioners, but of course it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact pensioners vote !!!!!!!
More fundamentally, the BBC did a deal with the (last) government and are now implementing the expected outcome of that deal
If they are forced to reverse it then why should they ever trust the government in future? Of course, as the psalmist said, “put not your trust in princes” but that’s not a healthy way for an organisation like the Beeb to operate
YouGov are helping covering all the bases so everyone is happy...
People who don't like Corbyn can just pay attention to the regular YouGov polls and celebrate Labour being in 4th and doomed, the people who like Corbyn can just pay attention to other polls and celebrate Labour being in 1st and well positioned for the next election.
It doesn't help in terms of arguments though, especially if you have people arguing 'dishonestly' or maybe from genuine ignorance...
Where are you on this? Surely you can see Labour have a teensy weensy problem. To win power from opposition you have to be 10-20 points clear.
Labour might well be the largest party, and able to get confidence and supply from Lib Dems and SNP, but they are nowhere near an overall majority.
On such an arrangement, the Liberal Democrats would be likely to quickly lose the soft Conservative votes they'd just won over in the South.
An exact inversion of what happened to them during the coalition years.
If the LibDems are pushing Labour toward killing off Brexit, those Tory remainers wont be unhappy.
They will be unhappy with the economic and tax policies such a Government might pursue as well as the pet hobby horses of the Left.
I'm sure we've discussed it before but Labour's policy of a land tax to replace Council tax is a good starting point for creating the wealth taxes we need to replace the increasing demands that will need to be placed on consumption and income taxes....
Wealth taxes - taxes on assets - are a sign of desperation. Taxes on income are easy, taxes on consumption less so, but going after wealth is a sign that the cupboard is bare. The only thing after that is confiscation of property. And for what? Government scope keeps expanding - can anyone point out when they have stopped doing anything? - and thus expenditure increases. Yes we had Austerity - but spending (and taxes) kept going up. The top 5% of earners will pay more than half of income tax this year, up from 25% in 1980. Do you really think that this can and will continue? We cannot tax our way to prosperity.
According to the BBC, The Times has a headline suggesting that 'A Times investigation claims senior civil servants are increasingly concerned about Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's health. The paper says officials warned Mr Corbyn, 70, may be forced to stand down from the job because he was not "physically or mentally" fit for it, and had become "too frail". A party spokesman said Mr Corbyn was in good health and led an active life.'
Hmmm.
I think the civil service is worried about how smart he is
Well, he looks much smarter now he's done his tie up.
David Cameron’s mum was right. If you are looking for anyone to blame for PM Corbyn.
Even C and S would require new leadership of either party, no way would LDs support Jezza or Bozza.
Not worth speculating on until we know the exact numbers. In 2010 the numbers fell to make only one option viable. Perhaps C and S rather than formal coalition would have been better, but many aspects of the Coalition were a golden period of good government, particularly compared to the omnishambles that followed.
I think voters will want a hint. It seems likely that there will be no overall majority, and quite likely that the only people in a position to form a government are Jezza and Bozza, but only with at least C and S from the LibDems. Possible LibDem positions before the election:
1. In that situation we will offer C and S to Bozza, if we get concessions. 2. In that situation we will offer C and S to Jezza, if we get concessions. 3. We will refuse both and force yet another election. 4. We might do 1 or 2, we'll have to see after the election. 5. We're not telling you, so there.
4 seems logical, but reduces tactical support from people who really dislike Bozza and/or Jezza. 3 sounds wearisome. 1 or 2 will thoroughly alienate half the potential tactical vote while inspiring the other half. 5 will annoy everyone.
I suspect they'll go for 4, as the course of least resistance, with a cover of "Actually we hope for an overall majority ourselves".
That would give Labour a pretty effective line of attack. 'Remember what the LibDems did last time they held the balance of power - they became the Tories Little Helpers. They are not to be trusted to not do so again!'
How does that work out when the Lib Dems want to remain and the tories are tacking to a No Deal brexit.
The Lib Dems won't be supporting a Tory party after the next election unless we've left - in which case I doubt the Tory party will be in a position to choice what happens...
The political effects (and, cynics would argue, why the GOP wants it there) are that it would reduce the apparent size of Democrat-leaning areas before seat boundaries are drawn.
This is interesting as it closely parallels what the 2010 government did here (some posters complained when I called it gerrymandering). Purge electoral rolls and make registration harder in order to reduce the apparent size of Labour-leaning towns and cities, then use it as the basis for redrawing boundaries. In order to make sure that every constituency is revisited and redrawn, reduce the number of seats to 600.
One irony is that collateral damage might have included ending Cameron and Osborne's political careers by disproportionately removing Remain-leaning voters before the Brexit referendum. A danger the government belatedly realised, organising a rushed registration campaign in the last days before voting.
Voting is a good thing and should be encouraged. By those who are entitled to vote. Accuracy of the register is important.
YouGov are helping covering all the bases so everyone is happy...
People who don't like Corbyn can just pay attention to the regular YouGov polls and celebrate Labour being in 4th and doomed, the people who like Corbyn can just pay attention to other polls and celebrate Labour being in 1st and well positioned for the next election.
It doesn't help in terms of arguments though, especially if you have people arguing 'dishonestly' or maybe from genuine ignorance...
Where are you on this? Surely you can see Labour have a teensy weensy problem. To win power from opposition you have to be 10-20 points clear.
Labour might well be the largest party, and able to get confidence and supply from Lib Dems and SNP, but they are nowhere near an overall majority.
On such an arrangement, the Liberal Democrats would be likely to quickly lose the soft Conservative votes they'd just won over in the South.
An exact inversion of what happened to them during the coalition years.
If the LibDems are pushing Labour toward killing off Brexit, those Tory remainers wont be unhappy.
They will be unhappy with the economic and tax policies such a Government might pursue as well as the pet hobby horses of the Left.
I'm sure we've discussed it before but Labour's policy of a land tax to replace Council tax is a good starting point for creating the wealth taxes we need to replace the increasing demands that will need to be placed on consumption and income taxes....
You think that's going to be popular?
Wealth taxes are essential going forward and we are one of the few European countries not to have them. Council tax reform or at least a revaluation is required.
A land tax of some form at some level resolves both those issues and the latter reason justifies it without the first being too obvious...
As for popularity Brexit will probably trump everything so there's a lot you could sneak in...
Who is going to do all the valuations for “wealth” ?
Home inspectors ? Car mileage monitors ? Checking under floorboards for jewels and bullion ? It’s a nonsense.
YouGov are helping covering all the bases so everyone is happy...
People who don't like Corbyn can just pay attention to the regular YouGov polls and celebrate Labour being in 4th and doomed, the people who like Corbyn can just pay attention to other polls and celebrate Labour being in 1st and well positioned for the next election.
It doesn't help in terms of arguments though, especially if you have people arguing 'dishonestly' or maybe from genuine ignorance...
Where are you on this? Surely you can see Labour have a teensy weensy problem. To win power from opposition you have to be 10-20 points clear.
Labour might well be the largest party, and able to get confidence and supply from Lib Dems and SNP, but they are nowhere near an overall majority.
On such an arrangement, the Liberal Democrats would be likely to quickly lose the soft Conservative votes they'd just won over in the South.
An exact inversion of what happened to them during the coalition years.
If the LibDems are pushing Labour toward killing off Brexit, those Tory remainers wont be unhappy.
They will be unhappy with the economic and tax policies such a Government might pursue as well as the pet hobby horses of the Left.
I'm sure we've discussed it before but Labour's policy of a land tax to replace Council tax is a good starting point for creating the wealth taxes we need to replace the increasing demands that will need to be placed on consumption and income taxes....
You think that's going to be popular?
Wealth taxes are essential going forward and we are one of the few European countries not to have them. Council tax reform or at least a revaluation is required.
A land tax of some form at some level resolves both those issues and the latter reason justifies it without the first being too obvious...
As for popularity Brexit will probably trump everything so there's a lot you could sneak in...
I have made a deliberate decision not to piss money away on Range Rover Evoques and the like. I don’t have Sky or a council house TV.. I have taken the government push to save for the future, for retirement on the basis that it is personally responsible. As such, I’m seen as little more than a source of funds for incompetent, lying politicans to spunk up the wall on their favoured client groups to no material effect. Policy through the lens of punishment rarely ends well.
YouGov are helping covering all the bases so everyone is happy...
People who don't like Corbyn can just pay attention to the regular YouGov polls and celebrate Labour being in 4th and doomed, the people who like Corbyn can just pay attention to other polls and celebrate Labour being in 1st and well positioned for the next election.
It doesn't help in terms of arguments though, especially if you have people arguing 'dishonestly' or maybe from genuine ignorance...
Where are you on this? Surely you can see Labour have a teensy weensy problem. To win power from opposition you have to be 10-20 points clear.
Labour might well be the largest party, and able to get confidence and supply from Lib Dems and SNP, but they are nowhere near an overall majority.
On such an arrangement, the Liberal Democrats would be likely to quickly lose the soft Conservative votes they'd just won over in the South.
An exact inversion of what happened to them during the coalition years.
If the LibDems are pushing Labour toward killing off Brexit, those Tory remainers wont be unhappy.
They will be unhappy with the economic and tax policies such a Government might pursue as well as the pet hobby horses of the Left.
I'm sure we've discussed it before but Labour's policy of a land tax to replace Council tax is a good starting point for creating the wealth taxes we need to replace the increasing demands that will need to be placed on consumption and income taxes....
Wealth taxes - taxes on assets - are a sign of desperation. Taxes on income are easy, taxes on consumption less so, but going after wealth is a sign that the cupboard is bare. The only thing after that is confiscation of property. And for what? Government scope keeps expanding - can anyone point out when they have stopped doing anything? - and thus expenditure increases. Yes we had Austerity - but spending (and taxes) kept going up. The top 5% of earners will pay more than half of income tax this year, up from 25% in 1980. Do you really think that this can and will continue? We cannot tax our way to prosperity.
Nope wealth taxes are unavoidable when you have an aging workforce with fewer and fewer workers working to pay for the needs of their retired elders.
People are argue and work around it however they want but if anything we need to tax income less and find a way of recovering that money from elsewhere...
YouGov are helping covering all the bases so everyone is happy...
People who don't like Corbyn can just pay attention to the regular YouGov polls and celebrate Labour being in 4th and doomed, the people who like Corbyn can just pay attention to other polls and celebrate Labour being in 1st and well positioned for the next election.
It doesn't help in terms of arguments though, especially if you have people arguing 'dishonestly' or maybe from genuine ignorance...
Where are you on this? Surely you can see Labour have a teensy weensy problem. To win power from opposition you have to be 10-20 points clear.
Labour might well be the largest party, and able to get confidence and supply from Lib Dems and SNP, but they are nowhere near an overall majority.
On such an arrangement, the Liberal Democrats would be likely to quickly lose the soft Conservative votes they'd just won over in the South.
An exact inversion of what happened to them during the coalition years.
If the LibDems are pushing Labour toward killing off Brexit, those Tory remainers wont be unhappy.
They will be unhappy with the economic and tax policies such a Government might pursue as well as the pet hobby horses of the Left.
I'm sure we've discussed it before but Labour's policy of a land tax to replace Council tax is a good starting point for creating the wealth taxes we need to replace the increasing demands that will need to be placed on consumption and income taxes....
You think that's going to be popular?
Wealth taxes are essential going forward and we are one of the few European countries not to have them. Council tax reform or at least a revaluation is required.
A land tax of some form at some level resolves both those issues and the latter reason justifies it without the first being too obvious...
As for popularity Brexit will probably trump everything so there's a lot you could sneak in...
Who is going to do all the valuations for “wealth” ?
Home inspectors ? Car mileage monitors ? Checking under floorboards for jewels and bullion ? It’s a nonsense.
No need to hide anything under the floorboards these days with the all the crypto options.
Even C and S would require new leadership of either party, no way would LDs support Jezza or Bozza.
Not worth speculating on until we know the exact numbers. In 2010 the numbers fell to make only one option viable. Perhaps C and S rather than formal coalition would have been better, but many aspects of the Coalition were a golden period of good government, particularly compared to the omnishambles that followed.
I think voters will want a hint. It seems likely that there will be no overall majority, and quite likely that the only people in a position to form a government are Jezza and Bozza, but only with at least C and S from the LibDems. Possible LibDem positions before the election:
1. In that situation we will offer C and S to Bozza, if we get concessions. 2. In that situation we will offer C and S to Jezza, if we get concessions. 3. We will refuse both and force yet another election. 4. We might do 1 or 2, we'll have to see after the election. 5. We're not telling you, so there.
4 seems logical, but reduces tactical support from people who really dislike Bozza and/or Jezza. 3 sounds wearisome. 1 or 2 will thoroughly alienate half the potential tactical vote while inspiring the other half. 5 will annoy everyone.
I suspect they'll go for 4, as the course of least resistance, with a cover of "Actually we hope for an overall majority ourselves".
That would give Labour a pretty effective line of attack. 'Remember what the LibDems did last time they held the balance of power - they became the Tories Little Helpers. They are not to be trusted to not do so again!'
In a pre-Brexit election the LDs can clearly and easily rule out any deal with the Tories.
@Casino_Royale - Are you on the Alton line or the main line to Basingstoke? I'm very fortunate that I can commute from Woking and it makes such a difference when there's disruption because there's usually at least one train to Woking even if it's a semi-fast or stopper.
One of the problems with the franchising model is that when an operator loses a contract, they spend only what they have to on the franchise. Personally I thought this was noticeable with Stagecoach as there seemed to be a lot of fleet issues towards the end (I reckon it's happening on EMT too - see the FT story: "Stagecoach’s unprofitable gravy train proves Corbyn wrong").
And First Group did not get off to a great start. But, I do think a corner is being turned. They're gradually getting the 442s into service and this will allow more services and longer trains. In the five years I've been commuting, 2L88 (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W32289/2019/07/01/advanced) has gone from being a six car 159 diesel to an 8 car 450 electric to a 12 car 450. That really does make a difference for Woking commuters. Of course, all the flats going up means that extra capacity could soon be filled up.
One thing that has got worse is travelling to Clapham Junction in the morning peak. 2T14 (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W32924/2019/07/01/advanced) used to call at Clapham Junction. It no longer does meaning that something like 70 passengers pile off that train at Woking, walk over the bridge to platform 2, to catch 2P16 (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W32616/2019/07/01/advanced) - which is the last fast train to call at CLJ before 09:00. I'm intrigued to see what SWR do when something goes wrong and 2T14 arrives after 2P16 has departed. But that's certainly a big deterioration in service for those passengers who now have to change trains.
Where are you on this? Surely you can see Labour have a teensy weensy problem. To win power from opposition you have to be 10-20 points clear.
Labour might well be the largest party, and able to get confidence and supply from Lib Dems and SNP, but they are nowhere near an overall majority.
On such an arrangement, the Liberal Democrats would be likely to quickly lose the soft Conservative votes they'd just won over in the South.
An exact inversion of what happened to them during the coalition years.
If the LibDems are pushing Labour toward killing off Brexit, those Tory remainers wont be unhappy.
They will be unhappy with the economic and tax policies such a Government might pursue as well as the pet hobby horses of the Left.
I'm sure we've discussed it before but Labour's policy of a land tax to replace Council tax is a good starting point for creating the wealth taxes we need to replace the increasing demands that will need to be placed on consumption and income taxes....
Wealth taxes - taxes on assets - are a sign of desperation. Taxes on income are easy, taxes on consumption less so, but going after wealth is a sign that the cupboard is bare. The only thing after that is confiscation of property. And for what? Government scope keeps expanding - can anyone point out when they have stopped doing anything? - and thus expenditure increases. Yes we had Austerity - but spending (and taxes) kept going up. The top 5% of earners will pay more than half of income tax this year, up from 25% in 1980. Do you really think that this can and will continue? We cannot tax our way to prosperity.
Nope wealth taxes are unavoidable when you have an aging workforce with fewer and fewer workers working to pay for the needs of their retired elders.
People are argue and work around it however they want but if anything we need to tax income less and find a way of recovering that money from elsewhere...
There's the theoretical aspect and the practical aspect.
Shifting from taxing income to taxing assets will only happen when there are more people who benefit from doing so than lose out from doing so.
And critically are willing to vote for that to happen.
Re Working Hours. It really depends on job, if you commute etc etc etc.
I work very long hours, and I generally work 7 days a week. But I do something I really enjoy, I have zero commute, I set my own hours, I am able to take breaks whenever I want both during the day and in general.
Even C and S would require new leadership of either party, no way would LDs support Jezza or Bozza.
Not worth speculating on until we know the exact numbers. In 2010 the numbers fell to make only one option viable. Perhaps C and S rather than formal coalition would have been better, but many aspects of the Coalition were a golden period of good government, particularly compared to the omnishambles that followed.
I think voters will want a hint. It seems likely that there will be no overall majority, and quite likely that the only people in a position to form a government are Jezza and Bozza, but only with at least C and S from the LibDems. Possible LibDem positions before the election:
1. In that situation we will offer C and S to Bozza, if we get concessions. 2. In that situation we will offer C and S to Jezza, if we get concessions. 3. We will refuse both and force yet another election. 4. We might do 1 or 2, we'll have to see after the election. 5. We're not telling you, so there.
4 seems logical, but reduces tactical support from people who really dislike Bozza and/or Jezza. 3 sounds wearisome. 1 or 2 will thoroughly alienate half the potential tactical vote while inspiring the other half. 5 will annoy everyone.
I suspect they'll go for 4, as the course of least resistance, with a cover of "Actually we hope for an overall majority ourselves".
That would give Labour a pretty effective line of attack. 'Remember what the LibDems did last time they held the balance of power - they became the Tories Little Helpers. They are not to be trusted to not do so again!'
Are you as critical of the LibDems when they have been in coalition with Labour in government as now in the Welsh Assembly or in past in the Scottish parliament and the countless times they have been in coalition with Labour in local government.
The election result in 2010 effectively meant a Con/LibDem coalition administration. No other was viable for an effective period of government.
The LibDems did the nation a service even if in 2015 they received little precious little recognition. It was their greatest contribution to national politics since the war time coalition of WWII including as it did the Beveridge Report.
Re Working Hours. It really depends on job, if you commute etc etc etc.
I work very long hours, and I generally work 7 days a week. But I do something I really enjoy, I have zero commute, I set my own hours, I am able to take breaks whenever I want both during the day and in general.
Are you a twitch streamer ?
No. Now some of those people "work" insane hours. There is one guy, who until he had his second kid, didn't have a day off in 4 years!!! And generally does 2 long-ish streams a day, sometimes 3.
Between Boris Johnson, Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Keir Starmer, Jo Swinson, Tom Watson, Nigel Farage and Jeremy Hunt, Corbyn is the least trusted to do what he says on Brexit by the general public as a whole (73 per cent do not trust, 17 per cent trust).
Train operators may have started “rebuilding passenger trust” in the railway, according to the transport watchdog, whose latest national survey showed satisfaction levels starting to improve.
Overall satisfaction across Britain rose to 83% in the biannual survey, polled after 28,000 journeys between February and April – up four percentage points from last autumn and two points higher than spring 2018.
According to the BBC, The Times has a headline suggesting that 'A Times investigation claims senior civil servants are increasingly concerned about Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's health. The paper says officials warned Mr Corbyn, 70, may be forced to stand down from the job because he was not "physically or mentally" fit for it, and had become "too frail". A party spokesman said Mr Corbyn was in good health and led an active life.'
Hmmm.
I think the civil service is worried about how smart he is
Well, he looks much smarter now he's done his tie up.
Electoral vote scrutinised ties this week. No tie apparently can be “tacky and inappropriate” in US politics.
When it’s my turn to do PMQs I was considering not wearing a tie. I have mind to do PMQs in a tunic minidress, cowl sleeves, with plunging neckline to show off my Nigel Mansell tattoo
Who is going to do all the valuations for “wealth” ?
Home inspectors ? Car mileage monitors ? Checking under floorboards for jewels and bullion ? It’s a nonsense.
The specific suggestion is to tax land ownership, which shouldn't be that mysterious. But generally tax is assessed by making people declare it.
I do quite like the idea of every home owner declaring the value of their property at the start of the financial year and being taxed accordingly. But should someone offer that value, then you have to sell.
Train operators may have started “rebuilding passenger trust” in the railway, according to the transport watchdog, whose latest national survey showed satisfaction levels starting to improve.
Overall satisfaction across Britain rose to 83% in the biannual survey, polled after 28,000 journeys between February and April – up four percentage points from last autumn and two points higher than spring 2018.
Thanks for that. I posted the increased passenger numbers and mileage figures earlier in the week - it's generally good news.
It's really unsurprising that passenger satisfaction has gone up: it had taken a real dent because of the timetabling woes and the strikes - the former are generally no longer an issue, and I believe there's fewer strikes this year.
According to the BBC, The Times has a headline suggesting that 'A Times investigation claims senior civil servants are increasingly concerned about Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's health. The paper says officials warned Mr Corbyn, 70, may be forced to stand down from the job because he was not "physically or mentally" fit for it, and had become "too frail". A party spokesman said Mr Corbyn was in good health and led an active life.'
Hmmm.
I think the civil service is worried about how smart he is
Well, he looks much smarter now he's done his tie up.
Electoral vote scrutinised ties this week. No tie apparently can be “tacky and inappropriate” in US politics.
When it’s my turn to do PMQs I was considering not wearing a tie. I have mind to do PMQs in a tunic minidress, cowl sleeves, with plunging neckline to show off my Nigel Mansell tattoo
Surely, the only appropriate place for a Nigel Mansell tattoo is the arse? Which is some plunge....
Even C and S would require new leadership of either party, no way would LDs support Jezza or Bozza.
Not worth speculating on until we know the exact numbers. In 2010 the numbers fell to make only one option viable. Perhaps C and S rather than formal coalition would have been better, but many aspects of the Coalition were a golden period of good government, particularly compared to the omnishambles that followed.
I think voters will want a hint. It seems likely that there will be no overall majority, and quite likely that the only people in a position to form a government are Jezza and Bozza, but only with at least C and S from the LibDems. Possible LibDem positions before the election:
1. In that situation we will offer C and S to Bozza, if we get concessions. 2. In that situation we will offer C and S to Jezza, if we get concessions. 3. We will refuse both and force yet another election. 4. We might do 1 or 2, we'll have to see after the election. 5. We're not telling you, so there.
4 seems logical, but reduces tactical support from people who really dislike Bozza and/or Jezza. 3 sounds wearisome. 1 or 2 will thoroughly alienate half the potential tactical vote while inspiring the other half. 5 will annoy everyone.
I suspect they'll go for 4, as the course of least resistance, with a cover of "Actually we hope for an overall majority ourselves".
That would give Labour a pretty effective line of attack. 'Remember what the LibDems did last time they held the balance of power - they became the Tories Little Helpers. They are not to be trusted to not do so again!'
In a pre-Brexit election the LDs can clearly and easily rule out any deal with the Tories.
Quite - and they will.
They won't rule out a C&S DUP style with Labour as "it will keep a check on Labour".
4 seems logical, but reduces tactical support from people who really dislike Bozza and/or Jezza. 3 sounds wearisome. 1 or 2 will thoroughly alienate half the potential tactical vote while inspiring the other half. 5 will annoy everyone.
I suspect they'll go for 4, as the course of least resistance, with a cover of "Actually we hope for an overall majority ourselves".
That would give Labour a pretty effective line of attack. 'Remember what the LibDems did last time they held the balance of power - they became the Tories Little Helpers. They are not to be trusted to not do so again!'
Are you as critical of the LibDems when they have been in coalition with Labour in government as now in the Welsh Assembly or in past in the Scottish parliament and the countless times they have been in coalition with Labour in local government.
The election result in 2010 effectively meant a Con/LibDem coalition administration. No other was viable for an effective period of government.
The LibDems did the nation a service even if in 2015 they received little precious little recognition. It was their greatest contribution to national politics since the war time coalition of WWII including as it did the Beveridge Report.
A Rainbow coalition was possible on the 2010 numbers - as was a minority Tory government. Moreover, Tory numbers were only slightly lower than what they have currently - a C&S deal with the UUP/DUP would have been an option too even if still slightly short of a majority. I don't doubt that participating in Labour -led administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff will have alienated centre-right voters otherwise sympathetic to the LibDems. Their decision to enter a Westminster Tory dominated government damaged their standing with left of centre opinion massively - particularly in relation to Clegg's right wards swerve on macroeconomic policy which led him to accept austerity policies he had condemned during the 2010 campaign. Then there was the Tuition Fees fiasco - the acceptance of a Tory NHS reform not even included in the Tory manifesto - and the wicked attempt to introduce prohibitive fees to bring cases to Employment Tribunals.I suspect the wider electorate remains far more interested in the essence of these issues than Brexit per se, and that they continue to have the potential to cause great damage to the LibDems during an election campaign.
I do quite like the idea of every home owner declaring the value of their property at the start of the financial year and being taxed accordingly. But should someone offer that value, then you have to sell.
I reckon the politically non-toxic way to do that is to bolt that system on backwards, so a government inspector (which could be contracted out to some venal politically-connected private contractor) assesses how much your property is worth, but if you think it's too much, you can make the government buy it from you at that price.
Perhaps C and S rather than formal coalition would have been better, but many aspects of the Coalition were a golden period of good government
This golden period of good government: what was your personal highlight? Lansley's NHS reforms? Gove's war with history teachers? IDS's universal credit? Decimating the armed forces? Flat-lining the economy? Axing 20,000 coppers?
Even with your little bit of spin on it, coalition still a golden period in comparison with what’s now blowing towards us...
It is not the politics of it. Some voters might want small boys sent up chimneys. That is why we have elections. No, it is the ineptitude, with minister after minister undermining their own grand projects by sending the under-age chimneysweeps to newly-built bungalows.
Who is going to do all the valuations for “wealth” ?
Home inspectors ? Car mileage monitors ? Checking under floorboards for jewels and bullion ? It’s a nonsense.
The specific suggestion is to tax land ownership, which shouldn't be that mysterious. But generally tax is assessed by making people declare it.
I do quite like the idea of every home owner declaring the value of their property at the start of the financial year and being taxed accordingly. But should someone offer that value, then you have to sell.
According to the BBC, The Times has a headline suggesting that 'A Times investigation claims senior civil servants are increasingly concerned about Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's health. The paper says officials warned Mr Corbyn, 70, may be forced to stand down from the job because he was not "physically or mentally" fit for it, and had become "too frail". A party spokesman said Mr Corbyn was in good health and led an active life.'
Hmmm.
Colour me sceptical. It would be extremely unusual for civil servants to express opinions about the state of health (or indeed anything else about) politicians. To then casually talk to the press about it is even more unlikely.
I smell a rat too.
There are many reasons to think Jezza is unsuited to be PM, but physical health and mental stamina are not amongst them. He has a healthy lifestyle and appears to be in robust health.
How do you know?
Have you met him? Do you work with him up close daily? Have you seen him in meetings? Or have you just seen him in short TV spots and interviews, and doing the odd stump speech?
It's more likely you just don't want to believe the conclusion, so are looking for reasons to dismiss the article.
It’s one of the most disturbing developments since 2016 that the civil service - presumably taking their lead from the Cabinet - has been willing to leak like a sieve.
Of course it has always give on from time to tine, but the quantum is extraordinary.
Ministers need to be able to rely on the fact that they will get quality, impartial and confidential advice. If they fear that briefing materials or working analysis will be leaked they won’t properly explore controversial options
F1: Leclerc fastest in third practice. Interesting.
Merc advantage all year in corners, but fewer corners and point squirt nature of Austria track helps Ferrari, hungry Sharla Claire a value bet for this race would you say MD?
This is just the latest installment of anti-Corbyn propaganda from The Times.
They fear him.
They have no fear of Corbyn; he's just nine stone of dandruff in a cardigan. The fear is of the incubi that form his coterie and the wider movement around him.
Who is going to do all the valuations for “wealth” ?
Home inspectors ? Car mileage monitors ? Checking under floorboards for jewels and bullion ? It’s a nonsense.
The specific suggestion is to tax land ownership, which shouldn't be that mysterious. But generally tax is assessed by making people declare it.
I do quite like the idea of every home owner declaring the value of their property at the start of the financial year and being taxed accordingly. But should someone offer that value, then you have to sell.
It should work both ways to guard against people ramping values because they intend to sell next year; they can be forced either to sell or to buy the house next door. (This works better with commodities, because ounces of gold are more alike than houses are.)
I do quite like the idea of every home owner declaring the value of their property at the start of the financial year and being taxed accordingly. But should someone offer that value, then you have to sell.
I reckon the politically non-toxic way to do that is to bolt that system on backwards, so a government inspector (which could be contracted out to some venal politically-connected private contractor) assesses how much your property is worth, but if you think it's too much, you can make the government buy it from you at that price.
Or have people value their own homes, index the result by some regional housing index, and prohibit anyone from selling at a higher price
F1: Leclerc's only 2.75, Hamilton 1.9, Bottas 4. Vettel at 7.5 frankly looks the most tempting. He was just three-hundredths off Bottas, and a tenth off Hamilton. With high winds, that could be value.
Perhaps C and S rather than formal coalition would have been better, but many aspects of the Coalition were a golden period of good government
This golden period of good government: what was your personal highlight? Lansley's NHS reforms? Gove's war with history teachers? IDS's universal credit? Decimating the armed forces? Flat-lining the economy? Axing 20,000 coppers?
Even with your little bit of spin on it, coalition still a golden period in comparison with what’s now blowing towards us...
It is not the politics of it. Some voters might want small boys sent up chimneys. That is why we have elections. No, it is the ineptitude, with minister after minister undermining their own grand projects by sending the under-age chimneysweeps to newly-built bungalows.
And if the little naked boys claimed an impasse in your chimney, neither able to go forward or back, lighting a small fire behind them tended to shift them on, ironically brings us to BJs brexit strategy does it not?
Javid as CoE is a given? His beaten opponent stays out the way at FO too, same with Gove at DoE. But other members of his cabinet include Patel? Davis? Mogg? His Brexit secretary is Rabb? Crosby and Bannon key advisors?
That’s the comparison with the coalition government.
F1: Backed Vettel at 7.5 (8 with boost) each way to be fastest qualifier. I doubt he'll get the top slot but he could get on the front row and the interfering wind and potential for problems there could help him out.
Pre-qualifying ramble will be up in a little while.
F1: Leclerc's only 2.75, Hamilton 1.9, Bottas 4. Vettel at 7.5 frankly looks the most tempting. He was just three-hundredths off Bottas, and a tenth off Hamilton. With high winds, that could be value.
And Vettel needs to start showing he is today and tomorrow and not yesterday...
Who is going to do all the valuations for “wealth” ?
Home inspectors ? Car mileage monitors ? Checking under floorboards for jewels and bullion ? It’s a nonsense.
The specific suggestion is to tax land ownership, which shouldn't be that mysterious. But generally tax is assessed by making people declare it.
I do quite like the idea of every home owner declaring the value of their property at the start of the financial year and being taxed accordingly. But should someone offer that value, then you have to sell.
Who is going to do all the valuations for “wealth” ?
Home inspectors ? Car mileage monitors ? Checking under floorboards for jewels and bullion ? It’s a nonsense.
The specific suggestion is to tax land ownership, which shouldn't be that mysterious. But generally tax is assessed by making people declare it.
I do quite like the idea of every home owner declaring the value of their property at the start of the financial year and being taxed accordingly. But should someone offer that value, then you have to sell.
- keeping wage growth low through unlimited immigration from the E.U. meant labour was relatively cheap - Because in Europe it’s harder to fire someone companies were more wary about hiring
Consequence was
- relatively higher levels of capital investment in Europe which tends to increase productivity - Low productivity workers are unemployed in the EU vs employed in the UK (and diluting our overall productivity levels)
I’d rather have more people working than abandoned to the scrap heap
Who is going to do all the valuations for “wealth” ?
Home inspectors ? Car mileage monitors ? Checking under floorboards for jewels and bullion ? It’s a nonsense.
The specific suggestion is to tax land ownership, which shouldn't be that mysterious. But generally tax is assessed by making people declare it.
I do quite like the idea of every home owner declaring the value of their property at the start of the financial year and being taxed accordingly. But should someone offer that value, then you have to sell.
That’s because far too many British and Irish people reckon that it is enough to just turn up at work and to be present the correct number of hours. It is unusual for them to be self-motivated and common that they only do any actual work when a boss is breathing down their neck. It brings despair to many foreign managers that are used to conscientious workers.
This is one reason that Poland is soon going to zoom past Britain: they have an astonishing work ethic and are as ambitious as hell.
The 2 most recent polls though are from Yougov and Ipsos Mori and they were the most accurate pollsters in the European Parliament elections, both having the Brexit Party ahead and the LDs in second, not Labour. Survation had Labour second in the European Parliament elections ahead of the LDs as did Opinium and Comres and BMG so the fact Labour still leads with them does not mean much.
The latest Yougov has the Tories tied for the lead with the Brexit Party and the latest Ipsos Mori has the Tories ahead outright. Both have Labour still second but with the LDs much closer to them than other polls and around the 20% mark. I suspect that is where we are now.
Is it not a case of one party with media coverage, the other without? 2 parties currently have leadership elections on. If a GE broke out tomorrow you do think Labour would get a big bounce with the extra coverage like they did 2017?
I don’t think so (although there will be some benefit)
Don’t forget that in 2017 people had largely written Corbyn off. Then he went out on the stump and people decide he was new, fresh and offering something different which seemed attractive
I don’t think you will get that type of bounce second time as it is priced in to some extent
I suspect they'll go for 4, as the course of least resistance, with a cover of "Actually we hope for an overall majority ourselves".
That would give Labour a pretty effective line of attack. 'Remember what the LibDems did last time they held the balance of power - they became the Tories Little Helpers. They are not to be trusted to not do so again!'
The election result in 2010 effectively meant a Con/LibDem coalition administration. No other was viable for an effective period of government.
The LibDems did the nation a service even if in 2015 they received little precious little recognition. It was their greatest contribution to national politics since the war time coalition of WWII including as it did the Beveridge Report.
A Rainbow coalition was possible on the 2010 numbers - as was a minority Tory government. Moreover, Tory numbers were only slightly lower than what they have currently - a C&S deal with the UUP/DUP would have been an option too even if still slightly short of a majority. I don't doubt that participating in Labour -led administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff will have alienated centre-right voters otherwise sympathetic to the LibDems. Their decision to enter a Westminster Tory dominated government damaged their standing with left of centre opinion massively - particularly in relation to Clegg's right wards swerve on macroeconomic policy which led him to accept austerity policies he had condemned during the 2010 campaign. Then there was the Tuition Fees fiasco - the acceptance of a Tory NHS reform not even included in the Tory manifesto - and the wicked attempt to introduce prohibitive fees to bring cases to Employment Tribunals.I suspect the wider electorate remains far more interested in the essence of these issues than Brexit per se, and that they continue to have the potential to cause great damage to the LibDems during an election campaign.
I think that you're being 'arithmetically challenged' in that assertion.
"Although the actual figure for an overall majority is 326, in practice it is 323 because the five Sinn Fein MPs will not take up their seats. Following the election, Labour, with 258 MPs, and the Liberal Democrats, with 57 MPs, have 315 MPs between them. "
The country needed a 'strong and stable' (to coin a phrase) government at that time and this simply would not have provided it. Add in the SNP's 6 seats? (Labour's nemesis in Scotland) - not really on. But the country wanted rid of Labour and Brown at that point, so a rainbow coalition wouldn't even have been politically acceptable even if it had been numerically possible.
According to the BBC, The Times has a headline suggesting that 'A Times investigation claims senior civil servants are increasingly concerned about Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's health. The paper says officials warned Mr Corbyn, 70, may be forced to stand down from the job because he was not "physically or mentally" fit for it, and had become "too frail". A party spokesman said Mr Corbyn was in good health and led an active life.'
Hmmm.
Colour me sceptical. It would be extremely unusual for civil servants to express opinions about the state of health (or indeed anything else about) politicians. To then casually talk to the press about it is even more unlikely.
I smell a rat too.
There are many reasons to think Jezza is unsuited to be PM, but physical health and mental stamina are not amongst them. He has a healthy lifestyle and appears to be in robust health.
How do you know?
Have you met him? Do you work with him up close daily? Have you seen him in meetings? Or have you just seen him in short TV spots and interviews, and doing the odd stump speech?
It's more likely you just don't want to believe the conclusion, so are looking for reasons to dismiss the article.
It’s one of the most disturbing developments since 2016 that the civil service - presumably taking their lead from the Cabinet - has been willing to leak like a sieve.
Of course it has always give on from time to tine, but the quantum is extraordinary.
Ministers need to be able to rely on the fact that they will get quality, impartial and confidential advice. If they fear that briefing materials or working analysis will be leaked they won’t properly explore controversial options
The omnishambles that is Westminster has also affected Whitehall. Standards are out the window. EU staff despair when they see the morons sent by London.
Given that the UK has a £90bn+ trade deficit in goods in the single market are you sure that this free trade policy is working for the British economy ?
We run trade deficits because our economy is not strong enough to support our lifestyle without selling off assets and acquiring debt. Leaving the EU will make our economy weaker, we are unlikely to change our lifestyle tastes significantly downwards so our overall trade deficit will likely increase. Whether that goes to the EU, China, US or elsewhere is not particularly important.
So we're doomed but lets not change the free trade strategy because that might be risky ???
The UK is a consumerholic and ever more free trade is the equivalent of more pubs and off licences being available to an alcoholic.
Perhaps with a bit less free trade the UK will become a more functioning consumerholic and produce more of the stuff we consume ourselves.
Narrowly looking at trade is a mistake in my view because different economies are structured differently.
For example, I assume that Liechtenstein has a significant trade deficit and a high service surplus (nb: this is deliberately an extreme example and not a suggestion that the U.K. is or should be like Liechtenstein). That’s the way their economy is structured
Of course there are strategic risks in hollowing out the manufacturing base completely but that’s a different point to the one you are making.
It’s more important to look at the overall balance of imports and exports including invisible income (showing my age there!)
The 2 most recent polls though are from Yougov and Ipsos Mori and they were the most accurate pollsters in the European Parliament elections, both having the Brexit Party ahead and the LDs in second, not Labour. Survation had Labour second in the European Parliament elections ahead of the LDs as did Opinium and Comres and BMG so the fact Labour still leads with them does not mean much.
The latest Yougov has the Tories tied for the lead with the Brexit Party and the latest Ipsos Mori has the Tories ahead outright. Both have Labour still second but with the LDs much closer to them than other polls and around the 20% mark. I suspect that is where we are now.
Is it not a case of one party with media coverage, the other without? 2 parties currently have leadership elections on. If a GE broke out tomorrow you do think Labour would get a big bounce with the extra coverage like they did 2017?
I don’t think so (although there will be some benefit)
Don’t forget that in 2017 people had largely written Corbyn off. Then he went out on the stump and people decide he was new, fresh and offering something different which seemed attractive
I don’t think you will get that type of bounce second time as it is priced in to some extent
That’s an astute, fair enough answer Charles.
Almost certainly not how Team Corbyn and Labour supporters regard it though. From the starting gun on they will come across as “it’s our turn now and we are up for it”
That’s because far too many British and Irish people reckon that it is enough to just turn up at work and to be present the correct number of hours. It is unusual for them to be self-motivated and common that they only do any actual work when a boss is breathing down their neck. It brings despair to many foreign managers that are used to conscious workers.
This is one reason that Poland is soon going to zoom past Britain: they have an astonishing work ethic and are as ambitious as hell.
Care to put some numbers to that prediction ?
And from personal experience Polish people neither have an astonishing work ethic nor are ambitious as hell.
Those from the Baltic states though are much more impressive.
Small sample experience though so nothing scientific.
But my theory is that language ability is vital among immigrants - so middle class immigrants will prosper even when doing working class jobs as they still have the language ability to get on, impress and work themselves up the value chain.
Whereas working class immigrants struggle to adapt, become ghettoised and get exploited by ruthless people within their own communities.
This is one reason that Poland is soon going to zoom past Britain: they have an astonishing work ethic and are as ambitious as hell.
I don’t agree. What is the evidence of this? What is more likely is that all the lazy Poles are still in Poland. Those who travel thousands of miles away from home for work are more likely to be motivated.
Total rubbish and offensive to suggest that the British and the Irish are somehow inherently lazy.
I suspect they'll go for 4, as the course of least resistance, with a cover of "Actually we hope for an overall majority ourselves".
That would give Labour a pretty effective line of attack. 'Remember what the LibDems did last time they held the balance of power - they became the Tories Little Helpers. They are not to be trusted to not do so again!'
A Rainbow coalition was possible on the 2010 numbers - as was a minority Tory government. Moreover, Tory numbers were only slightly lower than what they have currently - a C&S deal with the UUP/DUP would have been an option too even if still slightly short of a majority. I don't doubt that participating in Labour -led administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff will have alienated centre-right voters otherwise sympathetic to the LibDems. Their decision to enter a Westminster Tory dominated government damaged their standing with left of centre opinion massively - particularly in relation to Clegg's right wards swerve on macroeconomic policy which led him to accept austerity policies he had condemned during the 2010 campaign. Then there was the Tuition Fees fiasco - the acceptance of a Tory NHS reform not even included in the Tory manifesto - and the wicked attempt to introduce prohibitive fees to bring cases to Employment Tribunals.I suspect the wider electorate remains far more interested in the essence of these issues than Brexit per se, and that they continue to have the potential to cause great damage to the LibDems during an election campaign.
I think that you're being 'arithmetically challenged' in that assertion.
"Although the actual figure for an overall majority is 326, in practice it is 323 because the five Sinn Fein MPs will not take up their seats. Following the election, Labour, with 258 MPs, and the Liberal Democrats, with 57 MPs, have 315 MPs between them. "
The country needed a 'strong and stable' (to coin a phrase) government at that time and this simply would not have provided it. Add in the SNP's 6 seats? (Labour's nemesis in Scotland) - not really on. But the country wanted rid of Labour and Brown at that point, so a rainbow coalition wouldn't even have been politically acceptable even if it had been numerically possible.
The 6 SNP MPs would certainly have supported Labour in preference to a Tory - led government - as would the 3 Plaid Cymru, 3 SDLP, 1 Green and - probably - Lady Hermon. That would have been a potential of 329 MPs - an effective majority of 12.Moreover, had such a government taken office it is far from clear that the DUP/UUP would have actively opposed it.
Even C and S would require new leadership of either party, no way would LDs support Jezza or Bozza.
Not worth speculating on until we know the exact numbers. In 2010 the numbers fell to make only one option viable. Perhaps C and S rather than formal coalition would have been better, but many aspects of the Coalition were a golden period of good government, particularly compared to the omnishambles that followed.
I think voters will want a hint. It seems likely that there will be no overall majority, and quite likely that the only people in a position to form a government are Jezza and Bozza, but only with at least C and S from the LibDems. Possible LibDem positions before the election:
1. In that situation we will offer C and S to Bozza, if we get concessions. 2. In that situation we will offer C and S to Jezza, if we get concessions. 3. We will refuse both and force yet another election. 4. We might do 1 or 2, we'll have to see after the election. 5. We're not telling you, so there.
4 seems logical, but reduces tactical support from people who really dislike Bozza and/or Jezza. 3 sounds wearisome. 1 or 2 will thoroughly alienate half the potential tactical vote while inspiring the other half. 5 will annoy everyone.
I suspect they'll go for 4, as the course of least resistance, with a cover of "Actually we hope for an overall majority ourselves".
That would give Labour a pretty effective line of attack. 'Remember what the LibDems did last time they held the balance of power - they became the Tories Little Helpers. They are not to be trusted to not do so again!'
The line will possibly be - there is no way we would even consider coalition with a party led by either Corbyn or Johnson, and we are not going to enter into any negotiations ahead of the election. Given the utterly unpredictable nature of a potential four way fight, I don’t see that they’ll have to go beyond that. And after all, their Brexit policy is far clearer than that of Labour - and is diametrically opposed to that of the Tories. Unless that changes, Labour don’t have a credible attack.
@Charles what is the definition of ‘manufacturing’? Do our universities not ‘manufacture’ knowledge, scientific advances, etc... Do our banks not ‘manufacture’ fantastic services that others want to buy?
@Charles what is the definition of ‘manufacturing’? Do our universities not ‘manufacture’ knowledge, scientific advances, etc... Do our banks not ‘manufacture’ fantastic services that others want to buy?
Physical goods that need to be physically shipped to places...
That's not a graph of productivity but of productivity change between 2010 and 2018 and which shows all the Western European countries struggling on productivity growth.
Though there certainly is a point where extra hours worked leads to a decline in productivity per hour.
The problem is that point varies between people, occupations and countries.
Yes those figures are baselined for 2010, and do show that UK productivity growth is slower than Eurozone19, France or the G7.
However our productivity starts substantially below other European countries such as France and Italy with better work life balance.
@Charles what is the definition of ‘manufacturing’? Do our universities not ‘manufacture’ knowledge, scientific advances, etc... Do our banks not ‘manufacture’ fantastic services that others want to buy?
Physical goods that need to be physically shipped to places...
Is shipping goods more worthwhile than shipping knowledge and/or services?
This is one reason that Poland is soon going to zoom past Britain: they have an astonishing work ethic and are as ambitious as hell.
I don’t agree. What is the evidence of this? What is more likely is that all the lazy Poles are still in Poland. Those who travel thousands of miles away from home for work are more likely to be motivated.
Total rubbish and offensive to suggest that the British and the Irish are somehow inherently lazy.
There are also those who after being unsuccessful in Poland move to western Europe thinking they'll earn big money and/or live in a more 'sophisticated' society but then discover that the same things which led to them being unsuccessful at home still make them unsuccessful in other countries plus with the added language and cultural difficulties.
Similar to the old acronym FILTH - Failed In London Tried Hongkong.
Even C and S would require new leadership of either party, no way would LDs support Jezza or Bozza.
Not worth speculating on until we know the exact numbers. In 2010 the numbers fell to make only one option viable. Perhaps C and S rather than formal coalition would have been better, but many aspects of the Coalition were a golden period of good government, particularly compared to the omnishambles that followed.
I think voters will want a hint. It seems likely that there will be no overall majority, and quite likely that the only people in a position to form a government are Jezza and Bozza, but only with at least C and S from the LibDems. Possible LibDem positions before the election:
1. In that situation we will offer C and S to Bozza, if we get concessions. 2. In that situation we will offer C and S to Jezza, if we get concessions. 3. We will refuse both and force yet another election. 4. We might do 1 or 2, we'll have to see after the election. 5. We're not telling you, so there.
4 seems logical, but reduces tactical support from people who really dislike Bozza and/or Jezza. 3 sounds wearisome. 1 or 2 will thoroughly alienate half the potential tactical vote while inspiring the other half. 5 will annoy everyone.
I suspect they'll go for 4, as the course of least resistance, with a cover of "Actually we hope for an overall majority ourselves".
That would give Labour a pretty effective line of attack. 'Remember what the LibDems did last time they held the balance of power - they became the Tories Little Helpers. They are not to be trusted to not do so again!'
The line will possibly be - there is no way we would even consider coalition with a party led by either Corbyn or Johnson, and we are not going to enter into any negotiations ahead of the election. Given the utterly unpredictable nature of a potential four way fight, I don’t see that they’ll have to go beyond that. And after all, their Brexit policy is far clearer than that of Labour - and is diametrically opposed to that of the Tories. Unless that changes, Labour don’t have a credible attack.
The only viable coalitions if a Boris v Corbyn general election produces another hung parliament are Labour plus LDs plus SNP/Plaid plus Greens (if Corbyn switches to EUref2 or Single Market and Customs Union BINO) or Tories plus Brexit Party plus maybe the DUP on a hard Brexit platform.
If Hunt is Tory leader Tories plus LDs becomes possible if Hunt backs further extension and rules out No Deal and Tories plus Brexit Party less likely
For all our problems with Crossrail and the delivery of large infrastructure projects, it's good to see that Germany are leading the way in such things:
Berlin Brandenburg is still not open, seven years late. Although the cause of the problems are very different to those of Crossrail.
That is quite the most amazing clusterf*** of a project. It would have been much faster and cheaper to have just bulldozed the whole building and started again with a new one.
It would also have been much cheaper and faster to hire somebody vaguely competent to design it in the first place...
The article has swallowed the politicians’ defence hook line and sinker
It claims they chose smaller firms “to pressure prices”. Word in Berlin is that there were other reasons why the politicians preferred the smaller firms
YouGov are helping covering all the bases so everyone is happy...
It doesn't help in terms of arguments though, especially if you have people arguing 'dishonestly' or maybe from genuine ignorance...
Where are you on this? Surely you can see Labour have a teensy weensy problem. To win power from opposition you have to be 10-20 points clear.
Labour might well be the largest party, and able to get confidence and supply from Lib Dems and SNP, but they are nowhere near an overall majority.
An exact inversion of what happened to them during the coalition years.
If the LibDems are pushing Labour toward killing off Brexit, those Tory remainers wont be unhappy.
They will be unhappy with the economic and tax policies such a Government might pursue as well as the pet hobby horses of the Left.
I'm sure we've discussed it before but Labour's policy of a land tax to replace Council tax is a good starting point for creating the wealth taxes we need to replace the increasing demands that will need to be placed on consumption and income taxes....
You think that's going to be popular?
Wealth taxes are essential going forward and we are one of the few European countries not to have them. Council tax reform or at least a revaluation is required.
A land tax of some form at some level resolves both those issues and the latter reason justifies it without the first being too obvious...
As for popularity Brexit will probably trump everything so there's a lot you could sneak in...
I have made a deliberate decision not to piss money away on Range Rover Evoques and the like. I don’t have Sky or a council house TV.. I have taken the government push to save for the future, for retirement on the basis that it is personally responsible. As such, I’m seen as little more than a source of funds for incompetent, lying politicans to spunk up the wall on their favoured client groups to no material effect. Policy through the lens of punishment rarely ends well.
What has austerity and QE been about if not rewarding those with assets (elderly voters) and punishing those without? Initially it may have been necessary, but for several years we have not turned off the taps because the electorate like having free unearnt increases in their asset values. Taxing the windfall gains is not punishment.
Given that the UK has a £90bn+ trade deficit in goods in the single market are you sure that this free trade policy is working for the British economy ?
We run trade deficits because our economy is not strong enough to support our lifestyle without selling off assets and acquiring debt. Leaving the EU will make our economy weaker, we are unlikely to change our lifestyle tastes significantly downwards so our overall trade deficit will likely increase. Whether that goes to the EU, China, US or elsewhere is not particularly important.
So we're doomed but lets not change the free trade strategy because that might be risky ???
The UK is a consumerholic and ever more free trade is the equivalent of more pubs and off licences being available to an alcoholic.
Perhaps with a bit less free trade the UK will become a more functioning consumerholic and produce more of the stuff we consume ourselves.
Narrowly looking at trade is a mistake in my view because different economies are structured differently.
For example, I assume that Liechtenstein has a significant trade deficit and a high service surplus (nb: this is deliberately an extreme example and not a suggestion that the U.K. is or should be like Liechtenstein). That’s the way their economy is structured
Of course there are strategic risks in hollowing out the manufacturing base completely but that’s a different point to the one you are making.
It’s more important to look at the overall balance of imports and exports including invisible income (showing my age there!)
Certainly but the UK's services surplus is smaller than the UK's goods deficit.
And I'll add within the services balance there's a big tourism deficit where the UK's consumerholic spending on foreign holidays has a big effect.
It might be interesting to compare what the UK's business to business trade balance is compared to the UK's business to consumer trade balance is (I understand that there is overlap between the two).
According to the BBC, The Times has a headline suggesting that 'A Times investigation claims senior civil servants are increasingly concerned about Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's health. The paper says officials warned Mr Corbyn, 70, may be forced to stand down from the job because he was not "physically or mentally" fit for it, and had become "too frail". A party spokesman said Mr Corbyn was in good health and led an active life.'
Hmmm.
I think the civil service is worried about how smart he is
Well, he looks much smarter now he's done his tie up.
Re Working Hours. It really depends on job, if you commute etc etc etc.
I work very long hours, and I generally work 7 days a week. But I do something I really enjoy, I have zero commute, I set my own hours, I am able to take breaks whenever I want both during the day and in general.
Are you a twitch streamer ?
My commute is a 15 min drive then a 15 min walk. I'd like to change this with a Xiaomi M365 electric scooter but my wife says no as it isn't legal. Would be just as quick if not more so, greener and cheaper.
YouGov are helping covering all the bases so everyone is happy...
People who don't like Corbyn can just pay attention to the regular YouGov polls and celebrate Labour being in 4th and doomed, the people who like Corbyn can just pay attention to other polls and celebrate Labour being in 1st and well positioned for the next election.
It doesn't help in terms of arguments though, especially if you have people arguing 'dishonestly' or maybe from genuine ignorance...
Where are you on this? Surely you can see Labour have a teensy weensy problem. To win power from opposition you have to be 10-20 points clear.
Labour might well be the largest party, and able to get confidence and supply from Lib Dems and SNP, but they are nowhere near an overall majority.
On such an arrangement, the Liberal Democrats would be likely to quickly lose the soft Conservative votes they'd just won over in the South.
An exact inversion of what happened to them during the coalition years.
If the LibDems are pushing Labour toward killing off Brexit, those Tory remainers wont be unhappy.
They will be unhappy with the economic and tax policies such a Government might pursue as well as the pet hobby horses of the Left.
I'm sure we've discussed it before but Labour's policy of a land tax to replace Council tax is a good starting point for creating the wealth taxes we need to replace the increasing demands that will need to be placed on consumption and income taxes....
You think that's going to be popular?
Wealth taxes are essential going forward and we are one of the few European countries not to have them. Council tax reform or at least a revaluation is required.
A land tax of some form at some level resolves both those issues and the latter reason justifies it without the first being too obvious...
As for popularity Brexit will probably trump everything so there's a lot you could sneak in...
That's not a graph of productivity but of productivity change between 2010 and 2018 and which shows all the Western European countries struggling on productivity growth.
Though there certainly is a point where extra hours worked leads to a decline in productivity per hour.
The problem is that point varies between people, occupations and countries.
Yes those figures are baselined for 2010, and do show that UK productivity growth is slower than Eurozone19, France or the G7.
However our productivity starts substantially below other European countries such as France and Italy with better work life balance.
Lots of factors involved in productivity from employment costs, house prices, education levels, technical training, immigration types, structure of the economy, interest rates, government spending to how much the individual working now spends reading pointless emails and browsing the internet.
This is one reason that Poland is soon going to zoom past Britain: they have an astonishing work ethic and are as ambitious as hell.
I don’t agree. What is the evidence of this? What is more likely is that all the lazy Poles are still in Poland. Those who travel thousands of miles away from home for work are more likely to be motivated.
Total rubbish and offensive to suggest that the British and the Irish are somehow inherently lazy.
There are also those who after being unsuccessful in Poland move to western Europe thinking they'll earn big money and/or live in a more 'sophisticated' society but then discover that the same things which led to them being unsuccessful at home still make them unsuccessful in other countries plus with the added language and cultural difficulties.
Similar to the old acronym FILTH - Failed In London Tried Hongkong.
Poland has had 3-5% annual GDP growth for the last few years and consecutive annual positive growth for more than the last 2 decades. Arguably the best economic performance of all Europe over that time
Even C and S would require new leadership of either party, no way would LDs support Jezza or Bozza.
Not worth speculating on until we know the exact numbers. In 2010 the numbers fell to make only one option viable. Perhaps C and S rather than formal coalition would have been better, but many aspects of the Coalition were a golden period of good government, particularly compared to the omnishambles that followed.
I think voters will want a hint. It seems likely that there will be no overall majority, and quite likely that the only people in a position to form a government are Jezza and Bozza, but only with at least C and S from the LibDems. Possible LibDem positions before the election:
1. In that situation we will offer C and S to Bozza, if we get concessions. 2. In that situation we will offer C and S to Jezza, if we get concessions. 3. We will refuse both and force yet another election. 4. We might do 1 or 2, we'll have to see after the election. 5. We're not telling you, so there.
4 seems logical, but reduces tactical support from people who really dislike Bozza and/or Jezza. 3 sounds wearisome. 1 or 2 will thoroughly alienate half the potential tactical vote while inspiring the other half. 5 will annoy everyone.
I suspect they'll go for 4, as the course of least resistance, with a cover of "Actually we hope for an overall majority ourselves".
6. We aim to be the largest party and will consider other parties offers to support us as we receive them. If we are not the largest party we are happy to work with like minded politicians that we know exist in both Labour and Tories, that does not include either parties current leaderships.
@Casino_Royale - Are you on the Alton line or the main line to Basingstoke? I'm very fortunate that I can commute from Woking and it makes such a difference when there's disruption because there's usually at least one train to Woking even if it's a semi-fast or stopper.
One of the problems with the franchising model is that when an operator loses a contract, they spend only what they have to on the franchise. Personally I thought this was noticeable with Stagecoach as there seemed to be a lot of fleet issues towards the end (I reckon it's happening on EMT too - see the FT story: "Stagecoach’s unprofitable gravy train proves Corbyn wrong").
And First Group did not get off to a great start. But, I do think a corner is being turned. They're gradually getting the 442s into service and this will allow more services and longer trains. In the five years I've been commuting, 2L88 (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W32289/2019/07/01/advanced) has gone from being a six car 159 diesel to an 8 car 450 electric to a 12 car 450. That really does make a difference for Woking commuters. Of course, all the flats going up means that extra capacity could soon be filled up.
One thing that has got worse is travelling to Clapham Junction in the morning peak. 2T14 (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W32924/2019/07/01/advanced) used to call at Clapham Junction. It no longer does meaning that something like 70 passengers pile off that train at Woking, walk over the bridge to platform 2, to catch 2P16 (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W32616/2019/07/01/advanced) - which is the last fast train to call at CLJ before 09:00. I'm intrigued to see what SWR do when something goes wrong and 2T14 arrives after 2P16 has departed. But that's certainly a big deterioration in service for those passengers who now have to change trains.
The advantage of Woking is that all of the Waterloo trains go there - it’s at Woking they separate into Bstoke and the others
@Charles what is the definition of ‘manufacturing’? Do our universities not ‘manufacture’ knowledge, scientific advances, etc... Do our banks not ‘manufacture’ fantastic services that others want to buy?
Physical goods that need to be physically shipped to places...
Is shipping goods more worthwhile than shipping knowledge and/or services?
No but ever increasing consumption of the former is regarded as a good thing by governments.
Buying more tat boosts GDP while reading PB doesn't.
A Rainbow coalition was possible on the 2010 numbers - as was a minority Tory government. Moreover, Tory numbers were only slightly lower than what they have currently - a C&S deal with the UUP/DUP would have been an option too even if still slightly short of a majority. I don't doubt that participating in Labour -led administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff will have alienated centre-right voters otherwise sympathetic to the LibDems. Their decision to enter a Westminster Tory dominated government damaged their standing with left of centre opinion massively - particularly in relation to Clegg's right wards swerve on macroeconomic policy which led him to accept austerity policies he had condemned during the 2010 campaign. Then there was the Tuition Fees fiasco - the acceptance of a Tory NHS reform not even included in the Tory manifesto - and the wicked attempt to introduce prohibitive fees to bring cases to Employment Tribunals.I suspect the wider electorate remains far more interested in the essence of these issues than Brexit per se, and that they continue to have the potential to cause great damage to the LibDems during an election campaign.
I think that you're being 'arithmetically challenged' in that assertion.
"Although the actual figure for an overall majority is 326, in practice it is 323 because the five Sinn Fein MPs will not take up their seats. Following the election, Labour, with 258 MPs, and the Liberal Democrats, with 57 MPs, have 315 MPs between them. "
The country needed a 'strong and stable' (to coin a phrase) government at that time and this simply would not have provided it. Add in the SNP's 6 seats? (Labour's nemesis in Scotland) - not really on. But the country wanted rid of Labour and Brown at that point, so a rainbow coalition wouldn't even have been politically acceptable even if it had been numerically possible.
The 6 SNP MPs would certainly have supported Labour in preference to a Tory - led government - as would the 3 Plaid Cymru, 3 SDLP, 1 Green and - probably - Lady Hermon. That would have been a potential of 329 MPs - an effective majority of 12.Moreover, had such a government taken office it is far from clear that the DUP/UUP would have actively opposed it.
I omitted the Alliance MP - Naomi Long - who also would have been a likely supporter - so total would likely have been 330 - majority of 14.
This is one reason that Poland is soon going to zoom past Britain: they have an astonishing work ethic and are as ambitious as hell.
I don’t agree. What is the evidence of this? What is more likely is that all the lazy Poles are still in Poland. Those who travel thousands of miles away from home for work are more likely to be motivated.
Total rubbish and offensive to suggest that the British and the Irish are somehow inherently lazy.
There are also those who after being unsuccessful in Poland move to western Europe thinking they'll earn big money and/or live in a more 'sophisticated' society but then discover that the same things which led to them being unsuccessful at home still make them unsuccessful in other countries plus with the added language and cultural difficulties.
Similar to the old acronym FILTH - Failed In London Tried Hongkong.
Poland has had 3-5% annual GDP growth for the last few years and consecutive annual positive growth for more than the last 2 decades. Arguably the best economic performance of all Europe over that time
Doesn't look too lazy to me!
Its easy to speed up when you start from so far back and know the way to go.
A Rainbow coalition was possible on the 2010 numbers - as was a minority Tory government. Moreover, Tory numbers were only slightly lower than what they have currently - a C&S deal with the UUP/DUP would have been an option too even if still slightly short of a majority. I don't doubt that participating in Labour -led administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff will have alienated centre-right voters otherwise sympathetic to orate remains far more interested in the essence of these issues than Brexit per se, and that they continue to have the potential to cause great damage to the LibDems during an election campaign.
I think that you're being 'arithmetically challenged' in that assertion.
"Although the actual figure for an overall majority is 326, in practice it is 323 because the five Sinn Fein MPs will not take up their seats. Following the election, Labour, with 258 MPs, and the Liberal Democrats, with 57 MPs, have 315 MPs between them. "
The country needed a 'strong and stable' (to coin a phrase) government at that time and this simply would not have provided it. Add in the SNP's 6 seats? (Labour's nemesis in Scotland) - not really on. But the country wanted rid of Labour and Brown at that point, so a rainbow coalition wouldn't even have been politically acceptable even if it had been numerically possible.
The 6 SNP MPs would certainly have supported Labour in preference to a Tory - led government - as would the 3 Plaid Cymru, 3 SDLP, 1 Green and - probably - Lady Hermon. That would have been a potential of 329 MPs - an effective majority of 12.Moreover, had such a government taken office it is far from clear that the DUP/UUP would have actively opposed it.
I omitted the Alliance MP - Naomi Long - who also would have been a likely supporter - so total would likely have been 330 - majority of 14.
Had such a rainbow coalition propped up Brown in 2010 and Cameron thus failed to take the Tories back into government, David Davis could have replaced him as Tory leader and Davis then won a Tory majority in 2015 rather than Cameron.
A Rainbow coalition was possible on the 2010 numbers - as was a minority Tory government. Moreover, Tory numbers were only slightly lower than what they have currently - a C&S deal with the UUP/DUP would have been an option too even if still slightly short of a majority. I don't doubt that participating in Labour -led administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff will have alienated centre-right voters otherwise sympathetic to the LibDems. Their decision to enter a Westminster Tory dominated government damaged their standing with left of centre opinion massively - particularly in relation to Clegg's right wards swerve on macroeconomic policy which led him to accept austerity policies he had condemned during the 2010 campaign. Then there was the Tuition Fees fiasco - the acceptance of a Tory NHS reform not even included in the Tory manifesto - and the wicked attempt to introduce prohibitive fees to bring cases to Employment Tribunals.I suspect the wider electorate remains far more interested in the essence of these issues than Brexit per se, and that they continue to have the potential to cause great damage to the LibDems during an election campaign.
I think that you're being 'arithmetically challenged' in that assertion.
"Although the actual figure for an overall majority is 326, in practice it is 323 because the five Sinn Fein MPs will not take up their seats. Following the election, Labour, with 258 MPs, and the Liberal Democrats, with 57 MPs, have 315 MPs between them. "
The country needed a 'strong and stable' (to coin a phrase) government at that time and this simply would not have provided it. Add in the SNP's 6 seats? (Labour's nemesis in Scotland) - not really on. But the country wanted rid of Labour and Brown at that point, so a rainbow coalition wouldn't even have been politically acceptable even if it had been numerically possible.
The 6 SNP MPs would certainly have supported Labour in preference to a Tory - led government - as would the 3 Plaid Cymru, 3 SDLP, 1 Green and - probably - Lady Hermon. That would have been a potential of 329 MPs - an effective majority of 12.Moreover, had such a government taken office it is far from clear that the DUP/UUP would have actively opposed it.
I omitted the Alliance MP - Naomi Long - who also would have been a likely supporter - so total would likely have been 330 - majority of 14.
And as soon as the government had to do anything contentious it would have fallen apart.
YouGov are helping covering all the bases so everyone is happy...
People who don't like Corbyn can just pay attention to the regular YouGov polls and celebrate Labour being in 4th and doomed, the people who like Corbyn can just pay attention to other polls and celebrate Labour being in 1st and well positioned for the next election.
It doesn't help in terms of arguments though, especially if you have people arguing 'dishonestly' or maybe from genuine ignorance...
Where are you on this? Surely you can see Labour have a teensy weensy problem. To win power from opposition you have to be 10-20 points clear.
Labour might well be the largest party, and able to get confidence and supply from Lib Dems and SNP, but they are nowhere near an overall majority.
On such an arrangement, the Liberal Democrats would be likely to quickly lose the soft Conservative votes they'd just won over in the South.
An exact inversion of what happened to them during the coalition years.
If the LibDems are pushing Labour toward killing off Brexit, those Tory remainers wont be unhappy.
They will be unhappy with the economic and tax policies such a Government might pursue as well as the pet hobby horses of the Left.
I'm sure we've discussed it before but Labour's policy of a land tax to replace Council tax is a good starting point for creating the wealth taxes we need to replace the increasing demands that will need to be placed on consumption and income taxes....
You think that's going to be popular?
Wealth taxes are essential going forward and we are one of the few European countries not to have them. Council tax reform or at least a revaluation is required.
A land tax of some form at some level resolves both those issues and the latter reason justifies it without the first being too obvious...
As for popularity Brexit will probably trump everything so there's a lot you could sneak in...
Didn’t Mrs May test that idea out?
Indeed and much of Europe, including Italy and Sweden as well as Canada, Australia and New Zealand have abolished inheritance tax completely
Comments
Airports are intricate and carefully controlled traffic management and sales businesses to well defined rules. Railways are highly complex bottom to top fully integrated systems to entirely inflexible rules - a house of cards where any one thing being out throws the whole thing out. There's a ridiculous amount of regulation over them with no wiggle room or short cuts.
The programme management model must be respected for both and you need strong client leadership, with the politicians out of it, freeze the scope, let the professionals integrate it with the needs of the future operator and fully integrate the supply chain into delivery.
The hardest thing? Accepting theres always a degree of delivery risk. Complex programmes are not 100% predictable in the way traditional building or construction projects are.
I work very long hours, and I generally work 7 days a week. But I do something I really enjoy, I have zero commute, I set my own hours, I am able to take breaks whenever I want both during the day and in general.
The point was that incumbents chose an important state for their launches as you get a lot more local news coverage
It’s hard, but sustainable
Council tax reform or at least a revaluation is required.
A land tax of some form at some level resolves both those issues and the latter reason justifies it without the first being too obvious...
As for popularity Brexit will probably trump everything so there's a lot you could sneak in...
If they are forced to reverse it then why should they ever trust the government in future? Of course, as the psalmist said, “put not your trust in princes” but that’s not a healthy way for an organisation like the Beeb to operate
The Lib Dems won't be supporting a Tory party after the next election unless we've left - in which case I doubt the Tory party will be in a position to choice what happens...
Home inspectors ? Car mileage monitors ? Checking under floorboards for jewels and bullion ? It’s a nonsense.
Berlin Brandenburg: The airport with half a million faults
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-48527308
People are argue and work around it however they want but if anything we need to tax income less and find a way of recovering that money from elsewhere...
One of the problems with the franchising model is that when an operator loses a contract, they spend only what they have to on the franchise. Personally I thought this was noticeable with Stagecoach as there seemed to be a lot of fleet issues towards the end (I reckon it's happening on EMT too - see the FT story: "Stagecoach’s unprofitable gravy train proves Corbyn wrong").
And First Group did not get off to a great start. But, I do think a corner is being turned. They're gradually getting the 442s into service and this will allow more services and longer trains. In the five years I've been commuting, 2L88 (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W32289/2019/07/01/advanced) has gone from being a six car 159 diesel to an 8 car 450 electric to a 12 car 450. That really does make a difference for Woking commuters. Of course, all the flats going up means that extra capacity could soon be filled up.
One thing that has got worse is travelling to Clapham Junction in the morning peak. 2T14 (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W32924/2019/07/01/advanced) used to call at Clapham Junction. It no longer does meaning that something like 70 passengers pile off that train at Woking, walk over the bridge to platform 2, to catch 2P16 (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W32616/2019/07/01/advanced) - which is the last fast train to call at CLJ before 09:00. I'm intrigued to see what SWR do when something goes wrong and 2T14 arrives after 2P16 has departed. But that's certainly a big deterioration in service for those passengers who now have to change trains.
F1: third practice nearly finished. Suspect I won't be offering a tip, but we'll see. Ferrari might be closer than I anticipated.
Shifting from taxing income to taxing assets will only happen when there are more people who benefit from doing so than lose out from doing so.
And critically are willing to vote for that to happen.
The election result in 2010 effectively meant a Con/LibDem coalition administration. No other was viable for an effective period of government.
The LibDems did the nation a service even if in 2015 they received little precious little recognition. It was their greatest contribution to national politics since the war time coalition of WWII including as it did the Beveridge Report.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/06/only-brexit-position-can-win-labour-election-remove-jeremy-corbyn
https://tinyurl.com/yy2lk2bw
Train operators may have started “rebuilding passenger trust” in the railway, according to the transport watchdog, whose latest national survey showed satisfaction levels starting to improve.
Overall satisfaction across Britain rose to 83% in the biannual survey, polled after 28,000 journeys between February and April – up four percentage points from last autumn and two points higher than spring 2018.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2019/Pres/Maps/Jun28.html#item-1
When it’s my turn to do PMQs I was considering not wearing a tie. I have mind to do PMQs in a tunic minidress, cowl sleeves, with plunging neckline to show off my Nigel Mansell tattoo
I posted the increased passenger numbers and mileage figures earlier in the week - it's generally good news.
It's really unsurprising that passenger satisfaction has gone up: it had taken a real dent because of the timetabling woes and the strikes - the former are generally no longer an issue, and I believe there's fewer strikes this year.
They won't rule out a C&S DUP style with Labour as "it will keep a check on Labour".
I don't doubt that participating in Labour -led administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff will have alienated centre-right voters otherwise sympathetic to the LibDems. Their decision to enter a Westminster Tory dominated government damaged their standing with left of centre opinion massively - particularly in relation to Clegg's right wards swerve on macroeconomic policy which led him to accept austerity policies he had condemned during the 2010 campaign. Then there was the Tuition Fees fiasco - the acceptance of a Tory NHS reform not even included in the Tory manifesto - and the wicked attempt to introduce prohibitive fees to bring cases to Employment Tribunals.I suspect the wider electorate remains far more interested in the essence of these issues than Brexit per se, and that they continue to have the potential to cause great damage to the LibDems during an election campaign.
Of course it has always give on from time to tine, but the quantum is extraordinary.
Ministers need to be able to rely on the fact that they will get quality, impartial and confidential advice. If they fear that briefing materials or working analysis will be leaked they won’t properly explore controversial options
I suspect the odds will be a bit too short.
Given wind and overtaking opportunities (hopefully) it may be the grid and final result vary quite a bit.
Javid as CoE is a given? His beaten opponent stays out the way at FO too, same with Gove at DoE. But other members of his cabinet include Patel? Davis? Mogg? His Brexit secretary is Rabb? Crosby and Bannon key advisors?
That’s the comparison with the coalition government.
Betting PostF1: Backed Vettel at 7.5 (8 with boost) each way to be fastest qualifier. I doubt he'll get the top slot but he could get on the front row and the interfering wind and potential for problems there could help him out.
Pre-qualifying ramble will be up in a little while.
"Throughout the debates, I kept wondering if any of the leading candidates would speak to Americans beyond the Democratic base"
"But the Democratic Party we saw this week did even less to appeal beyond its base than the president."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/opinion/democrats-debate-2020.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
The idea you can whack a whopping great tax on people and they won't evade or avoid it just because is absurd.
They're proposing levelling a 3% tax on billionaires and then postulating that there's nothing billionaires can do about it. What could Jeff Bezos do?
Oh I don't know, how about emigrate? I'm sure Canada, or the UK or any number of other countries would happily take Bezos and his billions.
- keeping wage growth low through unlimited immigration from the E.U. meant labour was relatively cheap
- Because in Europe it’s harder to fire someone companies were more wary about hiring
Consequence was
- relatively higher levels of capital investment in Europe which tends to increase productivity
- Low productivity workers are unemployed in the EU vs employed in the UK (and diluting our overall productivity levels)
I’d rather have more people working than abandoned to the scrap heap
This is one reason that Poland is soon going to zoom past Britain: they have an astonishing work ethic and are as ambitious as hell.
Don’t forget that in 2017 people had largely written Corbyn off. Then he went out on the stump and people decide he was new, fresh and offering something different which seemed attractive
I don’t think you will get that type of bounce second time as it is priced in to some extent
"Although the actual figure for an overall majority is 326, in practice it is 323 because the five Sinn Fein MPs will not take up their seats.
Following the election, Labour, with 258 MPs, and the Liberal Democrats, with 57 MPs, have 315 MPs between them. "
The country needed a 'strong and stable' (to coin a phrase) government at that time and this simply would not have provided it.
Add in the SNP's 6 seats? (Labour's nemesis in Scotland) - not really on. But the country wanted rid of Labour and Brown at that point, so a rainbow coalition wouldn't even have been politically acceptable even if it had been numerically possible.
For example, I assume that Liechtenstein has a significant trade deficit and a high service surplus (nb: this is deliberately an extreme example and not a suggestion that the U.K. is or should be like Liechtenstein). That’s the way their economy is structured
Of course there are strategic risks in hollowing out the manufacturing base completely but that’s a different point to the one you are making.
It’s more important to look at the overall balance of imports and exports including invisible income (showing my age there!)
Almost certainly not how Team Corbyn and Labour supporters regard it though. From the starting gun on they will come across as “it’s our turn now and we are up for it”
And from personal experience Polish people neither have an astonishing work ethic nor are ambitious as hell.
Those from the Baltic states though are much more impressive.
Small sample experience though so nothing scientific.
But my theory is that language ability is vital among immigrants - so middle class immigrants will prosper even when doing working class jobs as they still have the language ability to get on, impress and work themselves up the value chain.
Whereas working class immigrants struggle to adapt, become ghettoised and get exploited by ruthless people within their own communities.
Total rubbish and offensive to suggest that the British and the Irish are somehow inherently lazy.
Given the utterly unpredictable nature of a potential four way fight, I don’t see that they’ll have to go beyond that.
And after all, their Brexit policy is far clearer than that of Labour - and is diametrically opposed to that of the Tories. Unless that changes, Labour don’t have a credible attack.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/06/austria-pre-qualifying-2019.html
Couple of grid penalties too. Sainz's is rough as he and the car have looked good so far, and Hulkenberg drops five places due to an engine change.
On an average salary it is much less sustainable and 9 to 5 or close to it fairer
However our productivity starts substantially below other European countries such as France and Italy with better work life balance.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/productivitymeasures/bulletins/internationalcomparisonsofproductivityfinalestimates/2016
Similar to the old acronym FILTH - Failed In London Tried Hongkong.
If Hunt is Tory leader Tories plus LDs becomes possible if Hunt backs further extension and rules out No Deal and Tories plus Brexit Party less likely
It claims they chose smaller firms “to pressure prices”. Word in Berlin is that there were other reasons why the politicians preferred the smaller firms
And I'll add within the services balance there's a big tourism deficit where the UK's consumerholic spending on foreign holidays has a big effect.
It might be interesting to compare what the UK's business to business trade balance is compared to the UK's business to consumer trade balance is (I understand that there is overlap between the two).
I haven't mentioned electric skateboards yet.
Doesn't look too lazy to me!
Buying more tat boosts GDP while reading PB doesn't.
At some point the returns start to diminish.
It was Clegg who ensured a Cameron Government
There would have been another GE within a year.