As well as Hunt's pledge today to provide funds to support farmers, fishermen and small businesses in the event of No Deal, the Boris camp today has promised public sector workers a pay rise if Boris becomes PM
Fuck Business and the Magic Money Tree. How is this better than anything being promised by Corbyn and McDonnell?
Isn't there someting groteque about these two Tory politicians making grand spending pledges to the electorate in order to persuade 150,000 party members to vote for them? It feels like there's something rotten in the state of British politics....
It is grotesque.
I have been at the seaside for the weekend and come back to find that both candidates are proposing to spend and borrow like there’s no tomorrow, thus throwing away any claim to being the party of prudent stewardship of the economy and making Corbyn’s case better than he can, and one is saying with a straight face that businesses and families bankrupted or severely harmed by a no Deal Brexit should just suck it up and be prepared to sacrifice themselves and their families.
On reflection, grotesque is too polite a word.
Have I missed anything else important?
I don't know if it makes it better or worse that at least half of those promises will be lies.
And if you take an interest in such things, there was a significant shift in the odds for the Democratic nomination, after the first two debates.
No point in trying to swim and then tying yourself to an anchor.
Can a journalist ask them if they'll give confidence and supply to Labour though ?
Good question.
I've just received my voting link by email. I was going to immediately vote Swinson but, having watched the first 15 minutes of this debate, I think I might change my mind.
If the current political climate did not favour any credible woman candidate [ understandably ] , Davey would be a formidable candidate. Saying, he is my candidate and I don't like him. Wrote to him twice and was just ignored.
I don't like him either. But I'm beginning to think he might be a more effective LD leader than Swinson. He's quicker on his feet. He has gravitas. He doesn't have the hangups that Swinson does.
As well as Hunt's pledge today to provide funds to support farmers, fishermen and small businesses in the event of No Deal, the Boris camp today has promised public sector workers a pay rise if Boris becomes PM
Fuck Business and the Magic Money Tree. How is this better than anything being promised by Corbyn and McDonnell?
Isn't there someting groteque about these two Tory politicians making grand spending pledges to the electorate in order to persuade 150,000 party members to vote for them? It feels like there's something rotten in the state of British politics....
It is grotesque.
I have been at the seaside for the weekend and come back to find that both candidates are proposing to spend and borrow like there’s no tomorrow, thus throwing away any claim to being the party of prudent stewardship of the economy and making Corbyn’s case better than he can, and one is saying with a straight face that businesses and families bankrupted or severely harmed by a no Deal Brexit should just suck it up and be prepared to sacrifice themselves and their families.
On reflection, grotesque is too polite a word.
Have I missed anything else important?
Agela Merkel quite clearly has some illness and the Germans are trying to cover it up.
Early Parkinsons ?
Sad, if so. But isn’t she retiring?
currently shes trying to hang in until the next election
she has done a 180 degree turn on her nominated successor AKK and now appears to be withdrawing support from her
shes in a fight with Macron on EU commissioners
and she has led her party to the number two slot behind the greens according to the latest polls
really she should have gone out on a high and not stood this time around
Funny how the "principle" that the head of the EU Commission will be decided by the Euro Parliament election results didn't last very long.
As well as Hunt's pledge today to provide funds to support farmers, fishermen and small businesses in the event of No Deal, the Boris camp today has promised public sector workers a pay rise if Boris becomes PM
Fuck Business and the Magic Money Tree. How is this better than anything being promised by Corbyn and McDonnell?
Isn't there someting groteque about these two Tory politicians making grand spending pledges to the electorate in order to persuade 150,000 party members to vote for them? It feels like there's something rotten in the state of British politics....
It is grotesque.
I have been at the seaside for the weekend and come back to find that both candidates are proposing to spend and borrow like there’s no tomorrow, thus throwing away any claim to being the party of prudent stewardship of the economy and making Corbyn’s case better than he can, and one is saying with a straight face that businesses and families bankrupted or severely harmed by a no Deal Brexit should just suck it up and be prepared to sacrifice themselves and their families.
On reflection, grotesque is too polite a word.
Have I missed anything else important?
Brexit killed prudence
Yet the deficit is down now to a fraction of what it was under the "Iron Chancellor" of Labour for each of the five years before the recession hit. Explain that please.
And the Tories are now proposing to increase it again.
Just a quick check-in with the PB hive mind. If I put in the same numbers on the Flavible UK results predictor versus Martin Baxter's Electoral Calculus I'm getting radically different results. While I get that Baxter probably has a higher inertia factor based on previous results, I cant see what the difference is to cause the bias in either direction. Any ideas?
Doesn't flavible claim to do a bit more than Baxter's plain UNS?
Thanks. The upshot is that flavible is trying to use other data to make a more sophisticated (not necessarily better) estimate of how politics is changing (esp the emergence of new parties) whereas Baxter just works from 2017 GE straight.
Thanks to all... Sounds like Flavible might be doing more than Baxter, so I should probably at least split the difference when thinking about what the seat numbers might be in any given scenario.
Flavible are clearly thinking along the right lines; UNS is already bust, and when a new party shoots from nowhere to 20%, modelling this as a straight swing is obviously wrong. The risk is that their assumptions introduce new error. For example their blurb says they assume BXP contains a lot of ex Tories, yet if they simply correlate the BXP vote growth with the 2017 Tory vote, they aren't distinguishing between Cotswold Tories and Canvey Tories. So they could further adjust for the 2016 referendum vote and/or the 2019 Euro vote. But each new assumption takes the result further toward what Mr Flavible thinks it should be and further away from straightforward maths.
As well as Hunt's pledge today to provide funds to support farmers, fishermen and small businesses in the event of No Deal, the Boris camp today has promised public sector workers a pay rise if Boris becomes PM
Fuck Business and the Magic Money Tree. How is this better than anything being promised by Corbyn and McDonnell?
Isn't there someting groteque about these two Tory politicians making grand spending pledges to the electorate in order to persuade 150,000 party members to vote for them? It feels like there's something rotten in the state of British politics....
It is grotesque.
I have been at the seaside for the weekend and come back to find that both candidates are proposing to spend and borrow like there’s no tomorrow, thus throwing away any claim to being the party of prudent stewardship of the economy and making Corbyn’s case better than he can, and one is saying with a straight face that businesses and families bankrupted or severely harmed by a no Deal Brexit should just suck it up and be prepared to sacrifice themselves and their families.
On reflection, grotesque is too polite a word.
Have I missed anything else important?
Brexit killed prudence
Yet the deficit is down now to a fraction of what it was under the "Iron Chancellor" of Labour for each of the five years before the recession hit. Explain that please.
And the Tories are now proposing to increase it again.
Yeah, well, I think it is shameful that you - someone born into wealth, who has known only privilege throughout his life - would inflict a No Deal Brexit not only on the poorest and most vulnerable, but also on millions of ordinary working people across the UK. I think it is shameful that you would also happily countenance the break-up of our country to achieve what you desire.
More pertinently, I think it is utterly shameful that you choose to overlook the countless documented cases of Tory Islamophobia - and how they have gone untackled and unpunished - using precisely the same kind of language used by Labour supporters excusing anti-Semitism, and choose instead to attack someone who has walked away from his party precisely because he is opposed to its racism.
I guess we just see the world differently, Chas.
On Brexit, I would prefer a Deal - EFTA would be fine or even a bespoke associate membership. But from where we stand we don’t have many choices. The damage to our democracy from revoking would be immense. You will be telling all those people who came out to vote because they believed that - just once - they could have a say that their voices and votes are irrelevant
I guess I value liberty and democracy more highly than economics.
Warsi is not a credible source in my view (I’ve not seen Javid’s remarks). There will always be unpleasant individuals in any large group but the key is the leadership and structures. I don’t think those are as rotten in the Tories as they are in Labour
But let’s leave it there. It’s too nice a day to fling insults at each other
It's easy to say economics don't matter when you are rich enough to ride out the downsides of economic disaster.
Yeah, well, I think it is shameful that you - someone born into wealth, who has known only privilege throughout his life - would inflict a No Deal Brexit not only on the poorest and most vulnerable, but also on millions of ordinary working people across the UK. I think it is shameful that you would also happily countenance the break-up of our country to achieve what you desire.
More pertinently, I think it is utterly shameful that you choose to overlook the countless documented cases of Tory Islamophobia - and how they have gone untackled and unpunished - using precisely the same kind of language used by Labour supporters excusing anti-Semitism, and choose instead to attack someone who has walked away from his party precisely because he is opposed to its racism.
I guess we just see the world differently, Chas.
On Brexit, I would prefer a Deal - EFTA would be fine or even a bespoke associate membership. But from where we stand we don’t have many choices. The damage to our democracy from revoking would be immense. You will be telling all those people who came out to vote because they believed that - just once - they could have a say that their voices and votes are irrelevant
I guess I value liberty and democracy more highly than economics.
Warsi is not a credible source in my view (I’ve not seen Javid’s remarks). There will always be unpleasant individuals in any large group but the key is the leadership and structures. I don’t think those are as rotten in the Tories as they are in Labour
But let’s leave it there. It’s too nice a day to fling insults at each other
It's easy to say economics don't matter when you are rich enough to ride out the downsides of economic disaster.
Or poor enough you don't see it making a difference.
As well as Hunt's pledge today to provide funds to support farmers, fishermen and small businesses in the event of No Deal, the Boris camp today has promised public sector workers a pay rise if Boris becomes PM
Fuck Business and the Magic Money Tree. How is this better than anything being promised by Corbyn and McDonnell?
Isn't there someting groteque about these two Tory politicians making grand spending pledges to the electorate in order to persuade 150,000 party members to vote for them? It feels like there's something rotten in the state of British politics....
It is grotesque.
I have been at the seaside for the weekend and come back to find that both candidates are proposing to spend and borrow like there’s no tomorrow, thus throwing away any claim to being the party of prudent stewardship of the economy and making Corbyn’s case better than he can, and one is saying with a straight face that businesses and families bankrupted or severely harmed by a no Deal Brexit should just suck it up and be prepared to sacrifice themselves and their families.
On reflection, grotesque is too polite a word.
Have I missed anything else important?
Brexit killed prudence
Yet the deficit is down now to a fraction of what it was under the "Iron Chancellor" of Labour for each of the five years before the recession hit. Explain that please.
The deficit is also lower than under previous Conservative governments. Perhaps spending is too low. Perhaps taxation is too high.
As well as Hunt's pledge today to provide funds to support farmers, fishermen and small businesses in the event of No Deal, the Boris camp today has promised public sector workers a pay rise if Boris becomes PM
Fuck Business and the Magic Money Tree. How is this better than anything being promised by Corbyn and McDonnell?
Isn't there someting groteque about these two Tory politicians making grand spending pledges to the electorate in order to persuade 150,000 party members to vote for them? It feels like there's something rotten in the state of British politics....
It is grotesque.
I have been at the seaside for the weekend and come back to find that both candidates are proposing to spend and borrow like there’s no tomorrow, thus throwing away any claim to being the party of prudent stewardship of the economy and making Corbyn’s case better than he can, and one is saying with a straight face that businesses and families bankrupted or severely harmed by a no Deal Brexit should just suck it up and be prepared to sacrifice themselves and their families.
On reflection, grotesque is too polite a word.
Have I missed anything else important?
Brexit killed prudence
Yet the deficit is down now to a fraction of what it was under the "Iron Chancellor" of Labour for each of the five years before the recession hit. Explain that please.
And the Tories are now proposing to increase it again.
No, they are not.
So you accept all these spending commitments and proposed tax cuts are lies ?
As well as Hunt's pledge today to provide funds to support farmers, fishermen and small businesses in the event of No Deal, the Boris camp today has promised public sector workers a pay rise if Boris becomes PM
Fuck Business and the Magic Money Tree. How is this better than anything being promised by Corbyn and McDonnell?
Isn't there someting groteque about these two Tory politicians making grand spending pledges to the electorate in order to persuade 150,000 party members to vote for them? It feels like there's something rotten in the state of British politics....
It is grotesque.
I have been at the seaside for the weekend and come back to find that both candidates are proposing to spend and borrow like there’s no tomorrow, thus throwing away any claim to being the party of prudent stewardship of the economy and making Corbyn’s case better than he can, and one is saying with a straight face that businesses and families bankrupted or severely harmed by a no Deal Brexit should just suck it up and be prepared to sacrifice themselves and their families.
On reflection, grotesque is too polite a word.
Have I missed anything else important?
Brexit killed prudence
Yet the deficit is down now to a fraction of what it was under the "Iron Chancellor" of Labour for each of the five years before the recession hit. Explain that please.
And the Tories are now proposing to increase it again.
No, they are not.
They kinda are though. Unless there's some detailed costing of their proposals that I've missed, so far it's just assertions that lower taxes, higher wages and infrastructure spending will eventually stimulate the economy enough to cover the increase in shortfall.
As well as Hunt's pledge today to provide funds to support farmers, fishermen and small businesses in the event of No Deal, the Boris camp today has promised public sector workers a pay rise if Boris becomes PM
Fuck Business and the Magic Money Tree. How is this better than anything being promised by Corbyn and McDonnell?
Isn't there someting groteque about these two Tory politicians making grand spending pledges to the electorate in order to persuade 150,000 party members to vote for them? It feels like there's something rotten in the state of British politics....
It is grotesque.
I have been at the seaside for the weekend and come back to find that both candidates are proposing to spend and borrow like there’s no tomorrow, thus throwing away any claim to being the party of prudent stewardship of the economy and making Corbyn’s case better than he can, and one is saying with a straight face that businesses and families bankrupted or severely harmed by a no Deal Brexit should just suck it up and be prepared to sacrifice themselves and their families.
On reflection, grotesque is too polite a word.
Have I missed anything else important?
Brexit killed prudence
Yet the deficit is down now to a fraction of what it was under the "Iron Chancellor" of Labour for each of the five years before the recession hit. Explain that please.
The deficit is also lower than under previous Conservative governments. Perhaps spending is too low. Perhaps taxation is too high.
As a share of GDP. Not as a share of income. The former measure is useful for economists and think tanks, especially when trying to compare across countries, but it's useless in terms of how well off most people feel.
As well as Hunt's pledge today to provide funds to support farmers, fishermen and small businesses in the event of No Deal, the Boris camp today has promised public sector workers a pay rise if Boris becomes PM
Fuck Business and the Magic Money Tree. How is this better than anything being promised by Corbyn and McDonnell?
Isn't there someting groteque about these two Tory politicians making grand spending pledges to the electorate in order to persuade 150,000 party members to vote for them? It feels like there's something rotten in the state of British politics....
It is grotesque.
I have been at the seaside for the weekend and come back to find that both candidates are proposing to spend and borrow like there’s no tomorrow, thus throwing away any claim to being the party of prudent stewardship of the economy and making Corbyn’s case better than he can, and one is saying with a straight face that businesses and families bankrupted or severely harmed by a no Deal Brexit should just suck it up and be prepared to sacrifice themselves and their families.
On reflection, grotesque is too polite a word.
Have I missed anything else important?
Brexit killed prudence
Yet the deficit is down now to a fraction of what it was under the "Iron Chancellor" of Labour for each of the five years before the recession hit. Explain that please.
And the Tories are now proposing to increase it again.
No, they are not.
They kinda are though. Unless there's some detailed costing of their proposals that I've missed, so far it's just assertions that lower taxes, higher wages and infrastructure spending will eventually stimulate the economy enough to cover the increase in shortfall.
No its what David Cameron used to call 'sharing the proceeds of growth'. Tax take is too high and spending needs to rise in certain areas, but because the deficit is under control [relatively] most of the proceeds of growth can go into funding both tax cuts and spending rises while still reducing the deficit.
Plus of course there could be spending cuts in other areas. We still have a very bloated state.
As well as Hunt's pledge today to provide funds to support farmers, fishermen and small businesses in the event of No Deal, the Boris camp today has promised public sector workers a pay rise if Boris becomes PM
Fuck Business and the Magic Money Tree. How is this better than anything being promised by Corbyn and McDonnell?
Isn't there someting groteque about these two Tory politicians making grand spending pledges to the electorate in order to persuade 150,000 party members to vote for them? It feels like there's something rotten in the state of British politics....
It is grotesque.
I have been at the seaside for the weekend and come back to find that both candidates are proposing to spend and borrow like there’s no tomorrow, thus throwing away any claim to being the party of prudent stewardship of the economy and making Corbyn’s case better than he can, and one is saying with a straight face that businesses and families bankrupted or severely harmed by a no Deal Brexit should just suck it up and be prepared to sacrifice themselves and their families.
On reflection, grotesque is too polite a word.
Have I missed anything else important?
Brexit killed prudence
Yet the deficit is down now to a fraction of what it was under the "Iron Chancellor" of Labour for each of the five years before the recession hit. Explain that please.
A consequence of decisions almost all taken before Brexit was voted for. The government started moving toward a looser approach soon after the referendum, announced last year that austerity was over, and now absolutely everyone vying for power has their own personal MMT
As well as Hunt's pledge today to provide funds to support farmers, fishermen and small businesses in the event of No Deal, the Boris camp today has promised public sector workers a pay rise if Boris becomes PM
Fuck Business and the Magic Money Tree. How is this better than anything being promised by Corbyn and McDonnell?
Isn't there someting groteque about these two Tory politicians making grand spending pledges to the electorate in order to persuade 150,000 party members to vote for them? It feels like there's something rotten in the state of British politics....
It is grotesque.
I have been at the seaside for the weekend and come back to find that both candidates are proposing to spend and borrow like there’s no tomorrow, thus throwing away any claim to being the party of prudent stewardship of the economy and making Corbyn’s case better than he can, and one is saying with a straight face that businesses and families bankrupted or severely harmed by a no Deal Brexit should just suck it up and be prepared to sacrifice themselves and their families.
On reflection, grotesque is too polite a word.
Have I missed anything else important?
Brexit killed prudence
Yet the deficit is down now to a fraction of what it was under the "Iron Chancellor" of Labour for each of the five years before the recession hit. Explain that please.
The deficit is also lower than under previous Conservative governments. Perhaps spending is too low. Perhaps taxation is too high.
I agree that taxation is too high. However it is a good thing to have a very low deficit due to the splurge Brown made we will for decades be dealing with his legacy in debt even if not in deficit.
Since then, after three years in which the parties, No10 and the senior civil service have imploded (after doing the opposite of what Vote Leave said should happen on every aspect of the negotiations) one thing has held steady — Insiders refuse to ask basic questions about the reasons for this implosion, such as: ‘why Heywood didn’t even put together a sane regular weekly meeting schedule and ministers didn’t even notice all the tricks with agendas/minutes etc’, how are decisions really made in No10, why are so many of the people below some cognitive threshold for understanding basic concepts (cf. the current GATT A24 madness), what does it say about Westminster that both the Adonis-Remainers and the Cash-ERGers have become more detached from reality while a large section of the best-educated have effectively run information operations against their own brains to convince themselves of fairy stories about Facebook, Russia and Brexit…
It’s a mix of amusing and depressing — but not surprising to me — to hear Heywood explain HERE how the British state decided it couldn’t match the resources of a single multinational company or a single university in funding people to think about what the future might hold, which is linked to his failure to make serious contingency plans for losing the referendum. And of course Heywood claimed after the referendum that we didn’t need to worry about the civil service because on project management it has ‘nothing to learn’ from the best private companies. The elevation of Heywood in the pantheon of SW1 is the elevation of the courtier-fixer at the expense of the thinker and the manager — the universal praise for him recently is a beautifully eloquent signal that those in charge are the blind leading the blind and SW1 has forgotten skills of high value, the skills of public servants such as Alanbrooke or Michael Quinlan.
The other reason why Boris does so well is he provides hope and positivity to frightened, worried people. If you are worried about Brexit and anxious about the consequences of No Deal, there's no need.
Boris will make it right - Boris will sort it out, just put your faith in him and you'll be fine. Essentially, that's the message.
Back in 2008 as the storm clouds of recession gathered over London, along comes happy Boris and suddenly everything seems fine again. For a city used to being positive and happy, Boris was the perfect candidate in 2008 - those peddling hope (even false hope) will always get a good hearing in times of anxiety.
This is why Boris will be Prime Minister - not because he's the best man for the job but he makes people happy or feel better no matter if that optimism is built on sand.
He scares me. His witless bluster could result in some very real harm to people in this country.
At a time of insecurity I want someone I can trust, someone in whom I can have confidence, someone who I can trust to have a well-thought put plan to steer us through.
Many European 'politicians' over the years have said 'just trust me (or similar) etc'. It has rarely worked out well.
No point in trying to swim and then tying yourself to an anchor.
Can a journalist ask them if they'll give confidence and supply to Labour though ?
Good question.
I've just received my voting link by email. I was going to immediately vote Swinson but, having watched the first 15 minutes of this debate, I think I might change my mind.
If the current political climate did not favour any credible woman candidate [ understandably ] , Davey would be a formidable candidate. Saying, he is my candidate and I don't like him. Wrote to him twice and was just ignored.
Marked for greatness from an early age. If LibDem leader counts as greatness.
At about 8 or 9 he was already playing El-ahrairah in the class production of Watership Down :-) .
(The age may be out by 1 or 2 years, but it is true).
Slightly concerned that he looks increasingly like Bob Crow.
Plus the operation in turning Kingston & Surbiton Lib Dem was distinctly impressive.
It's not because my politics are left inclined. It's because of the genuine and objective lack of equivalence between the Nazi and Communist ideologies.
Communism was founded on egalitarian ideals which (at least arguably) have a valid place in politics today. Its practical manifestation in the USSR (and indeed elsewhere) was a perversion of that. It ended up (some would say inevitably) as a brutal, oppressive, murderous, totalitarian state.
That's bad. It's bad bad bad. But the egalitarian principles remain as something which it is no great scandal for a person of the left to retain a degree of faith in.
Hitler and the Nazis, OTOH, this was also a brutal, oppressive, murderous, totalitarian state. So to this extent, not OTOH. Similar.
But here's the difference, and it's a crucial one. The founding principle of Nazism is the innate superiority of the Ayran race and its sacred right and destiny to hold dominion over all other peoples, in Germany and throughout the globe, this to be achieved by force.
Now that ideal does NOT have a place in modern politics. Not even arguably.
It is not, therefore, a politically opposite 'equivalent' of Communism. It is not the equivalent of anything. It is beyond the pale.
Hunt doing a good job of explaining what a mess we will be in with a no deal brexit. But then he’s a remainder what else would you expect.
But then you are obviously a leaver - what else would you expect.
Having just voted for Ed I’m in no way a leaver it was a poor attempt at sarcasm but he is actually voicing the concerns that are real and point to why we shouldn’t be doing it.
Yeah, well, I think it is shameful that you - someone born into wealth, who has known only privilege throughout his life - would inflict a No Deal Brexit not only on the poorest and most vulnerable, but also on millions of ordinary working people across the UK. I think it is shameful that you would also happily countenance the break-up of our country to achieve what you desire.
More pertinently, I think it is utterly shameful that you choose to overlook the countless documented cases of Tory Islamophobia - and how they have gone untackled and unpunished - using precisely the same kind of language used by Labour supporters excusing anti-Semitism, and choose instead to attack someone who has walked away from his party precisely because he is opposed to its racism.
I guess we just see the world differently, Chas.
On Brexit, I would prefer a Deal - EFTA would be fine or even a bespoke associate membership. But from where we stand we don’t have many choices. The damage to our democracy from revoking would be immense. You will be telling all those people who came out to vote because they believed that - just once - they could have a say that their voices and votes are irrelevant
I guess I value liberty and democracy more highly than economics.
Warsi is not a credible source in my view (I’ve not seen Javid’s remarks). There will always be unpleasant individuals in any large group but the key is the leadership and structures. I don’t think those are as rotten in the Tories as they are in Labour
But let’s leave it there. It’s too nice a day to fling insults at each other
Those people did not vote for No Deal. No-one ever has. When given the opportunity to do so, the electorate has consistently chosen not to. I am not defending Labour. Labour is a cesspit of institutional racism. The difference between us is that I believe the Conservative party is too. I will vote for neither.
They voted to leave. There was no detailed question on the ballot paper
This is not very controversial for Lib Dems. The important question is how important is it for Ed Davey? Will he push hard for it to be in a coalition agreement, or are there more important issues which come higher up the To-Do list?
As well as Hunt's pledge today to provide funds to support farmers, fishermen and small businesses in the event of No Deal, the Boris camp today has promised public sector workers a pay rise if Boris becomes PM
Fuck Business and the Magic Money Tree. How is this better than anything being promised by Corbyn and McDonnell?
Isn't there someting groteque about these two Tory politicians making grand spending pledges to the electorate in order to persuade 150,000 party members to vote for them? It feels like there's something rotten in the state of British politics....
It is grotesque.
I have been at the seaside for the weekend and come back to find that both candidates are proposing to spend and borrow like there’s no tomorrow, thus throwing away any claim to being the party of prudent stewardship of the economy and making Corbyn’s case better than he can, and one is saying with a straight face that businesses and families bankrupted or severely harmed by a no Deal Brexit should just suck it up and be prepared to sacrifice themselves and their families.
On reflection, grotesque is too polite a word.
Have I missed anything else important?
Brexit killed prudence
Yet the deficit is down now to a fraction of what it was under the "Iron Chancellor" of Labour for each of the five years before the recession hit. Explain that please.
And the Tories are now proposing to increase it again.
As well as Hunt's pledge today to provide funds to support farmers, fishermen and small businesses in the event of No Deal, the Boris camp today has promised public sector workers a pay rise if Boris becomes PM
Fuck Business and the Magic Money Tree. How is this better than anything being promised by Corbyn and McDonnell?
Isn't there someting groteque about these two Tory politicians making grand spending pledges to the electorate in order to persuade 150,000 party members to vote for them? It feels like there's something rotten in the state of British politics....
It is grotesque.
I have been at the seaside for the weekend and come back to find that both candidates are proposing to spend and borrow like there’s no tomorrow, thus throwing away any claim to being the party of prudent stewardship of the economy and making Corbyn’s case better than he can, and one is saying with a straight face that businesses and families bankrupted or severely harmed by a no Deal Brexit should just suck it up and be prepared to sacrifice themselves and their families.
On reflection, grotesque is too polite a word.
Have I missed anything else important?
Brexit killed prudence
Yet the deficit is down now to a fraction of what it was under the "Iron Chancellor" of Labour for each of the five years before the recession hit. Explain that please.
The deficit is also lower than under previous Conservative governments. Perhaps spending is too low. Perhaps taxation is too high.
I agree that taxation is too high. However it is a good thing to have a very low deficit due to the splurge Brown made we will for decades be dealing with his legacy in debt even if not in deficit.
The splurge Brown made, pre-global financial crisis, is less than the previous Conservative governments and low by historical and international standards. In short, there was no splurge.
This is not very controversial for Lib Dems. The important question is how important is it for Ed Davey? Will he push hard for it to be in a coalition agreement, or are there more important issues which come higher up the To-Do list?
He's ruled out a coalition. I can't think it'd be a pressing priority in a supply agreement either, I've asked him if he'd prop up Corbs in return for another EU ref though.
Not sure this is a good time for that idea. Do we really want 100s of Faragists in an elected Senate?
Have more confidence, the Lib Dems can potentially win outright.
Hmm. I rather suspect an elected Senate would be seen as the sort of easy hit where people could vote for extremists and comedians to give everyone a good kicking knowing it wont really alter the government of the country. As per EU elections.
As well as Hunt's pledge today to provide funds to support farmers, fishermen and small businesses in the event of No Deal, the Boris camp today has promised public sector workers a pay rise if Boris becomes PM
Fuck Business and the Magic Money Tree. How is this better than anything being promised by Corbyn and McDonnell?
Isn't there someting groteque about these two Tory politicians making grand spending pledges to the electorate in order to persuade 150,000 party members to vote for them? It feels like there's something rotten in the state of British politics....
It is grotesque.
I have been at the seaside for the weekend and come back to find that both candidates are proposing to spend and borrow like there’s no tomorrow, thus throwing away any claim to being the party of prudent stewardship of the economy and making Corbyn’s case better than he can, and one is saying with a straight face that businesses and families bankrupted or severely harmed by a no Deal Brexit should just suck it up and be prepared to sacrifice themselves and their families.
On reflection, grotesque is too polite a word.
Have I missed anything else important?
Brexit killed prudence
Yet the deficit is down now to a fraction of what it was under the "Iron Chancellor" of Labour for each of the five years before the recession hit. Explain that please.
The deficit is also lower than under previous Conservative governments. Perhaps spending is too low. Perhaps taxation is too high.
I agree that taxation is too high. However it is a good thing to have a very low deficit due to the splurge Brown made we will for decades be dealing with his legacy in debt even if not in deficit.
The splurge Brown made, pre-global financial crisis, is less than the previous Conservative governments and low by historical and international standards. In short, there was no splurge.
It's not because my politics are left inclined. It's because of the genuine and objective lack of equivalence between the Nazi and Communist ideologies.
Communism was founded on egalitarian ideals which (at least arguably) have a valid place in politics today. Its practical manifestation in the USSR (and indeed elsewhere) was a perversion of that. It ended up (some would say inevitably) as a brutal, oppressive, murderous, totalitarian state.
That's bad. It's bad bad bad. But the egalitarian principles remain as something which it is no great scandal for a person of the left to retain a degree of faith in.
Hitler and the Nazis, OTOH, this was also a brutal, oppressive, murderous, totalitarian state. So to this extent, not OTOH. Similar.
But here's the difference, and it's a crucial one. The founding principle of Nazism is the innate superiority of the Ayran race and its sacred right and destiny to hold dominion over all other peoples, in Germany and throughout the globe, this to be achieved by force.
Now that ideal does NOT have a place in modern politics. Not even arguably.
It is not, therefore, a politically opposite 'equivalent' of Communism. It is not the equivalent of anything. It is beyond the pale.
+1 - really well summarised.
Both philosophies are in practice dead in political terms, so I'm not sure how much mileage there is in chewing over the argument - it's like those "was D-Day vital in changing the outcome of WW2?" debates, which are historically interesting but not relevant now.
FWIW I still like the underlying concept of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" (Marx's definition of communism), but it seems impractical as, a basis for national policy without dictatorial force, so I stopped supporting it a long time ago. As an underlying guide to living our personal lives, I think it still has something to offer, whereas Aryanism and all that is simply bollocks at every level.
The other reason why Boris does so well is he provides hope and positivity to frightened, worried people. If you are worried about Brexit and anxious about the consequences of No Deal, there's no need.
Boris will make it right - Boris will sort it out, just put your faith in him and you'll be fine. Essentially, that's the message.
Back in 2008 as the storm clouds of recession gathered over London, along comes happy Boris and suddenly everything seems fine again. For a city used to being positive and happy, Boris was the perfect candidate in 2008 - those peddling hope (even false hope) will always get a good hearing in times of anxiety.
This is why Boris will be Prime Minister - not because he's the best man for the job but he makes people happy or feel better no matter if that optimism is built on sand.
He scares me. His witless bluster could result in some very real harm to people in this country.
At a time of insecurity I want someone I can trust, someone in whom I can have confidence, someone who I can trust to have a well-thought put plan to steer us through.
Many European 'politicians' over the years have said 'just trust me (or similar) etc'. It has rarely worked out well.
I don't want a politician who says "trust me". I want a politician who says "This is the objective and here is a well-thought out plan to get there" so that I can decide that he/she has the judgment and common-sense to be worth trusting.
Neither Johnson or Hunt have this. Both are engaged in Brexit machismo displays with the pain to he suffered by others. It is despicable.
On Brexit, I would prefer a Deal - EFTA would be fine or even a bespoke associate membership. But from where we stand we don’t have many choices. The damage to our democracy from revoking would be immense. You will be telling all those people who came out to vote because they believed that - just once - they could have a say that their voices and votes are irrelevant
I guess I value liberty and democracy more highly than economics.
The damage to democracy would come from imposing something without a specific mandate. A second referendum is the only way to obtain consent - and ensure the people you purport to be so concerned about's voices are heard.
The other reason why Boris does so well is he provides hope and positivity to frightened, worried people. If you are worried about Brexit and anxious about the consequences of No Deal, there's no need.
Boris will make it right - Boris will sort it out, just put your faith in him and you'll be fine. Essentially, that's the message.
Back in 2008 as the storm clouds of recession gathered over London, along comes happy Boris and suddenly everything seems fine again. For a city used to being positive and happy, Boris was the perfect candidate in 2008 - those peddling hope (even false hope) will always get a good hearing in times of anxiety.
This is why Boris will be Prime Minister - not because he's the best man for the job but he makes people happy or feel better no matter if that optimism is built on sand.
He scares me. His witless bluster could result in some very real harm to people in this country.
At a time of insecurity I want someone I can trust, someone in whom I can have confidence, someone who I can trust to have a well-thought put plan to steer us through.
Many European 'politicians' over the years have said 'just trust me (or similar) etc'. It has rarely worked out well.
I don't want a politician who says "trust me". I want a politician who says "This is the objective and here is a well-thought out plan to get there" so that I can decide that he/she has the judgment and common-sense to be worth trusting.
Neither Johnson or Hunt have this. Both are engaged in Brexit machismo displays with the pain to he suffered by others. It is despicable.
Its just campaign noise. Lets see what happens after one becomes PM.
He knows Europeans going on holiday in August doesn't he?
Not all Belgium, Denmark, Austria and Bulgaria are all on holiday at the moment - thinking of places where I know decisions are delayed for me because of missing people
No point in trying to swim and then tying yourself to an anchor.
Can a journalist ask them if they'll give confidence and supply to Labour though ?
Good question.
I've just received my voting link by email. I was going to immediately vote Swinson but, having watched the first 15 minutes of this debate, I think I might change my mind.
If the current political climate did not favour any credible woman candidate [ understandably ] , Davey would be a formidable candidate. Saying, he is my candidate and I don't like him. Wrote to him twice and was just ignored.
I don't like him either. But I'm beginning to think he might be a more effective LD leader than Swinson. He's quicker on his feet. He has gravitas. He doesn't have the hangups that Swinson does.
Interestingly I'm thinking the same. To get a slightly outside view, I asked Mrs tpfkar to compare the mailshots I received from the candidates, sure that she'd go for Swinson's glossy magazine full of pictures and endorsements over Davey's formal text job application complete with 2 page CV. But she felt that Swinson's was superficial whereas Davey came across as credible in serious times for a party with a mission.
For a party simply needing to get noticed, Swinson's the obvious choice just as Tim Farron was last time. But in better times with the tailwinds, I wonder if Davey might ride the waves better?
Yet the deficit is down now to a fraction of what it was under the "Iron Chancellor" of Labour for each of the five years before the recession hit. Explain that please.
The deficit is also lower than under previous Conservative governments. Perhaps spending is too low. Perhaps taxation is too high.
I agree that taxation is too high. However it is a good thing to have a very low deficit due to the splurge Brown made we will for decades be dealing with his legacy in debt even if not in deficit.
The splurge Brown made, pre-global financial crisis, is less than the previous Conservative governments and low by historical and international standards. In short, there was no splurge.
I'd look carefully at the dates, and also at the political leanings of the authors. For small state fans, almost any public spending can be too high. Similarly, almost any spending by your political opponents can be described as waste.
Spending, and indeed the deficit, were low by historical and international standards.
You get a real sense of decline watching/listening to West Indies play cricket these days. Very sad indeed, especially when you have a legend like Curtly Ambrose in the commentary box.
As well as Hunt's pledge today to provide funds to support farmers, fishermen and small businesses in the event of No Deal, the Boris camp today has promised public sector workers a pay rise if Boris becomes PM
Fuck Business and the Magic Money Tree. How is this better than anything being promised by Corbyn and McDonnell?
Isn't there someting groteque about these two Tory politicians making grand spending pledges to the electorate in order to persuade 150,000 party members to vote for them? It feels like there's something rotten in the state of British politics....
It is grotesque.
I have been at the seaside for the weekend and come back to find that both candidates are proposing to spend and borrow like there’s no tomorrow, thus throwing away any claim to being the party of prudent stewardship of the economy and making Corbyn’s case better than he can, and one is saying with a straight face that businesses and families bankrupted or severely harmed by a no Deal Brexit should just suck it up and be prepared to sacrifice themselves and their families.
On reflection, grotesque is too polite a word.
Have I missed anything else important?
Agela Merkel quite clearly has some illness and the Germans are trying to cover it up.
Early Parkinsons ?
Sad, if so. But isn’t she retiring?
currently shes trying to hang in until the next election
she has done a 180 degree turn on her nominated successor AKK and now appears to be withdrawing support from her
shes in a fight with Macron on EU commissioners
and she has led her party to the number two slot behind the greens according to the latest polls
really she should have gone out on a high and not stood this time around
"Hang on" is a very English way of looking at it, why don't you go the whole way and claim she is a "Lame Duck Chancellor". In most normal environments someone can announce that you will retire in a couple of years and everyone plans appropriately. That was also Cameron's plan remember!
As for the German media covering up an illness, this is simply your speculation. I doubt there are many doctors who would diagnose early Parkinsons just from what we have seen in the news clips, and it has to be said that her first shaking fit was on a sweltering hot day, standing to attention in formal clothing.
As well as Hunt's pledge today to provide funds to support farmers, fishermen and small businesses in the event of No Deal, the Boris camp today has promised public sector workers a pay rise if Boris becomes PM
Fuck Business and the Magic Money Tree. How is this better than anything being promised by Corbyn and McDonnell?
Isn't there someting groteque about these two Tory politicians making grand spending pledges to the electorate in order to persuade 150,000 party members to vote for them? It feels like there's something rotten in the state of British politics....
It is grotesque.
I have been at the seaside for the weekend and come back to find that both candidates are proposing to spend and borrow like there’s no tomorrow, thus throwing away any claim to being the party of prudent stewardship of the economy and making Corbyn’s case better than he can, and one is saying with a straight face that businesses and families bankrupted or severely harmed by a no Deal Brexit should just suck it up and be prepared to sacrifice themselves and their families.
On reflection, grotesque is too polite a word.
Have I missed anything else important?
Brexit killed prudence
Yet the deficit is down now to a fraction of what it was under the "Iron Chancellor" of Labour for each of the five years before the recession hit. Explain that please.
And the Tories are now proposing to increase it again.
No, they are not.
Where's all the money coming from then?
Well, if they both renege on the £39bn, they won't be getting it in the markets, or at least not on any favourable terms.
Since then, after three years in which the parties, No10 and the senior civil service have imploded (after doing the opposite of what Vote Leave said should happen on every aspect of the negotiations) one thing has held steady — Insiders refuse to ask basic questions about the reasons for this implosion, such as: ‘why Heywood didn’t even put together a sane regular weekly meeting schedule and ministers didn’t even notice all the tricks with agendas/minutes etc’, how are decisions really made in No10, why are so many of the people below some cognitive threshold for understanding basic concepts (cf. the current GATT A24 madness), what does it say about Westminster that both the Adonis-Remainers and the Cash-ERGers have become more detached from reality while a large section of the best-educated have effectively run information operations against their own brains to convince themselves of fairy stories about Facebook, Russia and Brexit…
It’s a mix of amusing and depressing — but not surprising to me — to hear Heywood explain HERE how the British state decided it couldn’t match the resources of a single multinational company or a single university in funding people to think about what the future might hold, which is linked to his failure to make serious contingency plans for losing the referendum. And of course Heywood claimed after the referendum that we didn’t need to worry about the civil service because on project management it has ‘nothing to learn’ from the best private companies. The elevation of Heywood in the pantheon of SW1 is the elevation of the courtier-fixer at the expense of the thinker and the manager — the universal praise for him recently is a beautifully eloquent signal that those in charge are the blind leading the blind and SW1 has forgotten skills of high value, the skills of public servants such as Alanbrooke or Michael Quinlan.
On Brexit, I would prefer a Deal - EFTA would be fine or even a bespoke associate membership. But from where we stand we don’t have many choices. The damage to our democracy from revoking would be immense. You will be telling all those people who came out to vote because they believed that - just once - they could have a say that their voices and votes are irrelevant
I guess I value liberty and democracy more highly than economics.
The damage to democracy would come from imposing something without a specific mandate. A second referendum is the only way to obtain consent - and ensure the people you purport to be so concerned about's voices are heard.
Sure happy with a deal or no deal referendum
But that’s not what you want is it?
Remainers should just vote for No Deal. We won't be blackmailed into bailing you out of taking responsibility for where you've led the country.
You get a real sense of decline watching/listening to West Indies play cricket these days. Very sad indeed, especially when you have a legend like Curtly Ambrose in the commentary box.
If Barbados is any indication youngsters dream of being basketball players
The splurge Brown made, pre-global financial crisis, is less than the previous Conservative governments and low by historical and international standards. In short, there was no splurge.
That's just not true. He ran a sustained deficit after over a decade of growth maxing out the credit card at over 2% of GDP deficit per year, leaving no room for expanding the deficit when the next inevitable recession hit.
Of course he hubristically thought he had eliminated boom and bust so there would be no next recession.
In which previous occassions before a recession after over a decade of growth had a sustained over 2% deficit been embedded into the national finances?
The previous recession, under the previous Conservative government had been entered with the country running a small surplus rather than a maxed out deficit. That is how to be prudent.
Interesting watching Twitter and Facebook this morning.
All the Lib Dems I follow are posting about how they've just voted for Swinson.
All the Conservatives I follow - sensible people who a few days ago were backing Hunt - have suddenly gone very quiet.
Just anecdata, of course. But I like @IanB2's phrase upthread about "Cotswold Tories and Canvey Tories", and it looks like Hunt's swerve to the latter isn't going down well with the former.
The other reason why Boris does so well is he provides hope and positivity to frightened, worried people. If you are worried about Brexit and anxious about the consequences of No Deal, there's no need.
Boris will make it right - Boris will sort it out, just put your faith in him and you'll be fine. Essentially, that's the message.
Back in 2008 as the storm clouds of recession gathered over London, along comes happy Boris and suddenly everything seems fine again. For a city used to being positive and happy, Boris was the perfect candidate in 2008 - those peddling hope (even false hope) will always get a good hearing in times of anxiety.
This is why Boris will be Prime Minister - not because he's the best man for the job but he makes people happy or feel better no matter if that optimism is built on sand.
He scares me. His witless bluster could result in some very real harm to people in this country.
At a time of insecurity I want someone I can trust, someone in whom I can have confidence, someone who I can trust to have a well-thought put plan to steer us through.
Many European 'politicians' over the years have said 'just trust me (or similar) etc'. It has rarely worked out well.
I don't want a politician who says "trust me". I want a politician who says "This is the objective and here is a well-thought out plan to get there" so that I can decide that he/she has the judgment and common-sense to be worth trusting.
Neither Johnson or Hunt have this. Both are engaged in Brexit machismo displays with the pain to he suffered by others. It is despicable.
Its just campaign noise. Lets see what happens after one becomes PM.
It's not just noise. They are boxing themselves in and doing so in a way which makes a sensible resolution ever more unlikely.
And they are creating expectations in their supporters that they will likely end up not fulfilling.
Those who make a great play of saying that Brexit must be delivered because of the damage to democracy if it isn't seem remarkably oblivious of the damage to democracy caused by making undeliverable promises or deliberately making businesses and people bankrupt.
I don't really buy this claim that they are bothered by democracy. They just want Brexit and couldn't give a toss what damage is done to achieve their end.
If the 150,000 Tory Members only read one article before putting their X next to the name of the 'cavorting charlatan' it might as well be this one. Easy to read and after reading it no excuses please. If you want a pathological liar as PM vote for Boris. Most of us don't have a vote so it's in your hands
Disappointing article tbh
It’s an interesting premise but she didn’t build a case - she simply asserted it in the final sentence. It’s just a quick and easy “Boris is a liar” article that doesn’t add anything new
That's surely the whole point of her article. She's not making a case but simple bullet points of why and how he's a dishonest and opportunistic shit. Most of us with a measurable IQ have worked this out for ourselves but she was aiming at Boris supporting Tory members and a US audience.
We do need an article that just sets out in simple terms the ways in which Boris is unsuitable to be prime minister.
He has (at least?) twice been fired for lying in his job. Once as a reporter, and once as a politician (sacked by Michael Howard). A rich seam of dishonesties also exist. Turkey, Iraq war, Boris bus, Heathrow expansion, expenses etc. Then there are plenty of cock-ups as FS, Mayor of London.
It is surprising Jeremy Hunt has not summarised Boris's flaws in a handy leaflet (or tweet, in these enlightened times). More surprising still if Labour does not have one ready to go for any snap election.
Hunt may be pulling his punches in the expectation of losing. Labour won't. Their online video game is pretty strong I think.
Link?
Did you mean to reply to me? Those are just my opinions/speculations.
Since then, after three years in which the parties, No10 and the senior civil service have imploded (after doing the opposite of what Vote Leave said should happen on every aspect of the negotiations) one thing has held steady — Insiders refuse to ask basic questions about the reasons for this implosion, such as: ‘why Heywood didn’t even put together a sane regular weekly meeting schedule and ministers didn’t even notice all the tricks with agendas/minutes etc’, how are decisions really made in No10, why are so many of the people below some cognitive threshold for understanding basic concepts (cf. the current GATT A24 madness), what does it say about Westminster that both the Adonis-Remainers and the Cash-ERGers have become more detached from reality while a large section of the best-educated have effectively run information operations against their own brains to convince themselves of fairy stories about Facebook, Russia and Brexit…
It’s a mix of amusing and depressing — but not surprising to me — to hear Heywood explain HERE how the British state decided it couldn’t match the resources of a single multinational company or a single university in funding people to think about what the future might hold, which is linked to his failure to make serious contingency plans for losing the referendum. And of course Heywood claimed after the referendum that we didn’t need to worry about the civil service because on project management it has ‘nothing to learn’ from the best private companies. The elevation of Heywood in the pantheon of SW1 is the elevation of the courtier-fixer at the expense of the thinker and the manager — the universal praise for him recently is a beautifully eloquent signal that those in charge are the blind leading the blind and SW1 has forgotten skills of high value, the skills of public servants such as Alanbrooke or Michael Quinlan.
Just had a read of that. It is bonkers.
"Extreme value is often found in the intersection of fields"
I think The Times has made a rare factual mistake there. He lost his seat in May because the only Conservative MEP remaining in the West Midlands is Anthea McIntyre.
I refer you to my answer to 'Tabman' who beat you to it.
On other (non Nazi) matters - Glasto was good again.
I was particularly struck by the Stormzy set. It was fabulous. He put so much into it and was clearly overjoyed to have the platform.
The irony (if it is irony) is that he was playing, as the first British grime artist to headline there, to a crowd that was overwhelmingly white and middle class. Very few black kids from Croydon go to Glastonbury.
His joy could almost be seen as that of an outsider at being accepted by the establishment.
Key question we need to hear an answer to is ' How many bastards do you have, Mr Johnson?'
No, it really isn’t.
We know he’s unfaithful and untrustworthy. It just satisfies your prurience nothing else.
But why do you insist on condemning the child for the sins of the father?
I do no such thing.
You think stigmatising people as "bastard" is an appropriate part of civil discourse?
Stating a legal fact does not amount to stigmatising anyone.That you and others choose to interpret use of the word in a particular way reveals much about your attitude to such people - rather than my own. I have made it clear that my criticism is entirely limited to the parents - and that the the children affected are innocent . I would not tolerate any discrimination against them , and find it sad that they have to bear such a burden as a result of parental conduct.
Why Harris understandably has a far more positive opinion of busing than does Biden.... And as the article points out, opposing 'busing' was very much code for opposing integration:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/kamala-harris-and-busing-debate/593047/ Berkeley’s elementary school desegregation plan started in September 1968, with over one-third of the district’s 9,000 students riding buses. Unlike many cities that placed the burden of busing on black students, Berkeley implemented a two-way busing plan that involved black, white, Asian American, and Mexican American students. The plan quickly changed the racial demographics of the city’s schools. Thousand Oaks Elementary was 95 percent white and 3 percent black in 1963. When Harris started kindergarten in 1969, the Thousand Oaks was 53 percent white and 40 percent black, and in no elementary school in Berkeley did any racial group comprise more than 60 percent of the students....
As far as I can see, Berkeley remains fairly integrated - unlike many places even in liberal California: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Unified_School_District Berkeley's voluntary integration plan, modified slightly over the years as demographics have shifted, remains in place up to the present...
The other reason why Boris does so well is he provides hope and positivity to frightened, worried people. If you are worried about Brexit and anxious about the consequences of No Deal, there's no need.
Boris will make it right - Boris will sort it out, just put your faith in him and you'll be fine. Essentially, that's the message.
Back in 2008 as the storm clouds of recession gathered over London, along comes happy Boris and suddenly everything seems fine again. For a city used to being positive and happy, Boris was the perfect candidate in 2008 - those peddling hope (even false hope) will always get a good hearing in times of anxiety.
This is why Boris will be Prime Minister - not because he's the best man for the job but he makes people happy or feel better no matter if that optimism is built on sand.
He scares me. His witless bluster could result in some very real harm to people in this country.
At a time of insecurity I want someone I can trust, someone in whom I can have confidence, someone who I can trust to have a well-thought put plan to steer us through.
Many European 'politicians' over the years have said 'just trust me (or similar) etc'. It has rarely worked out well.
I don't want a politician who says "trust me". I want a politician who says "This is the objective and here is a well-thought out plan to get there" so that I can decide that he/she has the judgment and common-sense to be worth trusting.
Neither Johnson or Hunt have this. Both are engaged in Brexit machismo displays with the pain to he suffered by others. It is despicable.
Since then, after three years in which the parties, No10 and the senior civil service have imploded (after doing the opposite of what Vote Leave said should happen on every aspect of the negotiations) one thing has held steady — Insiders refuse to ask basic questions about the reasons for this implosion, such as: ‘why Heywood didn’t even put together a sane regular weekly meeting schedule and ministers didn’t even notice all the tricks with agendas/minutes etc’, how are decisions really made in No10, why are so many of the people below some cognitive threshold for understanding basic concepts (cf. the current GATT A24 madness), what does it say about Westminster that both the Adonis-Remainers and the Cash-ERGers have become more detached from reality while a large section of the best-educated have effectively run information operations against their own brains to convince themselves of fairy stories about Facebook, Russia and Brexit…
It’s a mix of amusing and depressing — but not surprising to me — to hear Heywood explain HERE how the British state decided it couldn’t match the resources of a single multinational company or a single university in funding people to think about what the future might hold, which is linked to his failure to make serious contingency plans for losing the referendum. And of course Heywood claimed after the referendum that we didn’t need to worry about the civil service because on project management it has ‘nothing to learn’ from the best private companies. The elevation of Heywood in the pantheon of SW1 is the elevation of the courtier-fixer at the expense of the thinker and the manager — the universal praise for him recently is a beautifully eloquent signal that those in charge are the blind leading the blind and SW1 has forgotten skills of high value, the skills of public servants such as Alanbrooke or Michael Quinlan.
Just had a read of that. It is bonkers.
Some interesting stuff on interacting with complex data and issues.
Every time I read a Cummings blog though I get the impression he wishes he had become a computer scientist.
They just want Brexit and couldn't give a toss what damage is done to achieve their end.
This is the bit that makes no sense.
The damage will be so widespread (to business, to politics and politicians, to the Union, to trust) that almost nobody will come out ahead.
The desire seems foolhardy
That's revolutionaries for you.
Utopia is worth any price.
As Camus put it: "Mistaken ideas always end in bloodshed but in every case it is someone else's blood. That is why some of our thinkers feel free to say just about anything."
Substitute "harm" for "bloodshed" and "blood" and you have a pretty good description of what is going on at the moment. (Though "thinkers" for Johnson and Hunt is perhaps over-egging it.)
Interesting watching Twitter and Facebook this morning.
All the Lib Dems I follow are posting about how they've just voted for Swinson.
All the Conservatives I follow - sensible people who a few days ago were backing Hunt - have suddenly gone very quiet.
Just anecdata, of course. But I like @IanB2's phrase upthread about "Cotswold Tories and Canvey Tories", and it looks like Hunt's swerve to the latter isn't going down well with the former.
Both my local Lib Dem councillor friends are voting for Davey.
Both philosophies are in practice dead in political terms, so I'm not sure how much mileage there is in chewing over the argument - it's like those "was D-Day vital in changing the outcome of WW2?" debates, which are historically interesting but not relevant now.
FWIW I still like the underlying concept of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" (Marx's definition of communism), but it seems impractical as, a basis for national policy without dictatorial force, so I stopped supporting it a long time ago. As an underlying guide to living our personal lives, I think it still has something to offer, whereas Aryanism and all that is simply bollocks at every level.
Thank you.
What stops me being further Left than I am is that I strongly suspect that a (predominantly) market based economy is the best for wealth generation.
So I think I'm a (yawn) Social Democrat. Quite high tax & spend, strong regulation, public ownership of utilities, a state investment bank, workers on boards, but essentially a capitalist core economy.
However, I also favour quite radical egalitarian social policies such as the (virtual) abolition of private schools.
They just want Brexit and couldn't give a toss what damage is done to achieve their end.
This is the bit that makes no sense.
The damage will be so widespread (to business, to politics and politicians, to the Union, to trust) that almost nobody will come out ahead.
The desire seems foolhardy
It has become a religion, an act of faith and worship. There is no rationale left.
Or like supporting a football team. You may know that your team is made up of a load of overpaid, over privileged, out of touch men, some of whom might indulge in some casual racism, or sleep with their team mates wives, but you forgive them their sins as they are your team.
The other reason why Boris does so well is he provides hope and positivity to frightened, worried people. If you are worried about Brexit and anxious about the consequences of No Deal, there's no need.
Boris will make it right - Boris will sort it out, just put your faith in him and you'll be fine. Essentially, that's the message.
Back in 2008 as the storm clouds of recession gathered over London, along comes happy Boris and suddenly everything seems fine again. For a city used to being positive and happy, Boris was the perfect candidate in 2008 - those peddling hope (even false hope) will always get a good hearing in times of anxiety.
This is why Boris will be Prime Minister - not because he's the best man for the job but he makes people happy or feel better no matter if that optimism is built on sand.
He scares me. His witless bluster could result in some very real harm to people in this country.
At a time of insecurity I want someone I can trust, someone in whom I can have confidence, someone who I can trust to have a well-thought put plan to steer us through.
Many European 'politicians' over the years have said 'just trust me (or similar) etc'. It has rarely worked out well.
I don't want a politician who says "trust me". I want a politician who says "This is the objective and here is a well-thought out plan to get there" so that I can decide that he/she has the judgment and common-sense to be worth trusting.
Neither Johnson or Hunt have this. Both are engaged in Brexit machismo displays with the pain to he suffered by others. It is despicable.
They are trashing everything the Tories have stood for over the past couple of centuries, the union, commerce, representative democracy, fiscal rectitude, sound money, soft power and openness to the world. All are being hurled on to the Brexit bonfire.
I dipping in and out this morning as I'm busy with bits and pieces, and I've only just seen Mr B2's remark about ' "Cotswold Tories and Canvey Tories" I recall that the only time since 1950 that the Tories haven't won the seat of which Canvey Island was part was in 1997, was when the Conservative candidate (and up to then MP) REALLY infuriated the Canvey Conservative Ladies, who downed whatever tools they used. He put out a leaflet asking voters if they wanted to be represented by 'a woman from Canvey Island'!
The splurge Brown made, pre-global financial crisis, is less than the previous Conservative governments and low by historical and international standards. In short, there was no splurge.
That's just not true. He ran a sustained deficit after over a decade of growth maxing out the credit card at over 2% of GDP deficit per year, leaving no room for expanding the deficit when the next inevitable recession hit.
Of course he hubristically thought he had eliminated boom and bust so there would be no next recession.
In which previous occassions before a recession after over a decade of growth had a sustained over 2% deficit been embedded into the national finances?
The previous recession, under the previous Conservative government had been entered with the country running a small surplus rather than a maxed out deficit. That is how to be prudent.
This provides an interesting - and objective - account of fiscal policy under successive post-war Governments.
'The UK deficit started out in 1947 at 3 percent of GDP and then immediately went into surplus, as the Attlee government worked to reduce the huge debt racked up in World War II. The surplus peaked at 6.3 percent of GDP in 1950 and then declined to a surplus of 0.9 percent GDP in 1961.
But then surpluses started to climb again reaching 7.6 percent GDP in 1970 during the Wilson government before declining sharply. The UK scored a deficit of 0.1 percent GDP in 1975 for the first time in nearly 20 years.
The UK ran a budget deficit till the end of the Thatcher years, with a peak of 2.2 percent of GDP in 1981. In the mid to late 1980s deficits declined, and went into surplus in 1989 at 1.9 percent GDP.
Deficits returned in the Major years and the ERM crisis, reaching 5.7 percent GDP in 1994. But then the deficit came down and went into surplus, maxing out at a surplus of 2.3 percent GDP in 2001.
Moderate deficits were the rule in the mid 2000s Blair years. But the deficit rocketed upwards to 6.9 percent in 2010 in response to the Crash of 2008 and the Great Recession. In the recent recovery, the budget deficit has declined to less than one percent of GDP. ' From ukpublicspending.co.uk.
He si almost but not as bad as Swinson, a real choice between devil and deep blue sea, the Lib Dems are as bereft of talent , if not even more so , as Tories and Labour.
Since then, after three years in which the parties, No10 and the senior civil service have imploded (after doing the opposite of what Vote Leave said should happen on every aspect of the negotiations) one thing has held steady — Insiders refuse to ask basic questions about the reasons for this implosion, such as: ‘why Heywood didn’t even put together a sane regular weekly meeting schedule and ministers didn’t even notice all the tricks with agendas/minutes etc’, how are decisions really made in No10, why are so many of the people below some cognitive threshold for understanding basic concepts (cf. the current GATT A24 madness), what does it say about Westminster that both the Adonis-Remainers and the Cash-ERGers have become more detached from reality while a large section of the best-educated have effectively run information operations against their own brains to convince themselves of fairy stories about Facebook, Russia and Brexit…
It’s a mix of amusing and depressing — but not surprising to me — to hear Heywood explain HERE how the British state decided it couldn’t match the resources of a single multinational company or a single university in funding people to think about what the future might hold, which is linked to his failure to make serious contingency plans for losing the referendum. And of course Heywood claimed after the referendum that we didn’t need to worry about the civil service because on project management it has ‘nothing to learn’ from the best private companies. The elevation of Heywood in the pantheon of SW1 is the elevation of the courtier-fixer at the expense of the thinker and the manager — the universal praise for him recently is a beautifully eloquent signal that those in charge are the blind leading the blind and SW1 has forgotten skills of high value, the skills of public servants such as Alanbrooke or Michael Quinlan.
Just had a read of that. It is bonkers.
Some interesting stuff on interacting with complex data and issues.
Every time I read a Cummings blog though I get the impression he wishes he had become a computer scientist.
As I have posted on here before, I know a retired senior civil servant. He and others were the last generation who negotiated for the UK for international treaties. They offered their services to the Cabinet Office to train their modern counterparts - and were then told that their services weren't required as training was being provided by consultancies. His opinion of his modern counterparts is that they have become too political and are not up to the job.
He is almost but not as bad as Swinson, a real choice between devil and deep blue sea, the Lib Dems are as bereft of talent , if not even more so , as Tories and Labour.
"The Lib Dems are not just empty. They are a void within a vacuum surrounded by a vast inanition." - Boris, 2003.
They are trashing everything the Tories have stood for over the past couple of centuries, the union, commerce, representative democracy, fiscal rectitude, sound money, soft power and openness to the world. All are being hurled on to the Brexit bonfire.
I think this is the Lib Dem opportunity. Regardless of whether you like them or think them competent, the Lib Dems are clearly the party of the status quo and for those that mistrust change without demonstrable benefit. This was the key Tory tenet that worked so well for them over more than a century. They have thrown away their USP with Brexit.
Some Conservatives think once they get Brexit out the way, they can go back to being sensible. Problem is, the only way of getting Brexit out the way is to cancel it.
Could someone define a "Cotswold Tory"? My (terraced) Cotswold house used to be surrounded by them: retired generals, semi-retired diplomats, owners of thrusting local companies of both sexes and a smattering of old money and old hereditary titles. But they also used to include owners and head honchi of global businesses, active Oscar winners and just plain ordinary people who believed the Tories could be better trusted with the country's defence and economy than the alternatives.
In my immediate neighbourhood, practically all the best-off voted LibDem in both the 2019 locals and Euros. Elsewhere in the constituency, only the plain ordinary switched to the Brexit Party.
It may be a flash in the pan, but during May 2019, the Cotswold Tory almost ceased to exist. Few seem to believe they'll ever vote Tory again.
Comments
And if you take an interest in such things, there was a significant shift in the odds for the Democratic nomination, after the first two debates.
You do know taxation is at a 30-year high?
https://www.ft.com/content/a5569cca-db7c-11e8-8f50-cbae5495d92b
Plus of course there could be spending cuts in other areas. We still have a very bloated state.
https://dominiccummings.com/2019/06/26/on-the-referendum-33-high-performance-government-cognitive-technologies-michael-nielsen-bret-victor-seeing-rooms/
Since then, after three years in which the parties, No10 and the senior civil service have imploded (after doing the opposite of what Vote Leave said should happen on every aspect of the negotiations) one thing has held steady — Insiders refuse to ask basic questions about the reasons for this implosion, such as: ‘why Heywood didn’t even put together a sane regular weekly meeting schedule and ministers didn’t even notice all the tricks with agendas/minutes etc’, how are decisions really made in No10, why are so many of the people below some cognitive threshold for understanding basic concepts (cf. the current GATT A24 madness), what does it say about Westminster that both the Adonis-Remainers and the Cash-ERGers have become more detached from reality while a large section of the best-educated have effectively run information operations against their own brains to convince themselves of fairy stories about Facebook, Russia and Brexit…
It’s a mix of amusing and depressing — but not surprising to me — to hear Heywood explain HERE how the British state decided it couldn’t match the resources of a single multinational company or a single university in funding people to think about what the future might hold, which is linked to his failure to make serious contingency plans for losing the referendum. And of course Heywood claimed after the referendum that we didn’t need to worry about the civil service because on project management it has ‘nothing to learn’ from the best private companies. The elevation of Heywood in the pantheon of SW1 is the elevation of the courtier-fixer at the expense of the thinker and the manager — the universal praise for him recently is a beautifully eloquent signal that those in charge are the blind leading the blind and SW1 has forgotten skills of high value, the skills of public servants such as Alanbrooke or Michael Quinlan.
https://twitter.com/EdwardJDavey/status/1145636092374409217
At about 8 or 9 he was already playing El-ahrairah in the class production of Watership Down :-) .
(The age may be out by 1 or 2 years, but it is true).
Slightly concerned that he looks increasingly like Bob Crow.
Plus the operation in turning Kingston & Surbiton Lib Dem was distinctly impressive.
It's not because my politics are left inclined. It's because of the genuine and objective lack of equivalence between the Nazi and Communist ideologies.
Communism was founded on egalitarian ideals which (at least arguably) have a valid place in politics today. Its practical manifestation in the USSR (and indeed elsewhere) was a perversion of that. It ended up (some would say inevitably) as a brutal, oppressive, murderous, totalitarian state.
That's bad. It's bad bad bad. But the egalitarian principles remain as something which it is no great scandal for a person of the left to retain a degree of faith in.
Hitler and the Nazis, OTOH, this was also a brutal, oppressive, murderous, totalitarian state. So to this extent, not OTOH. Similar.
But here's the difference, and it's a crucial one. The founding principle of Nazism is the innate superiority of the Ayran race and its sacred right and destiny to hold dominion over all other peoples, in Germany and throughout the globe, this to be achieved by force.
Now that ideal does NOT have a place in modern politics. Not even arguably.
It is not, therefore, a politically opposite 'equivalent' of Communism. It is not the equivalent of anything. It is beyond the pale.
https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/new_book_reveals_the_total_cost_of_gordon_brown_s_mishandling_of_the_economy_as_3_trillion_or_3_000_000_000_000_znstusu_grifxvt6xfudhfqwuqo
Both philosophies are in practice dead in political terms, so I'm not sure how much mileage there is in chewing over the argument - it's like those "was D-Day vital in changing the outcome of WW2?" debates, which are historically interesting but not relevant now.
FWIW I still like the underlying concept of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" (Marx's definition of communism), but it seems impractical as, a basis for national policy without dictatorial force, so I stopped supporting it a long time ago. As an underlying guide to living our personal lives, I think it still has something to offer, whereas Aryanism and all that is simply bollocks at every level.
Neither Johnson or Hunt have this. Both are engaged in Brexit machismo displays with the pain to he suffered by others. It is despicable.
But that’s not what you want is it?
For a party simply needing to get noticed, Swinson's the obvious choice just as Tim Farron was last time. But in better times with the tailwinds, I wonder if Davey might ride the waves better?
Parliament have voted against it 3 times...
Spending, and indeed the deficit, were low by historical and international standards.
As for the German media covering up an illness, this is simply your speculation. I doubt there are many doctors who would diagnose early Parkinsons just from what we have seen in the news clips, and it has to be said that her first shaking fit was on a sweltering hot day, standing to attention in formal clothing.
Of course he hubristically thought he had eliminated boom and bust so there would be no next recession.
In which previous occassions before a recession after over a decade of growth had a sustained over 2% deficit been embedded into the national finances?
The previous recession, under the previous Conservative government had been entered with the country running a small surplus rather than a maxed out deficit. That is how to be prudent.
All the Lib Dems I follow are posting about how they've just voted for Swinson.
All the Conservatives I follow - sensible people who a few days ago were backing Hunt - have suddenly gone very quiet.
Just anecdata, of course. But I like @IanB2's phrase upthread about "Cotswold Tories and Canvey Tories", and it looks like Hunt's swerve to the latter isn't going down well with the former.
And they are creating expectations in their supporters that they will likely end up not fulfilling.
Those who make a great play of saying that Brexit must be delivered because of the damage to democracy if it isn't seem remarkably oblivious of the damage to democracy caused by making undeliverable promises or deliberately making businesses and people bankrupt.
I don't really buy this claim that they are bothered by democracy. They just want Brexit and couldn't give a toss what damage is done to achieve their end.
The idea of a Labour created online video game is pretty amusing.
The damage will be so widespread (to business, to politics and politicians, to the Union, to trust) that almost nobody will come out ahead.
The desire seems foolhardy
I think he may be over-analysing Brexit.
On other (non Nazi) matters - Glasto was good again.
I was particularly struck by the Stormzy set. It was fabulous. He put so much into it and was clearly overjoyed to have the platform.
The irony (if it is irony) is that he was playing, as the first British grime artist to headline there, to a crowd that was overwhelmingly white and middle class. Very few black kids from Croydon go to Glastonbury.
His joy could almost be seen as that of an outsider at being accepted by the establishment.
And as the article points out, opposing 'busing' was very much code for opposing integration:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/kamala-harris-and-busing-debate/593047/
Berkeley’s elementary school desegregation plan started in September 1968, with over one-third of the district’s 9,000 students riding buses. Unlike many cities that placed the burden of busing on black students, Berkeley implemented a two-way busing plan that involved black, white, Asian American, and Mexican American students. The plan quickly changed the racial demographics of the city’s schools. Thousand Oaks Elementary was 95 percent white and 3 percent black in 1963. When Harris started kindergarten in 1969, the Thousand Oaks was 53 percent white and 40 percent black, and in no elementary school in Berkeley did any racial group comprise more than 60 percent of the students....
As far as I can see, Berkeley remains fairly integrated - unlike many places even in liberal California:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Unified_School_District
Berkeley's voluntary integration plan, modified slightly over the years as demographics have shifted, remains in place up to the present...
Every time I read a Cummings blog though I get the impression he wishes he had become a computer scientist.
Utopia is worth any price.
As Camus put it: "Mistaken ideas always end in bloodshed but in every case it is someone else's blood. That is why some of our thinkers feel free to say just about anything."
Substitute "harm" for "bloodshed" and "blood" and you have a pretty good description of what is going on at the moment. (Though "thinkers" for Johnson and Hunt is perhaps over-egging it.)
What stops me being further Left than I am is that I strongly suspect that a (predominantly) market based economy is the best for wealth generation.
So I think I'm a (yawn) Social Democrat. Quite high tax & spend, strong regulation, public ownership of utilities, a state investment bank, workers on boards, but essentially a capitalist core economy.
However, I also favour quite radical egalitarian social policies such as the (virtual) abolition of private schools.
Therefore a Hard Left Social Democrat.
I recall that the only time since 1950 that the Tories haven't won the seat of which Canvey Island was part was in 1997, was when the Conservative candidate (and up to then MP) REALLY infuriated the Canvey Conservative Ladies, who downed whatever tools they used.
He put out a leaflet asking voters if they wanted to be represented by 'a woman from Canvey Island'!
'The UK deficit started out in 1947 at 3 percent of GDP and then immediately went into surplus, as the Attlee government worked to reduce the huge debt racked up in World War II. The surplus peaked at 6.3 percent of GDP in 1950 and then declined to a surplus of 0.9 percent GDP in 1961.
But then surpluses started to climb again reaching 7.6 percent GDP in 1970 during the Wilson government before declining sharply. The UK scored a deficit of 0.1 percent GDP in 1975 for the first time in nearly 20 years.
The UK ran a budget deficit till the end of the Thatcher years, with a peak of 2.2 percent of GDP in 1981. In the mid to late 1980s deficits declined, and went into surplus in 1989 at 1.9 percent GDP.
Deficits returned in the Major years and the ERM crisis, reaching 5.7 percent GDP in 1994. But then the deficit came down and went into surplus, maxing out at a surplus of 2.3 percent GDP in 2001.
Moderate deficits were the rule in the mid 2000s Blair years. But the deficit rocketed upwards to 6.9 percent in 2010 in response to the Crash of 2008 and the Great Recession. In the recent recovery, the budget deficit has declined to less than one percent of GDP. '
From ukpublicspending.co.uk.
The rest was fairly evident (though as Nick says, very well expressed).
Some Conservatives think once they get Brexit out the way, they can go back to being sensible. Problem is, the only way of getting Brexit out the way is to cancel it.
In my immediate neighbourhood, practically all the best-off voted LibDem in both the 2019 locals and Euros. Elsewhere in the constituency, only the plain ordinary switched to the Brexit Party.
It may be a flash in the pan, but during May 2019, the Cotswold Tory almost ceased to exist. Few seem to believe they'll ever vote Tory again.