A comprehensive character assassination of Johnson by John Major on radio 4. Who'd have thought.....
Yeterday we had an even more surprising interview when William Hague revealed himself to be more impresive than all the current Tory MPs put together. He thinks Johnson is a liar incompetent and unsuitable (my precis)
It seems the only serious Tory who still hinks Boris has any qualities is our very own HYUFD.
HYUFD will claim that Major and Hague are not “real” Tories.
No, they are Remainer establishment Tories who lost 2 general elections out of 3 between them 2 by landslide defeats.
Much like Bush Snr, Romney and McCain who between them lost 3 out of 4 presidential elections they fought dismissed Trump before he actually won the presidential election
Comedy gold
The comedy element is that he slavishly backs whoever is Tory leader at the time. He has done a complete volte-face from Cameron to Mr Blobby in a matter of months. I cannot comprehend how anyone can go from being a Remain Cameroon to a No Deal Johnson fanboy in such a short time span.
A comprehensive character assassination of Johnson by John Major on radio 4. Who'd have thought.....
Yeterday we had an even more surprising interview when William Hague revealed himself to be more impresive than all the current Tory MPs put together. He thinks Johnson is a liar incompetent and unsuitable (my precis)
It seems the only serious Tory who still hinks Boris has any qualities is our very own HYUFD.
Given Boris will win about 60 to 70% of Tory members and won over 50% of Tory MPs and John Major led the Tories to their worst election defeat since the Duke of Wellington in 1832 in 1997 and William Hague led the Tories to their second worst voteshare in 2 centuries too, if those 2 supposedly 'serious' Tories are now dismissive of Boris so be it. I used to be respect both but jumping on the anti Boris bandwagon means those 2 are now increasingly out of touch with the Tory base and unable to get over the Leave result.
I suggest if the Tories want to win the next general election they find out who you most admire and pick the opposite as leader
Your propensity to select facts at random to fit your fanatic zeal borders on disturbing.
I'm no great fan of the 1992-7 Government but there are two important facts to bear
That notwithstanding there's one other teeny-weeny little fact you might in future care not to avoid:
John Major won the largest number of votes in a General Election in British history.
Major won in 1992 attacking 'Labour's tax bombshell' and because of Kinnock
That is a bizarre response. It doesn't respond to Mysticrose point at all (not even responding to the ERM point). At every election there are campaign themes, pros and cons, etc, etc. There was nothing special about 'Labour's tax bombshell' compared to other themes in other elections. Nor the issues over Kinnock; there were themes run on Major as well.
These themes may have been what won it for the Tories, but it doesn't get away from the facts Mysticrose was pointing out - Major won against the odds, which was probably the downfall of the Tories in 97. Then there was no doubt it was going to be slaughter. If the Tories had lost in 92, 97 would have been a lot different.
Your response had nothing to do with his/her post.
Major won in 1992 on a tax cutting message.
It was of course Major who pushed to join the ERM in the first place as Gin points out
I suspect that the, probably permanent, loss of any secure line of communication between embassies and the Government will prove more damaging in the long run than whatever finally emerges from Brexit.
Yet the debate was revelatory nonetheless. We can’t now say we haven’t been warned about what a Johnson premiership will involve. On the contrary. His statements and his silences told the story unambiguously.
He won’t quit if he fails to deliver – as he will fail – on his central promise to get Britain out of the EU by 31 October. He will try to prorogue parliament in order to drive Brexit over the line if he thinks he can get away with it.
He will sack Sir Kim Darroch as UK ambassador to the United States as soon as he gets his feet under the table and he will cosy up to Donald Trump by making a political appointment to succeed the man Trump called “wacky”.
He will not override the Democratic Unionist party on LGBT rights in Northern Ireland. The HS2 high-speed rail plan is now as good as dead. And Johnson will kill the third runway at Heathrow and, in all likelihood, revive his plan to move London’s airport to an eye-watering and uncosted site in the Thames estuary which Britain’s sycophantic press will undoubtedly christen Boris Island.
On the subject of airports can anyone explain why we're looking to increase airport capacity when we are supposed to be reducing our carbon emissions ?
It looks like we have a policy from the 1990s (increase airport capacity) at odds with a policy of the 2010s (reduce carbon emissions).
Yup, if anything we shouldn't be expanding any airports and should be making a frequent flyer tax to pay for decarbonisation and sustainable energy.
I'm a guilty party as I currently fly across Europe weekly - but it means I know that any amount of tax wouldn't work as given what customers pay for my time even a €2000 flight wouldn't materially impact the cost of me being on site..
And when I look at my monday morning flight to Schiphol that would be true for everyone on the flight...
Great, why dont you charge them an extra few hundred a day?
That's the point - An additional €1000 a day wouldn't impact things...
But why arent you charging them the marginal rate? Why give them your services significantly under what they are willing to pay for it?
A long time ago I did about a year of weekly corporate flying into Europe, if I was offered 50k extra for the year but had to live in the destination country I would have jumped at it rather than the flying backwards and forwards. So not everyone on the Monday morning Schiphol flight will feel the same way.
A comprehensive character assassination of Johnson by John Major on radio 4. Who'd have thought.....
Yeterday we had an even more surprising interview when William Hague revealed himself to be more impresive than all the current Tory MPs put together. He thinks Johnson is a liar incompetent and unsuitable (my precis)
It seems the only serious Tory who still hinks Boris has any qualities is our very own HYUFD.
HYUFD will claim that Major and Hague are not “real” Tories.
No, they are Remainer establishment Tories who lost 2 general elections out of 3 between them 2 by landslide defeats.
Much like Bush Snr, Romney and McCain who between them lost 3 out of 4 presidential elections they fought dismissed Trump before he actually won the presidential election
Comedy gold
The comedy element is that he slavishly backs whoever is Tory leader at the time. He has done a complete volte-face from Cameron to Mr Blobby in a matter of months. I cannot comprehend how anyone can go from being a Remain Cameroon to a No Deal Johnson fanboy in such a short time span.
Nick Palmer went from New Labour to Corbynite if the needs of the time change so be it.
I still back Brexit Deal or No Deal, I am not a Farageite No Deal diehard
Re frequent flyer tax: I envisage a multiplier. Your first flight past x has x%, past y has y% and so on and so forth. The idea is a) something like 70% of flights are made by 15% of the populace, so you won't actually be taxing the poor and those who may take one overseas holiday a year and b) businesses need to adapt to the changing world. Some jobs need physical people flying to physical places, fine, but some don't, and if they won't move to online meetings and whatnot naturally, then make it prohibitively expensive to continually fly places. I know for some people that will sound tyrannical, but to me the tyranny is the moneyed classes flying all over the place to make money whilst the world burns below them, with the poor most suffering the consequences.
If I wanted to be a candidate for a political party would I be expected to give the selection panel access to my social media accounts.? Would that include PB.com?
The Tory Party is about to become the Boris Party so yes anyone slagging off Boris on social media seeking to become a Tory candidate better be careful
Boris is a complete fucking arsehole. Now, I must get round to putting myself on the Conservative Party candidates list.
Meanwhile we won’t take any lectures from remainers such as yourself. You voted remain and frankly no one believes this “conversion” to leave under Boris. Once a remainerr always a remainer. You're fooling no one.
I respect democracy, it is a pity some on here clearly do not and will do anything to block the Leave vote being implemented
A comprehensive character assassination of Johnson by John Major on radio 4. Who'd have thought.....
Yeterday we had an even more surprising interview when William Hague revealed himself to be more impresive than all the current Tory MPs put together. He thinks Johnson is a liar incompetent and unsuitable (my precis)
It seems the only serious Tory who still hinks Boris has any qualities is our very own HYUFD.
HYUFD will claim that Major and Hague are not “real” Tories.
No, they are Remainer establishment Tories who lost 2 general elections out of 3 between them 2 by landslide defeats.
Much like Bush Snr, Romney and McCain who between them lost 3 out of 4 presidential elections they fought dismissed Trump before he actually won the presidential election
Comedy gold
The comedy element is that he slavishly backs whoever is Tory leader at the time. He has done a complete volte-face from Cameron to Mr Blobby in a matter of months. I cannot comprehend how anyone can go from being a Remain Cameroon to a No Deal Johnson fanboy in such a short time span.
Nick Palmer went from New Labour to Corbynite if the needs of the time change so be it.
I still back Brexit Deal or No Deal, I am not a Farageite No Deal diehard
You are not a proper Brexit supporter having voted remain.
A comprehensive character assassination of Johnson by John Major on radio 4. Who'd have thought.....
Yeterday we had an even more surprising interview when William Hague revealed himself to be more impresive than all the current Tory MPs put together. He thinks Johnson is a liar incompetent and unsuitable (my precis)
It seems the only serious Tory who still hinks Boris has any qualities is our very own HYUFD.
HYUFD will claim that Major and Hague are not “real” Tories.
No, they are Remainer establishment Tories who lost 2 general elections out of 3 between them 2 by landslide defeats.
Much like Bush Snr, Romney and McCain who between them lost 3 out of 4 presidential elections they fought dismissed Trump before he actually won the presidential election
Comedy gold
The comedy element is that he slavishly backs whoever is Tory leader at the time. He has done a complete volte-face from Cameron to Mr Blobby in a matter of months. I cannot comprehend how anyone can go from being a Remain Cameroon to a No Deal Johnson fanboy in such a short time span.
Nick Palmer went from New Labour to Corbynite if the needs of the time change so be it.
I still back Brexit Deal or No Deal, I am not a Farageite No Deal diehard
You are not a proper Brexit supporter having voted remain.
A comprehensive character assassination of Johnson by John Major on radio 4. Who'd have thought.....
Yeterday we had an even more surprising interview when William Hague revealed himself to be more impresive than all the current Tory MPs put together. He thinks Johnson is a liar incompetent and unsuitable (my precis)
It seems the only serious Tory who still hinks Boris has any qualities is our very own HYUFD.
Given Boris will win about 60 to 70% of Tory members and won over 50% of Tory MPs and John Major led the Tories to their worst election defeat since the Duke of Wellington in 1832 in 1997 and William Hague led the Tories to their second worst voteshare in 2 centuries too, if those 2 supposedly 'serious' Tories are now dismissive of Boris so be it. I used to be respect both but jumping on the anti Boris bandwagon means those 2 are now increasingly out of touch with the Tory base and unable to get over the Leave result.
I suggest if the Tories want to win the next general election they find out who you most admire and pick the opposite as leader
Your propensity to select facts at random to fit your fanatic zeal borders on disturbing.
I'm no great fan of the 1992-7 Government but there are two important facts to bear in mind. One is that John Major won a surprise victory when the country had already grown tired of the long Conservative reign in general and Margaret Thatcher's style in particular. The other is that very shortly after the surprise victory the ERM crisis occurred. It probably would have floored any Government.
That notwithstanding there's one other teeny-weeny little fact you might in future care not to avoid:
John Major won the largest number of votes in a General Election in British history.
Major won in 1992 attacking 'Labour's tax bombshell' and because of Kinnock
I don't care how he attacked or who he attacked or why he attacked, all of which show political savvy. As did, at the time, his brilliant soapbox. Fact remains:
He won the biggest number of votes in a General Election in British history.
By any party.
Ever.
p.s. oh, and your beloved Boris who is up against the worst Labour leader probably in history is currently pulling the Conservatives to around 28%. Wow. Just wow.
17 million voted Leave, 14 million voted for Major.
On the latest Comres Boris would win a bigger Tory majority than Major got in 1992
And, on the latest YouGov. Oh ! I forgot. You choose the poll which suits you at the time.
A comprehensive character assassination of Johnson by John Major on radio 4.
It seems the only serious HYUFD.
Given Boris will win about 60 to 70% of Tory members and won over 50% of Tory MPs and John Major led the Tories to their worst election defeat since the Duke of Wellington in 1832 in 1997 and William Hague led the Tories to their second worst voteshare in 2 centuries too, if those 2 supposedly 'serious' Tories are now dismissive of Boris so be it. I used to be respect both but jumping on the anti Boris bandwagon means those 2 are now increasingly out of touch with the Tory base and unable to get over the Leave result.
I suggest if the Tories want to win the next general election they find out who you most admire and pick the opposite as leader
Your propensity to select facts at random to fit your fanatic zeal borders on disturbing.
I'm no great fan of the 1992-7 Government but there are two important facts to bear in mind. One is that John Major won a surprise victory when the country had already grown tired of the long Conservative reign in general and Margaret Thatcher's style in particular. The other is that very shortly after the surprise victory the ERM crisis occurred. It probably would have floored any Government.
That notwithstanding there's one other teeny-weeny little fact you might in future care not to avoid:
John Major won the largest number of votes in a General Election in British history.
Major won in 1992 attacking 'Labour's tax bombshell' and because of Kinnock
I don't care how he attacked or who he attacked or why he attacked, all of which show political savvy. As did, at the time, his brilliant soapbox. Fact remains:
He won the biggest number of votes in a General Election in British history.
By any party.
Ever.
p.s. oh, and your beloved Boris who is up against the worst Labour leader probably in history is currently pulling the Conservatives to around 28%. Wow. Just wow.
17 million voted Leave, 14 million voted for Major.
On the latest Comres Boris would win a bigger Tory majority than Major got in 1992
The points being made seem to go screaming over your head and you just ignore them.
And comparing what Boris might get to what Major did get is bonkers. Firstly you are comparing 'might' to 'did' and secondly the point being made is that Major did an impressive job in winning a majority at all, thirdly comparing leave vote to Major's vote is like comparing apples and pears. No correct that, apples to bridges, it was binary choice. There is no logic in these arguments.
Re frequent flyer tax: I envisage a multiplier. Your first flight past x has x%, past y has y% and so on and so forth. The idea is a) something like 70% of flights are made by 15% of the populace, so you won't actually be taxing the poor and those who may take one overseas holiday a year and b) businesses need to adapt to the changing world. Some jobs need physical people flying to physical places, fine, but some don't, and if they won't move to online meetings and whatnot naturally, then make it prohibitively expensive to continually fly places. I know for some people that will sound tyrannical, but to me the tyranny is the moneyed classes flying all over the place to make money whilst the world burns below them, with the poor most suffering the consequences.
Your solution is a fair one but probablematic to implement. Depending on the rate, very high mileage commuters would also travel London-nearby hub, then separate lower tax ticket nearby hub-Asia/US etc which would be worse for both the environment and our economy.
The latest Ashcroft poll this week gives Trump a higher net approval rating with Tory and Leave voters than Cameron, May, Corbyn and Swinson. It is only Remain voters who still give Trump a very high net negative rating and put him last however it is the former Boris needs for victory not the latter, the latter will vote against Boris regardless on the whole.
In any case given Darroch has total wrecked the relationship of the current government with the administration of our most important ally and trading partner it is right that Boris seeks a new Ambassador when he takes over
Darroch has done no such thing. He was doing his job. The rush on the part of you and other Borisites to attack a public servant for doing his job is disgusting.
In refusing to back the ambassador Boris is getting close to an Ed Balls/Sharon Shoosmith situation. Remember how much that cost and Shoosmith was not a Darroch. If there is any evidence that Boris was in any way behind the leak, all bets are off.
I don’t think we should be replacing Darroch but a boss I trusted said that you should only ever put in writing something you would wish to be published on the front of a newspaper. If you cannot put it in language that is diplomatic enough for that then communication should be verbal, and then it is up to whoever receives the advise to take note - this can then be attributed but can be spun as misrepresented if required.
Everything that Darroch has said - and much worse - has been said in two published books by Michael Wolff, whom Trump allowed inside the White House, any by various former advisors and former members of the administration. Far from being controversial they are statements of the bleeding obvious and have been on the front pages of most newspapers around the world since Trump was elected.
Cui bono? Those who want to get close / even closer to Trump. Boris? Farage? Who else?
Don't forget Boris was in the FO. He knows people who have access to diplomatic emails. Just saying...…...
It was under Margaret Thatcher's Premiership that we joined the ERM, in October 1990. If she didn't like it, she should have done something about it.
And I notice that you haven't responded to my fact-check of HYUFD (because you're stuffed):
John Major won the largest number of votes in a General Election in British history.
By any party.
Ever.
QED.
Its well known Mrs T had grave misgivings about our ERM membership but was railroaded into it by her Cabinet of dull grey men like Sir John Major who eventually knifed her anyway.
As far as the 1992 election is concerned, so what? He may have won the largest number of votes in a general election... But then he blew it and took the Tories down to their worst defeat since 1832.
Swings and roundabouts.
Oh and lets not forget that the number of votes cast for the Tories in 1992 is dwarfed by the number of people who voted to LEAVE in 2016.
If I wanted to be a candidate for a political party would I be expected to give the selection panel access to my social media accounts.? Would that include PB.com?
The Tory Party is about to become the Boris Party so yes anyone slagging off Boris on social media seeking to become a Tory candidate better be careful
Boris is a complete fucking arsehole. Now, I must get round to putting myself on the Conservative Party candidates list.
Meanwhile we won’t take any lectures from remainers such as yourself. You voted remain and frankly no one believes this “conversion” to leave under Boris. Once a remainerr always a remainer. You're fooling no one.
I respect democracy, it is a pity some on here clearly do not and will do anything to block the Leave vote being implemented
There are not many on here who object to Leave being implemented. The vast majority would be content with a leave that reflects where the country (not tory members) are.
The majority on here strongly object to no deal being implemented.
The leave campaign promised a fantastic deal. At the GE the party of no deal got a mere 1.8% of the votes. No deal has no mandate, if you support no deal you are the one with no respect for democracy.
A comprehensive character assassination of Johnson by John Major on radio 4. Who'd have thought.....
Y It seems the only serious Tory who still hinks Boris has any qualities is our very own HYUFD.
Given Boris will win about 60 to 70% of Tory members and won over 50% of Tory MPs and John Major led the Tories to their worst election defeat since the Duke of Wellington in 1832 in 1997 and William Hague led the Tories to their second worst voteshare in 2 centuries too, if those 2 supposedly 'serious' Tories are now dismissive of Boris so be it. I used to be respect both but jumping on the anti Boris bandwagon means those 2 are now increasingly out of touch with the Tory base and unable to get over the Leave result.
I suggest if the Tories want to win the next general election they find out who you most admire and pick the opposite as leader
Your propensity to select facts at random to fit your fanatic zeal borders on disturbing.
I'm no great fan of the 1992-7 Government but there are two important facts to bear
That notwithstanding there's one other teeny-weeny little fact you might in future care not to avoid:
John Major won the largest number of votes in a General Election in British history.
Major won in 1992 attacking 'Labour's tax bombshell' and because of Kinnock
That is a bizarre response. It doesn't respond to Mysticrose point at all (not even responding to the ERM point). At every election there are campaign themes, pros and cons, etc, etc. There was nothing special about 'Labour's tax bombshell' compared to other themes in other elections. Nor the issues over Kinnock; there were themes run on Major as well.
These themes may have been what won it for the Tories, but it doesn't get away from the facts Mysticrose was pointing out - Major won against the odds, which was probably the downfall of the Tories in 97. Then there was no doubt it was going to be slaughter. If the Tories had lost in 92, 97 would have been a lot different.
Your response had nothing to do with his/her post.
Major won in 1992 on a tax cutting message.
It was of course Major who pushed to join the ERM in the first place as Gin points out
You have done it again! What has your response got to do with the point being made? You don't seem to understand the points being made in response to your posts. Both your points may well be true. So what? That is not the point M was making.
There are other US Presidents and would-be US Presidents who would now be deep into military action against Iran. Hillary Clinton I suspect would be one such.
We should be grateful that Trump is more interested in twatter posturing rather than real world doing.
Clinton would not have appointed the loathsome Bolton, and would not have withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal. We would be in a much better position vis-a-vis Iran.
I'm prepared to entertain that she might have been more belligerent about Syria though. And less crass in her dealings with Israel.
A comprehensive character assassination of Johnson by John Major on radio 4. Who'd have thought.....
Yeterday we had an even more surprising interview when William Hague revealed himself to be more impresive than all the current Tory MPs put together. He thinks Johnson is a liar incompetent and unsuitable (my precis)
It seems the only serious Tory who still hinks Boris has any qualities is our very own HYUFD.
HYUFD will claim that Major and Hague are not “real” Tories.
No, they are Remainer establishment Tories who lost 2 general elections out of 3 between them 2 by landslide defeats.
Much like Bush Snr, Romney and McCain who between them lost 3 out of 4 presidential elections they fought dismissed Trump before he actually won the presidential election
Comedy gold
The comedy element is that he slavishly backs whoever is Tory leader at the time. He has done a complete volte-face from Cameron to Mr Blobby in a matter of months. I cannot comprehend how anyone can go from being a Remain Cameroon to a No Deal Johnson fanboy in such a short time span.
Nick Palmer went from New Labour to Corbynite if the needs of the time change so be it.
I still back Brexit Deal or No Deal, I am not a Farageite No Deal diehard
You are not a proper Brexit supporter having voted remain.
HYUFD is sooooo in the Remain closet.
Yep like those fundamentalist preachers who rail against homosexually and then turn out to be gay..
This Ambassador case is 100% a right vs wrong issue that should have nothing to do with where one's own politics lie on the right vs left spectrum, the leave vs remain spectrum, or any other spectrum one cares to mention.
The guy was doing his job in the precise way that this particular job is done. He did nothing out of the ordinary or in any way unprofessional or controversial. His confidential assessments of the current US administration provided valuable intelligence. He is utterly blameless.
It is not a matter for debate. Anybody in the UK who aligns themselves with Donald Trump on this, or claims to see both sides of the argument, has lost the plot.
But why arent you charging them the marginal rate? Why give them your services significantly under what they are willing to pay for it?
A long time ago I did about a year of weekly corporate flying into Europe, if I was offered 50k extra for the year but had to live in the destination country I would have jumped at it rather than the flying backwards and forwards. So not everyone on the Monday morning Schiphol flight will feel the same way.
I troubleshoot for an ERP software company (for fun, more income comes from add-ons for that software). So the client rate is set by the software house and the software house pay me what is a very fair rate for my time...
Also flying is actually less stressful than contracting and travelling around the UK. My local airport is a 10 minute taxi from home and I can arrive 40 minutes before the Schiphol flight takes off.
Now I could work from home but I actually find that more stressful - when on site as it rolls to 6pm I can knock off...
Fat Boris is going to last about five minutes as PM before he explodes into a mess of meringue, clotted cream, and wig.
OK. As soon as you hear any news on who might take over from him and whether they're going to be Leave or Remain please could you let HYUFD know ASAP so he can mentally prepare for the next volte face and physically prepare for some strenuous genuflecting
Re frequent flyer tax: I envisage a multiplier. Your first flight past x has x%, past y has y% and so on and so forth. The idea is a) something like 70% of flights are made by 15% of the populace, so you won't actually be taxing the poor and those who may take one overseas holiday a year and b) businesses need to adapt to the changing world. Some jobs need physical people flying to physical places, fine, but some don't, and if they won't move to online meetings and whatnot naturally, then make it prohibitively expensive to continually fly places. I know for some people that will sound tyrannical, but to me the tyranny is the moneyed classes flying all over the place to make money whilst the world burns below them, with the poor most suffering the consequences.
Chav flights bad and taxed, Irish HGVs ploughing across England not buying local diesel and untaxed is exactly the sort of nonsense that the voters despise.
Focus on solutions not more taxes. Airline duty already exists.
Normally “not backing our man” would be a negative. However this is not the case with Sir KD. Many will remember he was Blair’s specially selected Lisbon negotiator when we gave up a third of our rebate in return for a worthless promise of CAP reform. Surely the concept of the completely impartial mandarin doesn’t really apply in these quaesi political jobs where the opposite numbers from other countries are all political appointees. Sir KD was appointed to Washington when the assumption was that Clinton would succeed Obama. Perhaps Johnston tried to move him when FS, hence his remark in the debate.
There is also the question of loyalty to consider. Loyalty is earned, not bestowed. If everyone knows that the Prime Minister is going to let anyone swing in the wind rather than spend political capital backing up even the most senior professional colleagues, who is going to go out on a limb for him?
What I have found utterly depressing is the craven toadying of politicians I have known and liked for many years who have signed up to the manifestly unfit Johnson, presumably in the hope of preferment.
Mildly amusing to see another Tory ramper (paging Big G) from who’s eyes the scales have fallen.
You need to review the posts more widely, Streeter. There are many regular and respected posters here on the left and right who have about had it with the two main Parties.
I am one of them but we are in Catch-22 - We need to move to a fairer voting system but that would require electing a government in favour of doing so but we will never elect a government in favour of doing so because FPTP is propping up the old duopoly and it will never be in their interests to change it.
A Labour/LD coalition might do it, especially if the LDs held out for it as a price for lending support.
I wouldn't hold my breath though. Blair was quite open to the idea of PR, until he got elected.
Its well known Mrs T had grave misgivings about our ERM membership but was railroaded into it by her Cabinet of dull grey men like Sir John Major who eventually knifed her anyway.
Mrs Thatcher "railroaded" .... !!!!!!!
The "Iron Lady" wasn't politically railroaded at any stage of her career.
It was under Margaret Thatcher's Premiership that we joined the ERM, in October 1990. If she didn't like it, she should have done something about it.
And I notice that you haven't responded to my fact-check of HYUFD (because you're stuffed):
John Major won the largest number of votes in a General Election in British history.
By any party.
Ever.
QED.
Its well known Mrs T had grave misgivings about our ERM membership but was railroaded into it by her Cabinet of dull grey men like Sir John Major who eventually knifed her anyway.
As far as the 1992 election is concerned, so what? He may have won the largest number of votes in a general election... But then he blew it and took the Tories down to their worst defeat since 1832.
Swings and roundabouts.
Oh and lets not forget that the number of votes cast for the Tories in 1992 is dwarfed by the number of people who voted to LEAVE in 2016.
The idea that it now turns out that Thatcher was in fact some sort of wishy washy wimp railroaded into decisions by her cabinet of vegetables is certainly a revelation to me.
The latest Ashcroft poll this week gives Trump a higher net approval rating with Tory and Leave voters than Cameron, May, Corbyn and Swinson. It is only Remain voters who still give Trump a very high net negative rating and put him last however it is the former Boris needs for victory not the latter, the latter will vote against Boris regardless on the whole.
Ahem. You switched from discussing a relative metric ("higher net approval rating") in your first sentence to discussing an absolute metric ("high net negative rating") in your second. You should have used the same in both. And ideally I'd like to have seen numbers instead of qualitative terms ( "very high"?)
Normally “not backing our man” would be a negative. However this is not the case with Sir KD. Many will remember he was Blair’s specially selected Lisbon negotiator when we gave up a third of our rebate in return for a worthless promise of CAP reform. Surely the concept of the completely impartial mandarin doesn’t really apply in these quaesi political jobs where the opposite numbers from other countries are all political appointees. Sir KD was appointed to Washington when the assumption was that Clinton would succeed Obama. Perhaps Johnston tried to move him when FS, hence his remark in the debate.
Wasn't he appointed after Obama got the job? edit - sorry misread your post...
Its well known Mrs T had grave misgivings about our ERM membership but was railroaded into it by her Cabinet of dull grey men like Sir John Major who eventually knifed her anyway.
Mrs Thatcher "railroaded" .... !!!!!!!
The "Iron Lady" wasn't politically railroaded at any stage of her career.
She was towards the end.
From about 1989 it was clear her power was slowly ebbing away and the Tory establishment were going to get her.
Is all covered in the BBCs excellent Thatcher documentary which should still be on iplayer if anyone wants to catch up.
Its well known Mrs T had grave misgivings about our ERM membership but was railroaded into it by her Cabinet of dull grey men like Sir John Major who eventually knifed her anyway.
Mrs Thatcher "railroaded" .... !!!!!!!
The "Iron Lady" wasn't politically railroaded at any stage of her career.
She was towards the end.
From about 1989 it was clear her power was slowly ebbing away and the Tory establishment were going to get her.
Is all covered in the BBCs excellent Thatcher documentary which should still be on iplayer if anyone wants to catch up.
The BBC's Black Wednesday documentary is quite good too:
Vote Johnson get Trump. I can see ads involving the Orange skinned racist with a little Boris in his pocket.
That would be quite a powerful message
Equally vote Boris get Farage (just put Boris in Farage's pocket) - any election is going to destroy the Tory party...
I would be feeling quite optimistic but for the fact that Labour has just as big an idiot in charge. If Labour had the common sense to choose a new leader it could well be a complete game changer.
Just to remind people that the options are really No Deal, May's Deal or Revoke.
Oh and No Deal will result in us agreeing to May's Deal or a variation of it very quickly as unexpected items occur...
Ahhh, facts. Not welcome in the current climate.
I do think the way both of these leadership candidates have approached this deal issue is likely to ensure they don’t get and changes. If there really was any scope for movement then it should have been pursued privately but that approach wouldn’t get them elected so it’s catch 22. I don’t see how they, the EU, can concede anything now without completely losing credibility.
Its well known Mrs T had grave misgivings about our ERM membership but was railroaded into it by her Cabinet of dull grey men like Sir John Major who eventually knifed her anyway.
Mrs Thatcher "railroaded" .... !!!!!!!
The "Iron Lady" wasn't politically railroaded at any stage of her career.
She was towards the end.
From about 1989 it was clear her power was slowly ebbing away and the Tory establishment were going to get her.
Is all covered in the BBCs excellent Thatcher documentary which should still be on iplayer if anyone wants to catch up.
Nonsense.
At no point in that documentary up to the point of resignation was she "railroaded." Thatcher dug her heels in right to the end. It's was her failure to compromise that led to her downfall not the reverse.
Tens of millions sounds a bit chicken feedy compared to the billion the DUP received. It'll hardly cover putting UJs on every product, project and government building in Scotland.
I respect democracy, it is a pity some on here clearly do not and will do anything to block the Leave vote being implemented
There doesn't seem to be that much respect for democracy in the way you're creaming yourself about Johnson potentially winning a majority on 29% of the vote to enact a major change vehemently opposed by the majority of the population.
Re frequent flyer tax: I envisage a multiplier. Your first flight past x has x%, past y has y% and so on and so forth. The idea is a) something like 70% of flights are made by 15% of the populace, so you won't actually be taxing the poor and those who may take one overseas holiday a year and b) businesses need to adapt to the changing world. Some jobs need physical people flying to physical places, fine, but some don't, and if they won't move to online meetings and whatnot naturally, then make it prohibitively expensive to continually fly places. I know for some people that will sound tyrannical, but to me the tyranny is the moneyed classes flying all over the place to make money whilst the world burns below them, with the poor most suffering the consequences.
Chav flights bad and taxed, Irish HGVs ploughing across England not buying local diesel and untaxed is exactly the sort of nonsense that the voters despise.
Focus on solutions not more taxes. Airline duty already exists.
I mean, outside of huge government regulations, international cooperation and potential rationing, what do you think are the solutions to climate change?
One thing we know is we need fewer aeroplanes in the air. If taxing it won't help, either by paying for the R&D to replace them, or as a way of making people consider other options, would you be in favour of rationing it?
A comprehensive character assassination of Johnson by John Major on radio 4. Who'd have thought.....
Yeterday we had an even more surprising interview when William Hague revealed himself to be more impresive than all the current Tory MPs put together. He thinks Johnson is a liar incompetent and unsuitable (my precis)
It seems the only serious Tory who still hinks Boris has any qualities is our very own HYUFD.
HYUFD will claim that Major and Hague are not “real” Tories.
No, they are Remainer establishment Tories who lost 2 general elections out of 3 between them 2 by landslide defeats.
Much like Bush Snr, Romney and McCain who between them lost 3 out of 4 presidential elections they fought dismissed Trump before he actually won the presidential election
Comedy gold
The comedy element is that he slavishly backs whoever is Tory leader at the time. He has done a complete volte-face from Cameron to Mr Blobby in a matter of months. I cannot comprehend how anyone can go from being a Remain Cameroon to a No Deal Johnson fanboy in such a short time span.
Nick Palmer went from New Labour to Corbynite if the needs of the time change so be it.
I still back Brexit Deal or No Deal, I am not a Farageite No Deal diehard
I wasn't talking about Nick Palmer.
I think you need to take a step back because your posts are becoming increasingly erratic and all you are doing is throwing out disconnected facts that are often complete non-sequiturs to the posts you are responding to. I mean this is kind way, take a a few days off PB before you explode.
The latest Ashcroft poll this week gives Trump a higher net approval rating with Tory and Leave voters than Cameron, May, Corbyn and Swinson. It is only Remain voters who still give Trump a very high net negative rating and put him last however it is the former Boris needs for victory not the latter, the latter will vote against Boris regardless on the whole.
In any case given Darroch has total wrecked the relationship of the current government with the administration of our most important ally and trading partner it is right that Boris seeks a new Ambassador when he takes over
Darroch has done no such thing. He was doing his job. The rush on the part of you and other Borisites to attack a public servant for doing his job is disgusting.
In refusing to back the ambassador Boris is getting close to an Ed Balls/Sharon Shoosmith situation. Remember how much that cost and Shoosmith was not a Darroch. If there is any evidence that Boris was in any way behind the leak, all bets are off.
I don’t think we should be replacing Darroch but a boss I trusted said that you should only ever put in writing something you would wish to be published on the front of a newspaper. If you cannot put it in language that is diplomatic enough for that then communication should be verbal, and then it is up to whoever receives the advise to take note - this can then be attributed but can be spun as misrepresented if required.
Everything that Darroch has said - and much worse - has been said in two published books by Michael Wolff, whom Trump allowed inside the White House, any by various former advisors and former members of the administration. Far from being controversial they are statements of the bleeding obvious and have been on the front pages of most newspapers around the world since Trump was elected.
Cui bono? Those who want to get close / even closer to Trump. Boris? Farage? Who else?
Don't forget Boris was in the FO. He knows people who have access to diplomatic emails. Just saying...…...
I understand that the emails were about 2 years old. Does anyone know if Johnson was at the FO at the time
Surprising no one is questioning Isabel Oakshot's involvment in the theft of these emails. I can't get a ticket to the cinema without being informed that someone is recording my conversation for security purposes.
How would that work for people like me, I travel 20-30 times a year for my employer and once or twice a year for holidays. I'd basically be facing a super tax just to have a week in the sun and go home to see family at Xmas because my employer wants me in a lot of meetings.
How would that work for people like me, I travel 20-30 times a year for my employer and once or twice a year for holidays. I'd basically be facing a super tax just to have a week in the sun and go home to see family at Xmas because my employer wants me in a lot of meetings.
In this new world you can't let facts and reality impact an insane plan...
A comprehensive character assassination of Johnson by John Major on radio 4. Who'd have thought.....
Yeterday we had an even more surprising interview when William Hague revealed himself to be more impresive than all the current Tory MPs put together. He thinks Johnson is a liar incompetent and unsuitable (my precis)
It seems the only serious Tory who still hinks Boris has any qualities is our very own HYUFD.
HYUFD will claim that Major and Hague are not “real” Tories.
No, they are Remainer establishment Tories who lost 2 general elections out of 3 between them 2 by landslide defeats.
Much like Bush Snr, Romney and McCain who between them lost 3 out of 4 presidential elections they fought dismissed Trump before he actually won the presidential election
But political parties are means to an end, and winning elections is only a good thing if it furthers the aims of a political project. The Conservatives' goals to me would seem to be a well run market based economy, strong defence, moderately liberal social policies and a democratic system that has wide participation and support. I am not sure that a Johnson election victory helps with any of those.
The latest Ashcroft poll this week gives Trump a higher net approval rating with Tory and Leave voters than Cameron, May, Corbyn and Swinson. It is only Remain voters who still give Trump a very high net negative rating and put him last however it is the former Boris needs for victory not the latter, the latter will vote against Boris regardless on the whole.
In any case given Darroch has total wrecked the relationship of the current government with the administration of our most important ally and trading partner it is right that Boris seeks a new Ambassador when he takes over
Darroch has done no such thing. He was doing his job. The rush on the part of you and other Borisites to attack a public servant for doing his job is disgusting.
In refusing to back the ambassador Boris is getting close to an Ed Balls/Sharon Shoosmith situation. Remember how much that cost and Shoosmith was not a Darroch. If there is any evidence that Boris was in any way behind the leak, all bets are off.
I don’t think we should be replacing Darroch but a boss I trusted said that you should only ever put in writing something you would wish to be published on the front of a newspaper. If you cannot put it in language that is diplomatic enough for that then communication should be verbal, and then it is up to whoever receives the advise to take note - this can then be attributed but can be spun as misrepresented if required.
Everything that Darroch has said - and much worse - has been said in two published books by Michael Wolff, whom Trump allowed inside the White House, any by various former advisors and former members of the administration. Far from being controversial they are statements of the bleeding obvious and have been on the front pages of most newspapers around the world since Trump was elected.
Cui bono? Those who want to get close / even closer to Trump. Boris? Farage? Who else?
Don't forget Boris was in the FO. He knows people who have access to diplomatic emails. Just saying...…...
It is likely that the leaker was a SPAD to a Minister, rather than a career Civil Servant or MP. After the downfall of Williamson, MPs would be cautious. Politically ambitious and naive SPADs a different matter.
The latest Ashcroft poll this week gives Trump a higher net approval rating with Tory and Leave voters than Cameron, May, Corbyn and Swinson. It is only Remain voters who still give Trump a very high net negative rating and put him last however it is the former Boris needs for victory not the latter, the latter will vote against Boris regardless on the whole.
In any case given Darroch has total wrecked the relationship of the current government with the administration of our most important ally and trading partner it is right that Boris seeks a new Ambassador when he takes over
Darroch has done no such thing. He was doing his job. The rush on the part of you and other Borisites to attack a public servant for doing his job is disgusting.
In refusing to back the ambassador Boris is getting close to an Ed Balls/Sharon Shoosmith situation. Remember how much that cost and Shoosmith was not a Darroch. If there is any evidence that Boris was in any way behind the leak, all bets are off.
I don’t think we should be replacing Darroch but a boss I trusted said that you should only ever put in writing something you would wish to be published on the front of a newspaper. If you cannot put it in language that is diplomatic enough for that then communication should be verbal, and then it is up to whoever receives the advise to take note - this can then be attributed but can be spun as misrepresented if required.
Everything that Darroch has said - and much worse - has been said in two published books by Michael Wolff, whom Trump allowed inside the White House, any by various former advisors and former members of the administration. Far from being controversial they are statements of the bleeding obvious and have been on the front pages of most newspapers around the world since Trump was elected.
Cui bono? Those who want to get close / even closer to Trump. Boris? Farage? Who else?
Don't forget Boris was in the FO. He knows people who have access to diplomatic emails. Just saying...…...
I understand that the emails were about 2 years old. Does anyone know if Johnson was at the FO at the time
Some are as recent as the Trump State visit, so likely a current member of staff.
How would that work for people like me, I travel 20-30 times a year for my employer and once or twice a year for holidays. I'd basically be facing a super tax just to have a week in the sun and go home to see family at Xmas because my employer wants me in a lot of meetings.
My (uneducated) position would be a corporate levy and a personal one. So if you're flying as an individual, not business related etc, you get a one multiplier, if you're a business who has lots of employees flying all over the place, that has its own multiplier. So if you, Mx kyf_100 are flying twice as you the individual, the second flight might be a tad more expensive. Whereas your 20-30 flights would be added to the company pool, and the multiplier figured out that way. Unfortunately complex, yes, but flat taxes aren't ever fair, and usually aren't enough to actually dissuade the extremely wealthy.
If someone is on their 20th personal flight in a year (for example) when the average person doesn't get one, I have no problem jacking the price up 100s if not 1000s of %. If a corporation is having 1000s of flights for trips that could be done online, I have no problem "forcing" their hand to change the culture. I often hear that over seas business meetings are still necessary because people like making deals face to face, and obviously the perks of schmoozing makes deals easier, but it is not sustainable.
What is an ambassador for? Surely he is there to represent our interests, to build contacts and increase our influence in the administration that he or she is dealing with. The extent to which you might be able to do this will of course vary. I suspect that our ambassador in Tehran has very little scope but the ambassador to our closest ally really has to work at this both with the current administration and future possible administrations.
An ambassador who has fallen out with the incumbent President to the extent that he is being disinvited to events and meetings, such as Fox's meeting yesterday, are cancelled because of his attendance is not able to do his job. Rather than improving and smoothing relationships he is aggravating them.
It may be true that this is not Darroch's fault. The leaks of his cables are a disgrace that someone will hopefully be prosecuted for. It may be true also that Trump is a petulant bully who disrespects anyone, close ally or not. It is also true that ultimately who our ambassador is is a matter for us. But he is not doing, cannot do his job.
In these circumstances is a potential PM really wrong to suggest that Darroch needs to be moved on? None of us like bullies and standing up to them is always going to be more popular than not. But it seems to me that Boris' approach is ultimately more consistent with our national interest than some cheap Love Actually headlines.
It is in the national interest to ensure that the UK is not seen to allow foreign powers to dictate who should represent us.
The latest Ashcroft poll this week gives Trump a higher net approval rating with Tory and Leave voters than Cameron, May, Corbyn and Swinson. It is only Remain voters who still give Trump a very high net negative rating and put him last however it is the former Boris needs for victory not the latter, the latter will vote against Boris regardless on the whole.
In any case given Darroch has total wrecked the relationship of the current government with the administration of our most important ally and trading partner it is right that Boris seeks a new Ambassador when he takes over
Darroch has done no such thing. He was doing his job. The rush on the part of you and other Borisites to attack a public servant for doing his job is disgusting.
In refusing to back the ambassador Boris is getting close to an Ed Balls/Sharon Shoosmith situation. Remember how much that cost and Shoosmith was not a Darroch. If there is any evidence that Boris was in any way behind the leak, all bets are off.
I don’t think we should be replacing Darroch but a boss I trusted said that you should only ever put in writing something you would wish to be published on the front of a newspaper. If you cannot put it in language that is diplomatic enough for that then communication should be verbal, and then it is up to whoever receives the advise to take note - this can then be attributed but can be spun as misrepresented if required.
Everything that Darroch has said - and much worse - has been said in two published books by Michael Wolff, whom Trump allowed inside the White House, any by various former advisors and former members of the administration. Far from being controversial they are statements of the bleeding obvious and have been on the front pages of most newspapers around the world since Trump was elected.
Cui bono? Those who want to get close / even closer to Trump. Boris? Farage? Who else?
Don't forget Boris was in the FO. He knows people who have access to diplomatic emails. Just saying...…...
It is likely that the leaker was a SPAD to a Minister, rather than a career Civil Servant or MP. After the downfall of Williamson, MPs would be cautious. Politically ambitious and naive SPADs a different matter.
Or a senior politician who thinks they'd be perfect for the job themselves.....
How would that work for people like me, I travel 20-30 times a year for my employer and once or twice a year for holidays. I'd basically be facing a super tax just to have a week in the sun and go home to see family at Xmas because my employer wants me in a lot of meetings.
In this new world you can't let facts and reality impact an insane plan...
The facts and reality point to climate catastrophe if we don't have world wide culture change. The insane plan is that we can keep going as we currently do.
How would that work for people like me, I travel 20-30 times a year for my employer and once or twice a year for holidays. I'd basically be facing a super tax just to have a week in the sun and go home to see family at Xmas because my employer wants me in a lot of meetings.
My (uneducated) position would be a corporate levy and a personal one. So if you're flying as an individual, not business related etc, you get a one multiplier, if you're a business who has lots of employees flying all over the place, that has its own multiplier. So if you, Mx kyf_100 are flying twice as you the individual, the second flight might be a tad more expensive. Whereas your 20-30 flights would be added to the company pool, and the multiplier figured out that way. Unfortunately complex, yes, but flat taxes aren't ever fair, and usually aren't enough to actually dissuade the extremely wealthy.
If someone is on their 20th personal flight in a year (for example) when the average person doesn't get one, I have no problem jacking the price up 100s if not 1000s of %. If a corporation is having 1000s of flights for trips that could be done online, I have no problem "forcing" their hand to change the culture. I often hear that over seas business meetings are still necessary because people like making deals face to face, and obviously the perks of schmoozing makes deals easier, but it is not sustainable.
It would be impossible to administer because not all corporate travel is booked through corporate travel agencies.
Feeling very bleak about the state of politics this morning. Has it ever been lower?
Not since the 18th century I think.
A group of political leaders deliberately setting a course that they know will damage and perhaps destroy the country they aspire to lead is, to say the least, unusual. But that is what we have in today's Tory party.
Re frequent flyer tax: I envisage a multiplier. Your first flight past x has x%, past y has y% and so on and so forth. The idea is a) something like 70% of flights are made by 15% of the populace, so you won't actually be taxing the poor and those who may take one overseas holiday a year and b) businesses need to adapt to the changing world. Some jobs need physical people flying to physical places, fine, but some don't, and if they won't move to online meetings and whatnot naturally, then make it prohibitively expensive to continually fly places. I know for some people that will sound tyrannical, but to me the tyranny is the moneyed classes flying all over the place to make money whilst the world burns below them, with the poor most suffering the consequences.
Chav flights bad and taxed, Irish HGVs ploughing across England not buying local diesel and untaxed is exactly the sort of nonsense that the voters despise.
Focus on solutions not more taxes. Airline duty already exists.
I mean, outside of huge government regulations, international cooperation and potential rationing, what do you think are the solutions to climate change?
One thing we know is we need fewer aeroplanes in the air. If taxing it won't help, either by paying for the R&D to replace them, or as a way of making people consider other options, would you be in favour of rationing it?
No. We don't need fewer aeroplanes in the air, we need better ones.
The solution to automobile vehicle emissions hasn't been the rationing of automobiles, it has been heavily taxing fuel inefficient vehicles while subsidising or leaving untaxed ultra low emission vehicles.
We should be encouraging Airbus and Boeing [and others] through taxation to respond to the market in the same way as Nissan and other automobile manufacturers have.
Taxes should be set so that whoever can design an ultralow emissions aeroplane will make an absolute fortune.
It is better to have more aeroplanes in the sky that are all ultralow emissions than having fewer aeroplanes in the sky but they're all heavily polluting.
How would that work for people like me, I travel 20-30 times a year for my employer and once or twice a year for holidays. I'd basically be facing a super tax just to have a week in the sun and go home to see family at Xmas because my employer wants me in a lot of meetings.
My (uneducated) position would be a corporate levy and a personal one. So if you're flying as an individual, not business related etc, you get a one multiplier, if you're a business who has lots of employees flying all over the place, that has its own multiplier. So if you, Mx kyf_100 are flying twice as you the individual, the second flight might be a tad more expensive. Whereas your 20-30 flights would be added to the company pool, and the multiplier figured out that way. Unfortunately complex, yes, but flat taxes aren't ever fair, and usually aren't enough to actually dissuade the extremely wealthy.
If someone is on their 20th personal flight in a year (for example) when the average person doesn't get one, I have no problem jacking the price up 100s if not 1000s of %. If a corporation is having 1000s of flights for trips that could be done online, I have no problem "forcing" their hand to change the culture. I often hear that over seas business meetings are still necessary because people like making deals face to face, and obviously the perks of schmoozing makes deals easier, but it is not sustainable.
It would be impossible to administer because not all corporate travel is booked through corporate travel agencies.
This is where the big statist in me comes in and just says, make it have to be.
We have to accept that the world is changing catastrophically due to our actions, and that we cannot just sit back and keep letting it.
Just as the onset of war led to a complete change in our economy and way of thinking about production in the early 1900s, we really need to consider that huge overhaul of our systems of living need changing.
My grandparents survived rationing because they had do. Do I relish the idea of rationing? No. But would I support it if it was an answer to making sure civilisation could survive? Yes.
Watching all these Tory leadership debates I think the TV presenter/facilitator should be armed with a whistle and as soon as it degenerates into...noise and bluster (which it inevitably does because Boris in particular has verbal diarrhoea)... then a couple of short sharp blasts on it might get them to shut the hell up for five seconds.
Seriously, large parts of these debates represent the verbal equivalent of two boxers holding onto each other to run down the clock for the round.
Tens of millions sounds a bit chicken feedy compared to the billion the DUP received. It'll hardly cover putting UJs on every product, project and government building in Scotland.
You mean just continually saying no to a Section 30 order will not be in itself enough to save the Union? I hope someone told, um, all of the Conservative leadership candidates...
Feeling very bleak about the state of politics this morning. Has it ever been lower?
Not that I can recall.
If 40% vote Liberal Democrat we can say Billhooks to Brexit, Bye Bye to Boris, Ciao to Corbyn and Fudge Off to Farage and life can get back to something approaching normal.
How would that work for people like me, I travel 20-30 times a year for my employer and once or twice a year for holidays. I'd basically be facing a super tax just to have a week in the sun and go home to see family at Xmas because my employer wants me in a lot of meetings.
In this new world you can't let facts and reality impact an insane plan...
The facts and reality point to climate catastrophe if we don't have world wide culture change. The insane plan is that we can keep going as we currently do.
Probably the most effective short term method of mitigating climate change is mass tree planting, Which also has many other benefits. Enhanced AIr Passenger Duty applied for this purpose would be real progress, without changing lifestyles overly. It would also stop desertification and depopulation of marginal areas not suitable for mass agriculture.
Re frequent flyer tax: I envisage a multiplier. Your first flight past x has x%, past y has y% and so on and so forth. The idea is a) something like 70% of flights are made by 15% of the populace, so you won't actually be taxing the poor and those who may take one overseas holiday a year and b) businesses need to adapt to the changing world. Some jobs need physical people flying to physical places, fine, but some don't, and if they won't move to online meetings and whatnot naturally, then make it prohibitively expensive to continually fly places. I know for some people that will sound tyrannical, but to me the tyranny is the moneyed classes flying all over the place to make money whilst the world burns below them, with the poor most suffering the consequences.
Chav flights bad and taxed, Irish HGVs ploughing across England not buying local diesel and untaxed is exactly the sort of nonsense that the voters despise.
Focus on solutions not more taxes. Airline duty already exists.
I mean, outside of huge government regulations, international cooperation and potential rationing, what do you think are the solutions to climate change?
One thing we know is we need fewer aeroplanes in the air. If taxing it won't help, either by paying for the R&D to replace them, or as a way of making people consider other options, would you be in favour of rationing it?
No. We don't need fewer aeroplanes in the air, we need better ones.
The solution to automobile vehicle emissions hasn't been the rationing of automobiles, it has been heavily taxing fuel inefficient vehicles while subsidising or leaving untaxed ultra low emission vehicles.
We should be encouraging Airbus and Boeing [and others] through taxation to respond to the market in the same way as Nissan and other automobile manufacturers have.
Taxes should be set so that whoever can design an ultralow emissions aeroplane will make an absolute fortune.
It is better to have more aeroplanes in the sky that are all ultralow emissions than having fewer aeroplanes in the sky but they're all heavily polluting.
Sure, more sustainable is better. But we still need fewer aeroplanes. Unless they can all be made from bamboo and run on solar, cars, aeroplanes and so on will be more bad than good. Electric cars and more sustainable run cars are great, but building them is still environmentally awful. And, again, without a switch to sustainable energy methods, if you're running an electric car then you're increasing need for electricity which at the moment is met with fossil fuels.
To expand on my point the mistake with airline taxes if you want to cut emissions is they are frequently taxing passengers and not emissions. If a plane departs with half its seats empty is that emitting half as much emissions as a full one?
If you want to cut emissions then ignore passengers altogether. Tax the emissions. A plane with few passengers emitting more emissions than a plane full of passengers should be taxed more. A plane with lots of passengers that is extremely efficient should be taxed less.
Our current tax system and the proposals discussed are like suggesting an electric Nissan Leaf frequently used should be more heavily taxed than a gas guzzling SUV.
What is an ambassador for? Surely he is there to represent our interests, to build contacts and increase our influence in the administration that he or she is dealing with. The extent to which you might be able to do this will of course vary. I suspect that our ambassador in Tehran has very little scope but the ambassador to our closest ally really has to work at this both with the current administration and future possible administrations.
An ambassador who has fallen out with the incumbent President to the extent that he is being disinvited to events and meetings, such as Fox's meeting yesterday, are cancelled because of his attendance is not able to do his job. Rather than improving and smoothing relationships he is aggravating them.
It may be true that this is not Darroch's fault. The leaks of his cables are a disgrace that someone will hopefully be prosecuted for. It may be true also that Trump is a petulant bully who disrespects anyone, close ally or not. It is also true that ultimately who our ambassador is is a matter for us. But he is not doing, cannot do his job.
In these circumstances is a potential PM really wrong to suggest that Darroch needs to be moved on? None of us like bullies and standing up to them is always going to be more popular than not. But it seems to me that Boris' approach is ultimately more consistent with our national interest than some cheap Love Actually headlines.
It's just am indication how Trump will bully us in any future trade negotiation. The moment he is not getting his own "America First" way he'll have a tantrum ilke the big man-baby he is.
I agree with that too. Under Trump the USA is not the reliable friend that we are used to and we need to move more cautiously. But that doesn't show that Boris is wrong to have an Ambassador that can help in that difficult process.
A comprehensive character assassination of Johnson by John Major on radio 4. Who'd have thought.....
Yeterday we had an even more surprising interview when William Hague revealed himself to be more impresive than all the current Tory MPs put together. He thinks Johnson is a liar incompetent and unsuitable (my precis)
It seems the only serious Tory who still hinks Boris has any qualities is our very own HYUFD.
HYUFD will claim that Major and Hague are not “real” Tories.
No, they are Remainer establishment Tories who lost 2 general elections out of 3 between them 2 by landslide defeats.
Much like Bush Snr, Romney and McCain who between them lost 3 out of 4 presidential elections they fought dismissed Trump before he actually won the presidential election
Comedy gold
Far be it for me to stick up for @HYUFD but where is he factually wrong on any of that assessment?
I didn't say that it was factually incorrect, but that it is comedic for him to use phrases like "remainer establishment Tories" (esp when he is a remainer himself) and to try and use the unavoidable '97 loss against Major (esp given his surprise success in '92). HY is sadly willing to twist or misuse any passing fact without shame.
The difference is I respect the Leave vote unlike John Major who seems to have sadly become a diehard Remainer even prepared to use a JR to stop Brexit
To stop a NO DEAL Brexit achieved by shutting down parliament.
Yes it is sinister but while Momentum might be Labour propagandists, Momentum won't be in power. Nick Cohen might as well ask if we can trust Boris in power because the Telegraph has attacked the BBC. MI5's death squads can stand down.
A comprehensive character assassination of Johnson by John Major on radio 4. Who'd have thought.....
Yeterday we had an even more surprising interview when William Hague revealed himself to be more impresive than all the current Tory MPs put together. He thinks Johnson is a liar incompetent and unsuitable (my precis)
It seems the only serious Tory who still hinks Boris has any qualities is our very own HYUFD.
HYUFD will claim that Major and Hague are not “real” Tories.
No, they are Remainer establishment Tories who lost 2 general elections out of 3 between them 2 by landslide defeats.
Much like Bush Snr, Romney and McCain who between them lost 3 out of 4 presidential elections they fought dismissed Trump before he actually won the presidential election
But political parties are means to an end, and winning elections is only a good thing if it furthers the aims of a political project. The Conservatives' goals to me would seem to be a well run market based economy, strong defence, moderately liberal social policies and a democratic system that has wide participation and support. I am not sure that a Johnson election victory helps with any of those.
Political parties don't have to be ideological or to adhere to any specific programme or project; they can merely see themselves as being vehicles for strong and stable government (to coin an original phrase). The Conservative Party has generally seen itself as such throughout its history, as have other centre-right parties around the world.
Sure, more sustainable is better. But we still need fewer aeroplanes. Unless they can all be made from bamboo and run on solar, cars, aeroplanes and so on will be more bad than good. Electric cars and more sustainable run cars are great, but building them is still environmentally awful. And, again, without a switch to sustainable energy methods, if you're running an electric car then you're increasing need for electricity which at the moment is met with fossil fuels.
This says to me you're not serious about emissions and are seeking restrictions for the sake of it.
You do realise for instance that we are switching to sustainable energy methods already? Ever increasing shares of our energy come from renewables with 0 energy coming from coal for entire weeks at a time?
To expand on my point the mistake with airline taxes if you want to cut emissions is they are frequently taxing passengers and not emissions. If a plane departs with half its seats empty is that emitting half as much emissions as a full one?
If you want to cut emissions then ignore passengers altogether. Tax the emissions. A plane with few passengers emitting more emissions than a plane full of passengers should be taxed more. A plane with lots of passengers that is extremely efficient should be taxed less.
Our current tax system and the proposals discussed are like suggesting an electric Nissan Leaf frequently used should be more heavily taxed than a gas guzzling SUV.
That makes sense.
My hope would be that if you have fewer passengers they would provide fewer flights, not fly half empty planes. But that could potentially be an unforeseen outcome.
The problem with taxing emissions is that falls on the airline. The airline pass it to all customers, and so it effectively becomes a flat tax. So again, the rich who are doing most of the flying aren't really bearing that much of a burden. It is their behaviour we want to change (just as the hope is that by taxing cigarettes a smoker won't smoke, or taxing sugar people won't eat as much and therefore will be healthier and less of a tax burden later down the line to the NHS)
A comprehensive character assassination of Johnson by John Major on radio 4. Who'd have thought.....
Yeterday we had an even more surprising interview when William Hague revealed himself to be more impresive than all the current Tory MPs put together. He thinks Johnson is a liar incompetent and unsuitable (my precis)
It seems the only serious Tory who still hinks Boris has any qualities is our very own HYUFD.
HYUFD will claim that Major and Hague are not “real” Tories.
No, they are Remainer establishment Tories who lost 2 general elections out of 3 between them 2 by landslide defeats.
Much like Bush Snr, Romney and McCain who between them lost 3 out of 4 presidential elections they fought dismissed Trump before he actually won the presidential election
Comedy gold
Far be it for me to stick up for @HYUFD but where is he factually wrong on any of that assessment?
I didn't say that it was factually incorrect, but that it is comedic for him to use phrases like "remainer establishment Tories" (esp when he is a remainer himself) and to try and use the unavoidable '97 loss against Major (esp given his surprise success in '92). HY is sadly willing to twist or misuse any passing fact without shame.
The difference is I respect the Leave vote unlike John Major who seems to have sadly become a diehard Remainer even prepared to use a JR to stop Brexit
To stop a NO DEAL Brexit achieved by shutting down parliament.
Why can’t you just be straight about facts?
A no deal Brexit can't be achieved by shutting down Parliament. No laws are changed while Parliament is shut so unless Parliament has already voted for a no deal Brexit to occur on a certain date shutting it down achieves nothing.
If you want to increase taxes on flying (presumably to discourage it), then why not just make the airlines pay duty on the fuel they consume? It's barmy that planes don't pay any fuel duty, whilst long-distance coaches and trains do,
(I understand why they don't; it just seems a barmy situation.)
To expand on my point the mistake with airline taxes if you want to cut emissions is they are frequently taxing passengers and not emissions. If a plane departs with half its seats empty is that emitting half as much emissions as a full one?
If you want to cut emissions then ignore passengers altogether. Tax the emissions. A plane with few passengers emitting more emissions than a plane full of passengers should be taxed more. A plane with lots of passengers that is extremely efficient should be taxed less.
Our current tax system and the proposals discussed are like suggesting an electric Nissan Leaf frequently used should be more heavily taxed than a gas guzzling SUV.
That makes sense.
My hope would be that if you have fewer passengers they would provide fewer flights, not fly half empty planes. But that could potentially be an unforeseen outcome.
The problem with taxing emissions is that falls on the airline. The airline pass it to all customers, and so it effectively becomes a flat tax. So again, the rich who are doing most of the flying aren't really bearing that much of a burden. It is their behaviour we want to change (just as the hope is that by taxing cigarettes a smoker won't smoke, or taxing sugar people won't eat as much and therefore will be healthier and less of a tax burden later down the line to the NHS)
smokers contribute to the NHS through taxation and dying early.
What is an ambassador for? Surely he is there to represent our interests, to build contacts and increase our influence in the administration that he or she is dealing with. The extent to which you might be able to do this will of course vary. I suspect that our ambassador in Tehran has very little scope but the ambassador to our closest ally really has to work at this both with the current administration and future possible administrations.
An ambassador who has fallen out with the incumbent President to the extent that he is being disinvited to events and meetings, such as Fox's meeting yesterday, are cancelled because of his attendance is not able to do his job. Rather than improving and smoothing relationships he is aggravating them.
It may be true that this is not Darroch's fault. The leaks of his cables are a disgrace that someone will hopefully be prosecuted for. It may be true also that Trump is a petulant bully who disrespects anyone, close ally or not. It is also true that ultimately who our ambassador is is a matter for us. But he is not doing, cannot do his job.
In these circumstances is a potential PM really wrong to suggest that Darroch needs to be moved on? None of us like bullies and standing up to them is always going to be more popular than not. But it seems to me that Boris' approach is ultimately more consistent with our national interest than some cheap Love Actually headlines.
It is in the national interest to ensure that the UK is not seen to allow foreign powers to dictate who should represent us.
I agree but that is not an answer to my points.
It is. There is a judgement to be made about whether the national interest is best served by demonstrating the UK will not be told who its representatives should be or whether it is more important for ministers to have meetings with Trump administration officials while the US President has a hissy fit.
I wonder whether attitudes towards Trump among Conservative voters will change in a similar way to attitudes to Russia/Putin among Republican voters in the US?
If you want to increase taxes on flying (presumably to discourage it), then why not just make the airlines pay duty on the fuel they consume? It's barmy that planes don't pay any fuel duty, whilst long-distance coaches and trains do,
(I understand why they don't; it just seems a barmy situation.)
Yes, that is certainly what should be done and it's a weakness of the global climate talks that they haven't managed to change that treaty, or even tried to as far as I can tell.
The current taxes on flying make no distinction between planes with different fuel efficiency.
What is an ambassador for? Surely he is there to represent our interests, to build contacts and increase our influence in the administration that he or she is dealing with. The extent to which you might be able to do this will of course vary. I suspect that our ambassador in Tehran has very little scope but the ambassador to our closest ally really has to work at this both with the current administration and future possible administrations.
An ambassador who has fallen out with the incumbent President to the extent that he is being disinvited to events and meetings, such as Fox's meeting yesterday, are cancelled because of his attendance is not able to do his job. Rather than improving and smoothing relationships he is aggravating them.
It may be true that this is not Darroch's fault. The leaks of his cables are a disgrace that someone will hopefully be prosecuted for. It may be true also that Trump is a petulant bully who disrespects anyone, close ally or not. It is also true that ultimately who our ambassador is is a matter for us. But he is not doing, cannot do his job.
In these circumstances is a potential PM really wrong to suggest that Darroch needs to be moved on? None of us like bullies and standing up to them is always going to be more popular than not. But it seems to me that Boris' approach is ultimately more consistent with our national interest than some cheap Love Actually headlines.
It is in the national interest to ensure that the UK is not seen to allow foreign powers to dictate who should represent us.
I agree but that is not an answer to my points.
It is. There is a judgement to be made about whether the national interest is best served by demonstrating the UK will not be told who its representatives should be or whether it is more important for ministers to have meetings with Trump administration officials while the US President has a hissy fit.
Surprising no one is questioning Isabel Oakshot's involvment in the theft of these emails. I can't get a ticket to the cinema without being informed that someone is recording my conversation for security purposes.
A comprehensive character assassination of Johnson by John Major on radio 4. Who'd have thought.....
Yeterday we had an even more surprising interview when William Hague revealed himself to be more impresive than all the current Tory MPs put together. He thinks Johnson is a liar incompetent and unsuitable (my precis)
It seems the only serious Tory who still hinks Boris has any qualities is our very own HYUFD.
HYUFD will claim that Major and Hague are not “real” Tories.
No, they are Remainer establishment Tories who lost 2 general elections out of 3 between them 2 by landslide defeats.
Much like Bush Snr, Romney and McCain who between them lost 3 out of 4 presidential elections they fought dismissed Trump before he actually won the presidential election
Comedy gold
Far be it for me to stick up for @HYUFD but where is he factually wrong on any of that assessment?
I didn't say that it was factually incorrect, but that it is comedic for him to use phrases like "remainer establishment Tories" (esp when he is a remainer himself) and to try and use the unavoidable '97 loss against Major (esp given his surprise success in '92). HY is sadly willing to twist or misuse any passing fact without shame.
The difference is I respect the Leave vote unlike John Major who seems to have sadly become a diehard Remainer even prepared to use a JR to stop Brexit
To stop a NO DEAL Brexit achieved by shutting down parliament.
Why can’t you just be straight about facts?
Just a reminder a No Deal Brexit doesn't respect democracy, as Gove told the cabinet.
Comments
The comedy element is that he slavishly backs whoever is Tory leader at the time. He has done a complete volte-face from Cameron to Mr Blobby in a matter of months. I cannot comprehend how anyone can go from being a Remain Cameroon to a No Deal Johnson fanboy in such a short time span.
It was of course Major who pushed to join the ERM in the first place as Gin points out
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1997-03-18a.719.2#g719.5
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/mar/19/conservatives.uk
A long time ago I did about a year of weekly corporate flying into Europe, if I was offered 50k extra for the year but had to live in the destination country I would have jumped at it rather than the flying backwards and forwards. So not everyone on the Monday morning Schiphol flight will feel the same way.
I still back Brexit Deal or No Deal, I am not a Farageite No Deal diehard
Re frequent flyer tax: I envisage a multiplier. Your first flight past x has x%, past y has y% and so on and so forth. The idea is a) something like 70% of flights are made by 15% of the populace, so you won't actually be taxing the poor and those who may take one overseas holiday a year and b) businesses need to adapt to the changing world. Some jobs need physical people flying to physical places, fine, but some don't, and if they won't move to online meetings and whatnot naturally, then make it prohibitively expensive to continually fly places. I know for some people that will sound tyrannical, but to me the tyranny is the moneyed classes flying all over the place to make money whilst the world burns below them, with the poor most suffering the consequences.
And comparing what Boris might get to what Major did get is bonkers. Firstly you are comparing 'might' to 'did' and secondly the point being made is that Major did an impressive job in winning a majority at all, thirdly comparing leave vote to Major's vote is like comparing apples and pears. No correct that, apples to bridges, it was binary choice. There is no logic in these arguments.
As far as the 1992 election is concerned, so what? He may have won the largest number of votes in a general election... But then he blew it and took the Tories down to their worst defeat since 1832.
Swings and roundabouts.
Oh and lets not forget that the number of votes cast for the Tories in 1992 is dwarfed by the number of people who voted to LEAVE in 2016.
The majority on here strongly object to no deal being implemented.
The leave campaign promised a fantastic deal. At the GE the party of no deal got a mere 1.8% of the votes. No deal has no mandate, if you support no deal you are the one with no respect for democracy.
I'm prepared to entertain that she might have been more belligerent about Syria though. And less crass in her dealings with Israel.
The guy was doing his job in the precise way that this particular job is done. He did nothing out of the ordinary or in any way unprofessional or controversial. His confidential assessments of the current US administration provided valuable intelligence. He is utterly blameless.
It is not a matter for debate. Anybody in the UK who aligns themselves with Donald Trump on this, or claims to see both sides of the argument, has lost the plot.
Also flying is actually less stressful than contracting and travelling around the UK. My local airport is a 10 minute taxi from home and I can arrive 40 minutes before the Schiphol flight takes off.
Now I could work from home but I actually find that more stressful - when on site as it rolls to 6pm I can knock off...
Focus on solutions not more taxes. Airline duty already exists.
I wouldn't hold my breath though. Blair was quite open to the idea of PR, until he got elected.
The "Iron Lady" wasn't politically railroaded at any stage of her career.
https://twitter.com/KimDarroch/status/692859529021648897
From about 1989 it was clear her power was slowly ebbing away and the Tory establishment were going to get her.
Is all covered in the BBCs excellent Thatcher documentary which should still be on iplayer if anyone wants to catch up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_oET45GzMI
At no point in that documentary up to the point of resignation was she "railroaded." Thatcher dug her heels in right to the end. It's was her failure to compromise that led to her downfall not the reverse.
I'm looking forward to all the "Boris never said October 31 was sacrosanct" claims....we already know he won't resign if he doesn't deliver it....
One thing we know is we need fewer aeroplanes in the air. If taxing it won't help, either by paying for the R&D to replace them, or as a way of making people consider other options, would you be in favour of rationing it?
I think you need to take a step back because your posts are becoming increasingly erratic and all you are doing is throwing out disconnected facts that are often complete non-sequiturs to the posts you are responding to. I mean this is kind way, take a a few days off PB before you explode.
Tickets are still available for tomorrow's semi-final at Edgbaston.
https://tickets.cricketworldcup.com/
How would that work for people like me, I travel 20-30 times a year for my employer and once or twice a year for holidays. I'd basically be facing a super tax just to have a week in the sun and go home to see family at Xmas because my employer wants me in a lot of meetings.
If someone is on their 20th personal flight in a year (for example) when the average person doesn't get one, I have no problem jacking the price up 100s if not 1000s of %. If a corporation is having 1000s of flights for trips that could be done online, I have no problem "forcing" their hand to change the culture. I often hear that over seas business meetings are still necessary because people like making deals face to face, and obviously the perks of schmoozing makes deals easier, but it is not sustainable.
A group of political leaders deliberately setting a course that they know will damage and perhaps destroy the country they aspire to lead is, to say the least, unusual. But that is what we have in today's Tory party.
The solution to automobile vehicle emissions hasn't been the rationing of automobiles, it has been heavily taxing fuel inefficient vehicles while subsidising or leaving untaxed ultra low emission vehicles.
We should be encouraging Airbus and Boeing [and others] through taxation to respond to the market in the same way as Nissan and other automobile manufacturers have.
Taxes should be set so that whoever can design an ultralow emissions aeroplane will make an absolute fortune.
It is better to have more aeroplanes in the sky that are all ultralow emissions than having fewer aeroplanes in the sky but they're all heavily polluting.
We have to accept that the world is changing catastrophically due to our actions, and that we cannot just sit back and keep letting it.
Just as the onset of war led to a complete change in our economy and way of thinking about production in the early 1900s, we really need to consider that huge overhaul of our systems of living need changing.
My grandparents survived rationing because they had do. Do I relish the idea of rationing? No. But would I support it if it was an answer to making sure civilisation could survive? Yes.
Seriously, large parts of these debates represent the verbal equivalent of two boxers holding onto each other to run down the clock for the round. You mean just continually saying no to a Section 30 order will not be in itself enough to save the Union? I hope someone told, um, all of the Conservative leadership candidates...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-matt-hancock-refuses-answer-17794201
If you want to cut emissions then ignore passengers altogether. Tax the emissions. A plane with few passengers emitting more emissions than a plane full of passengers should be taxed more. A plane with lots of passengers that is extremely efficient should be taxed less.
Our current tax system and the proposals discussed are like suggesting an electric Nissan Leaf frequently used should be more heavily taxed than a gas guzzling SUV.
Why can’t you just be straight about facts?
You do realise for instance that we are switching to sustainable energy methods already? Ever increasing shares of our energy come from renewables with 0 energy coming from coal for entire weeks at a time?
My hope would be that if you have fewer passengers they would provide fewer flights, not fly half empty planes. But that could potentially be an unforeseen outcome.
The problem with taxing emissions is that falls on the airline. The airline pass it to all customers, and so it effectively becomes a flat tax. So again, the rich who are doing most of the flying aren't really bearing that much of a burden. It is their behaviour we want to change (just as the hope is that by taxing cigarettes a smoker won't smoke, or taxing sugar people won't eat as much and therefore will be healthier and less of a tax burden later down the line to the NHS)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Daxing_International_Airport
Ni hao
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/07/british-art-sketch-writing-age-brexit/593473/
“Among his other distinctions,” Sparrow wrote in Obscure Scribblers, “Johnson deserves to be singled out as one of the few writers in the history of British journalism to have been embarrassed by the fact that people actually believed what he wrote.”...
Samuel Johnson, of course.
(I understand why they don't; it just seems a barmy situation.)
I'd hope not, but it's very plausible.
The current taxes on flying make no distinction between planes with different fuel efficiency.
Just tell him to use up all his holidays
most of the US will be on theirs too.
https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1148895934660730881
https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1148896153423007747