That Delta poll leaves us in a place where two companies are showing an increasing Tory lead and three are showing a falling one. For me, the interesting thing remains that it’s all happening within a broader picture of anti-No Deal parties having a slight lead over pro-No Deal ones. YouGov and Delta are at the extremes of that. What it all says, I think, is that on the anti-No Deal side in particular voters are already thinking tactically. That makes the next election almost impossible to call. It’s notable, though, that in every poll Johnson’s personal standing has taken a hit, while Corbyn’s has not shown any signs of improving.
This week will amply demonstrate that we really must have an election. Those seen to be blocking it will have a difficult week. MPs who can be painted as in fear of the voters is not a good look.
Yes, GE followed by QS. This is the correct sequence of events. You use a GE to campaign for the right to do a QS. The other way around is a nonsense and an abuse.
Setting out policies which you intend to implement if you win a GE is what manifestos are for.
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
You will have to hold your nose and vote Labour.
That will not happen under Corbyn under any circumstances
What if your Labour candidate is a strong Corbyn sceptic? Or are you saying that you might vote Labour if you don't think he will end up in no10? (and how would you determine that?) Otherwise I would suggest you are being slightly disingenuous in saying that it is a difficult decision (assuming you are clear that you WILL vote, and WILL only vote for one of the two main parties). Because you are saying you will only vote Conservative or Labour, and then only Conservative. So whether you do so under protest or not, you are still doing so.
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
You will have to hold your nose and vote Labour.
That will not happen under Corbyn under any circumstances
Yep.
If Jeremy Corbyn were to be ousted, Boris and Brexit would be flushed away in moments.
I am not sure who I detest more.
One thing you can say about the broad and loose coalition we have currently is that it constrains both Johnson and Corbyn.
Amber Rudd is now another vote for a putative GONU, though presumably a Clarke-led one, not a Corbyn-led one.
The Parliamentary numbers are now totally confusing to me.
Can't decide what is the greater mystery: why Boris invited Rudd into his Cabinet, or why she thought she could sign up to a No Deal option required of that Cabinet. She was the obvious choice for being the next out of Cabinet.
Anyway, when Boris does decide to call a vote of No Confidence in his Government, even harder to imagine Rudd now voting to keep it in place. Which will suit Boris just fine, as he side-steps the FTPA.....
Boris needed the moderates to win the leadership, and having appealed to them he needed to throw them some bones.
They are now utterly dispensable, as the ERG and DUP will be in due course if the Cummings strategy is allowed to play out.
This week will amply demonstrate that we really must have an election. Those seen to be blocking it will have a difficult week. MPs who can be painted as in fear of the voters is not a good look.
Yes, GE followed by QS. This is the correct sequence of events. You use a GE to campaign for the right to do a QS. The other way around is a nonsense and an abuse.
Setting out policies which you intend to implement if you win a GE is what manifestos are for.
There's a Queen's speech at the start of each session, not only after each election. The current session is the longest one in about 400 years.
Amber Rudd is now another vote for a putative GONU, though presumably a Clarke-led one, not a Corbyn-led one.
The Parliamentary numbers are now totally confusing to me.
Can't decide what is the greater mystery: why Boris invited Rudd into his Cabinet, or why she thought she could sign up to a No Deal option required of that Cabinet. She was the obvious choice for being the next out of Cabinet.
Anyway, when Boris does decide to call a vote of No Confidence in his Government, even harder to imagine Rudd now voting to keep it in place. Which will suit Boris just fine, as he side-steps the FTPA.....
An election brought about by a VoNC can't realistically happen before Brexit day. Which he claims he doesn't want.
The MSM and left are acting as though BJ has broken the law already..can i remind everybody he hasnt. This is all part of the demonization of Boris that seems to be at the forefront of any radio phone in or forum chat. There is obviously extreme concern within that cohort that Boris can still reach the voters that other voters can not reach.
I think for many a statement of willingness to break the law (notwithstanding the arguments that he has said he is prepared to defy the instruction to extend, because he doesn't think he would be actually breaking the law in so doing) is sufficient.
Can you think of any other circumstances where a Prime Minister (especially a Conservative Prime Minister) has argued from such a position - whether in relation to themselves or the actions of others? There's a big difference between expressing sympathy for a cause (eg. pursued by those breaking the law) and expressing support for/potentially encouraging the lawbreaking itself.
(It could be pointed out that this is a line oft put forward by the current Labour leadership, and I think a major part of where they find themselves today - Europe issue notwithstanding)
Where has he actually said he will break the law? Thats your and their interpretation of what he has said. Last time i checked you havent broken any law until you have. Now the "remainers" want to have a court case because in their view he may break the law... This is quite mad and people are seeing through it.
You must have failed to read the bit where I said : notwithstanding the arguments that he has said he is prepared to defy the instruction to extend, because he doesn't think he would be actually breaking the law in so doing
He has said he is prepared to defy a law passed by Parliament. He has also said "in theory" he would be breaking the law by so doing.
It is pushing it to say that people are "seeing through" false arguments that he is saying he is prepared to break the law. People backing him are those accepting him of the idea of him breaking the law (because of their views on Brexit), not because they are looking into the nuances of whether he is actually prepared to do so.
But you are now wanting to effectively bring in a prosecution for "thought".. I say again in this country you have not broken the law until you have no matter what you say.
No. It’s “conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.”
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
You will have to hold your nose and vote Labour.
That will not happen under Corbyn under any circumstances
Yep.
If Jeremy Corbyn were to be ousted, Boris and Brexit would be flushed away in moments.
I am not sure who I detest more.
One thing you can say about the broad and loose coalition we have currently is that it constrains both Johnson and Corbyn.
Ladies and gentlemen I bring you .... PR
Yeah, because the current period of minority parties trying to scrabble around for power has REALLY made the case for perpetual coalition governments.
Put PR up against benevolent dictator in a referendum, and that dictator is a shoo-in....
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
You will have to hold your nose and vote Labour.
That will not happen under Corbyn under any circumstances
Yep.
If Jeremy Corbyn were to be ousted, Boris and Brexit would be flushed away in moments.
I know he's not well liked below the line here, but clearly the thing that hurts Mps most about Cummings is that he couldn't give a single F about the gigantic egos most of them have.
"'The coming collapse' - How Dominic Cummings has a plan to 'rebuild' the UK's future
Dominic Cummings has revolutionary designs for the way government policies are devised, decided and delivered, where "flawed" human decision making is mended by big data modelling and machine intelligence.
The Government advisor, currently war-gaming the next move for Mr Johnson, sees gaping errors in the state of political affairs suggesting they currently rely on idealistic human narratives and personal authorities prone to “systemic dysfunction and the influence of grotesque incompetents."
This week will amply demonstrate that we really must have an election. Those seen to be blocking it will have a difficult week. MPs who can be painted as in fear of the voters is not a good look.
Yes, GE followed by QS. This is the correct sequence of events. You use a GE to campaign for the right to do a QS. The other way around is a nonsense and an abuse.
Setting out policies which you intend to implement if you win a GE is what manifestos are for.
There's a Queen's speech at the start of each session, not only after each election. The current session is the longest one in about 400 years.
But BoZo’s Queens Speech is certain to be voted down. Will the Queen even attend?
Declining the offer of an election may look good for Labour but is it good for the country? It is beginning to feel ludicrous.
Some Labour strategists might think declining the election you have spent the last two years calling for is a wheeze. The sensibles in the other universe just think "twats....let us vote."
"'The coming collapse' - How Dominic Cummings has a plan to 'rebuild' the UK's future
Dominic Cummings has revolutionary designs for the way government policies are devised, decided and delivered, where "flawed" human decision making is mended by big data modelling and machine intelligence.
The Government advisor, currently war-gaming the next move for Mr Johnson, sees gaping errors in the state of political affairs suggesting they currently rely on idealistic human narratives and personal authorities prone to “systemic dysfunction and the influence of grotesque incompetents."
This week will amply demonstrate that we really must have an election. Those seen to be blocking it will have a difficult week. MPs who can be painted as in fear of the voters is not a good look.
Yes, GE followed by QS. This is the correct sequence of events. You use a GE to campaign for the right to do a QS. The other way around is a nonsense and an abuse.
Setting out policies which you intend to implement if you win a GE is what manifestos are for.
There's a Queen's speech at the start of each session, not only after each election. The current session is the longest one in about 400 years.
But BoZo’s Queens Speech is certain to be voted down. Will the Queen even attend?
I was rebutting the argument you need an election for the right to do a Queen's speech. In any case, if they are going to vote it down then, why not save us all the hassle and just boot the government out now?
Aside from YouGov which is showing something like 14% Tory leads the recent polls don't look too bad for during Johnson's honeymoon period from a Labour perspective. Every reason to think we could make up a few percent before an election and a few percent during it.
OK. I found it. This was kind of indicated by his earlier tweet. The polls are everywhere except YouGov consistently gives the Tories big or massive leads. There could be methodological divergence. Either, the YouGov is correct and the others wrong or YouGov is wrong. Really there is only one way to find out.
Excellent piece Alastair but can I suggest that there is another sleight of hand going on? Pensioners who are getting increases tied to RPI are getting more money. That money does not come from nowhere, it comes from the schemes paying or, in the case of the taxpayer for unfunded schemes, from present contributors. Index linking is supposed to protect the recipient from the ravages of inflation (in truth more of a nibble than a bite in recent decades), it is not supposed to be a method of increasing the contractual entitlement.
We currently have the most generously funded generation of pensioners we are ever likely to have. Those that retire at 60 on an index linked final salary pension have had every financial risk borne by others, most of whom will never see anything similar. It is immoral, bordering on disgraceful in my view and almost certainly unsustainable. I suspect that over the next decade as the differences between the haves with such rights and the have nots who don't become ever more exposed there is going to be a lot of angry resentment about this. While the former cruise around the world several times a year the latter are taking on jobs in shops into their 70s to make ends meet. The fact that the latter are still paying tax to fund the former is a further aggravation.
What does a government (assuming one can be found that is not terrified of one of our most active voting segments) do about this? The change you have described is one step but not sufficient. We need to incorporate NI into IT so it is paid on all income both pensions and dividends as well as money actually worked for. I expect there to be further paring back on the "tax free" lump sums. I expect eventually some of the perks enjoyed by pensioners such as the bus pass, cheaper rail fares, TV licences, additional tax relief for the elderly, etc to be trimmed back for those receiving more than the average wage. Most significantly I expect eventually a government will be brave enough to go back to May's ideas by which the elderly will have to prioritise paying for their care over handing over large sums of money and property to the next generation.
There, I feel better now. Nothing like a good rant.
Aside from YouGov which is showing something like 14% Tory leads the recent polls don't look too bad for during Johnson's honeymoon period from a Labour perspective. Every reason to think we could make up a few percent before an election and a few percent during it.
OK. I found it. This was kind of indicated by his earlier tweet. The polls are everywhere except YouGov consistently gives the Tories big or massive leads. There could be methodological divergence. Either, the YouGov is correct and the others wrong or YouGov is wrong. Really there is only one way to find out.
Indeed there is. The polling average is probably still the best guide till the wonders in parliament decide it's time for an election though.
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
You will have to hold your nose and vote Labour.
That will not happen under Corbyn under any circumstances
Yep.
If Jeremy Corbyn were to be ousted, Boris and Brexit would be flushed away in moments.
I am not sure who I detest more.
One thing you can say about the broad and loose coalition we have currently is that it constrains both Johnson and Corbyn.
Ladies and gentlemen I bring you .... PR
Yeah, because the current period of minority parties trying to scrabble around for power has REALLY made the case for perpetual coalition governments.
Because FPTP encourages monolith parties.
If Rudd and Francois were in separate parties, and Corbyn and Starmer similarly, building a stable coalition would be easy. But the monolithic two parties and FPTP make that impossible.
The MSM and left are acting as though BJ has broken the law already..can i remind everybody he hasnt. This is all part of the demonization of Boris that seems to be at the forefront of any radio phone in or forum chat. There is obviously extreme concern within that cohort that Boris can still reach the voters that other voters can not reach.
I think for many a statement of willingness to break the law (notwithstanding the arguments that he has said he is prepared to defy the instruction to extend, because he doesn't think he would be actually breaking the law in so doing) is sufficient.
Can you think of any other circumstances where a Prime Minister (especially a Conservative Prime Minister) has argued from such a position - whether in relation to themselves or the actions of others? There's a big difference between expressing sympathy for a cause (eg. pursued by those breaking the law) and expressing support for/potentially encouraging the lawbreaking itself.
(It could be pointed out that this is a line oft put forward by the current Labour leadership, and I think a major part of where they find themselves today - Europe issue notwithstanding)
Where has he actually said he will break the law? Thats your and their interpretation of what he has said. Last time i checked you havent broken any law until you have. Now the "remainers" want to have a court case because in their view he may break the law... This is quite mad and people are seeing through it.
You must have failed to read the bit where I said : notwithstanding the arguments that he has said he is prepared to defy the instruction to extend, because he doesn't think he would be actually breaking the law in so doing
He has said he is prepared to defy a law passed by Parliament. He has also said "in theory" he would be breaking the law by so doing.
It is pushing it to say that people are "seeing through" false arguments that he is saying he is prepared to break the law. People backing him are those accepting him of the idea of him breaking the law (because of their views on Brexit), not because they are looking into the nuances of whether he is actually prepared to do so.
But you are now wanting to effectively bring in a prosecution for "thought".. I say again in this country you have not broken the law until you have no matter what you say.
No. It’s “conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.”
Thank you they were the words I was looking for. With possible penalties of Up to life imprisonment and unlimited damages.
Excellent piece Alastair but can I suggest that there is another sleight of hand going on? Pensioners who are getting increases tied to RPI are getting more money. That money does not come from nowhere, it comes from the schemes paying or, in the case of the taxpayer for unfunded schemes, from present contributors. Index linking is supposed to protect the recipient from the ravages of inflation (in truth more of a nibble than a bit in recent decades), it is not supposed to be a method of increasing the contractual entitlement.
We currently have the most generously funded generation of pensioners we are ever likely to have. Those that retire at 60 on an index linked final salary pension have had every financial risk borne by others, most of whom will never see anything similar. It is immoral, bordering on disgraceful in my view and almost certainly unsustainable. I suspect that over the next decade as the differences between the haves with such rights and the have nots who don't become ever more exposed there is going to be a lot of angry resentment about this. While the former cruise around the world several times a year the latter are taking on jobs in shops into their 70s to make ends meet. The fact that the latter are still paying tax to fund the former is a further aggravation.
What does a government (assuming one can be found that is not terrified of one of our most active voting segments) do about this? The change you have described is one step but not sufficient. We need to incorporate NI into IT so it is paid on all income both pensions and dividends as well as money actually worked for. I expect there to be further paring back on the "tax free" lump sums. I expect eventually some of the perks enjoyed by pensioners such as the bus pass, cheaper rail fares, TV licences, additional tax relief for the elderly, etc to be trimmed back for those receiving more than the average wage. Most significantly I expect eventually a government will be brave enough to go back to May's ideas by which the elderly will have to prioritise paying for their care over handing over large sums of money and property to the next generation.
There, I feel better now. Nothing like a good rant.
All of the above is desirable but none of ti will happen until the young vote as enthusiastically as the elderly.
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
"One nation" and "remain" don't mean the same thing and it is cheeky of remainers to try and pretend they represent the one nation wing. It isn't one nation MPs that are leaving it is remainers.
Boris is a one nation Tory. What he's not is a remainer. One nation never meant 48% of the nation.
Excellent piece Alastair but can I suggest that there is another sleight of hand going on? Pensioners who are getting increases tied to RPI are getting more money. That money does not come from nowhere, it comes from the schemes paying or, in the case of the taxpayer for unfunded schemes, from present contributors. Index linking is supposed to protect the recipient from the ravages of inflation (in truth more of a nibble than a bit in recent decades), it is not supposed to be a method of increasing the contractual entitlement.
We currently have the most generously funded generation of pensioners we are ever likely to have. Those that retire at 60 on an index linked final salary pension have had every financial risk borne by others, most of whom will never see anything similar. It is immoral, bordering on disgraceful in my view and almost certainly unsustainable. I suspect that over the next decade as the differences between the haves with such rights and the have nots who don't become ever more exposed there is going to be a lot of angry resentment about this. While the former cruise around the world several times a year the latter are taking on jobs in shops into their 70s to make ends meet. The fact that the latter are still paying tax to fund the former is a further aggravation.
What does a government (assuming one can be found that is not terrified of one of our most active voting segments) do about this? The change you have described is one step but not sufficient. We need to incorporate NI into IT so it is paid on all income both pensions and dividends as well as money actually worked for. I expect there to be further paring back on the "tax free" lump sums. I expect eventually some of the perks enjoyed by pensioners such as the bus pass, cheaper rail fares, TV licences, additional tax relief for the elderly, etc to be trimmed back for those receiving more than the average wage. Most significantly I expect eventually a government will be brave enough to go back to May's ideas by which the elderly will have to prioritise paying for their care over handing over large sums of money and property to the next generation.
There, I feel better now. Nothing like a good rant.
"'The coming collapse' - How Dominic Cummings has a plan to 'rebuild' the UK's future
Dominic Cummings has revolutionary designs for the way government policies are devised, decided and delivered, where "flawed" human decision making is mended by big data modelling and machine intelligence.
The Government advisor, currently war-gaming the next move for Mr Johnson, sees gaping errors in the state of political affairs suggesting they currently rely on idealistic human narratives and personal authorities prone to “systemic dysfunction and the influence of grotesque incompetents."
This week will amply demonstrate that we really must have an election. Those seen to be blocking it will have a difficult week. MPs who can be painted as in fear of the voters is not a good look.
Yes, GE followed by QS. This is the correct sequence of events. You use a GE to campaign for the right to do a QS. The other way around is a nonsense and an abuse.
Setting out policies which you intend to implement if you win a GE is what manifestos are for.
There's a Queen's speech at the start of each session, not only after each election. The current session is the longest one in about 400 years.
But BoZo’s Queens Speech is certain to be voted down. Will the Queen even attend?
I think the PM will resign so it won't get that far; however, there's no reason at all why HM couldn't send Charles in any event. There's a persistent rumour that she's planning to follow Prince Philip into retirement before too much longer anyway.
There's a Queen's speech at the start of each session, not only after each election. The current session is the longest one in about 400 years.
But to avoid it being a farce there needs to be a functioning government in place with the ability to legislate the contents. This QS does not meet that test. It has 2 goals, neither of which have anything to do with what it is ostensibly about.
(1) Reduce parliamentary time for debating Brexit. (2) Puff up the Tory party policy platform for the coming election.
This seems wholly improper to me. Perhaps it cannot be cancelled but it ought to be.
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
You will have to hold your nose and vote Labour.
That will not happen under Corbyn under any circumstances
What if your Labour candidate is a strong Corbyn sceptic? Or are you saying that you might vote Labour if you don't think he will end up in no10? (and how would you determine that?) Otherwise I would suggest you are being slightly disingenuous in saying that it is a difficult decision (assuming you are clear that you WILL vote, and WILL only vote for one of the two main parties). Because you are saying you will only vote Conservative or Labour, and then only Conservative. So whether you do so under protest or not, you are still doing so.
It depends on the constituency. If I was in a seat that voting lib dem could beat labour I would do so. But Aberconwy is a marginal and the labour candidate is a Corbynista so I will vote conservative, but with some dismay I have to do this
Excellent piece Alastair but can I suggest that there is another sleight of hand going on? Pensioners who are getting increases tied to RPI are getting more money. That money does not come from nowhere, it comes from the schemes paying or, in the case of the taxpayer for unfunded schemes, from present contributors. Index linking is supposed to protect the recipient from the ravages of inflation (in truth more of a nibble than a bit in recent decades), it is not supposed to be a method of increasing the contractual entitlement.
We currently have the most generously funded generation of pensioners we are ever likely to have. Those that retire at 60 on an index linked final salary pension have had every financial risk borne by others, most of whom will never see anything similar. It is immoral, bordering on disgraceful in my view and almost certainly unsustainable. I suspect that over the next decade as the differences between the haves with such rights and the have nots who don't become ever more exposed there is going to be a lot of angry resentment about this. While the former cruise around the world several times a year the latter are taking on jobs in shops into their 70s to make ends meet. The fact that the latter are still paying tax to fund the former is a further aggravation.
What does a government (assuming one can be found that is not terrified of one of our most active voting segments) do about this? The change you have described is one step but not sufficient. We need to incorporate NI into IT so it is paid on all income both pensions and dividends as well as money actually worked for. I expect there to be further paring back on the "tax free" lump sums. I expect eventually some of the perks enjoyed by pensioners such as the bus pass, cheaper rail fares, TV licences, additional tax relief for the elderly, etc to be trimmed back for those receiving more than the average wage. Most significantly I expect eventually a government will be brave enough to go back to May's ideas by which the elderly will have to prioritise paying for their care over handing over large sums of money and property to the next generation.
There, I feel better now. Nothing like a good rant.
David, if they do not want to pay out to people who have contributed all their lives then stop pretending and stop taking their money. Let them look after themselves it would be much cheaper for them.
Excellent piece Alastair but can I suggest that there is another sleight of hand going on? Pensioners who are getting increases tied to RPI are getting more money. That money does not come from nowhere, it comes from the schemes paying or, in the case of the taxpayer for unfunded schemes, from present contributors. Index linking is supposed to protect the recipient from the ravages of inflation (in truth more of a nibble than a bite in recent decades), it is not supposed to be a method of increasing the contractual entitlement.
We currently have the most generously funded generation of pensioners we are ever likely to have. Those that retire at 60 on an index linked final salary pension have had every financial risk borne by others, most of whom will never see anything similar. It is immoral, bordering on disgraceful in my view and almost certainly unsustainable. I suspect that over the next decade as the differences between the haves with such rights and the have nots who don't become ever more exposed there is going to be a lot of angry resentment about this. While the former cruise around the world several times a year the latter are taking on jobs in shops into their 70s to make ends meet. The fact that the latter are still paying tax to fund the former is a further aggravation.
What does a government (assuming one can be found that is not terrified of one of our most active voting segments) do about this? The change you have described is one step but not sufficient. We need to incorporate NI into IT so it is paid on all income both pensions and dividends as well as money actually worked for. I expect there to be further paring back on the "tax free" lump sums. I expect eventually some of the perks enjoyed by pensioners such as the bus pass, cheaper rail fares, TV licences, additional tax relief for the elderly, etc to be trimmed back for those receiving more than the average wage. Most significantly I expect eventually a government will be brave enough to go back to May's ideas by which the elderly will have to prioritise paying for their care over handing over large sums of money and property to the next generation.
There, I feel better now. Nothing like a good rant.
A lot of us have had our pensions trashed by our firms going bust.. it is not all gold braid out there...
Excellent piece Alastair but can I suggest that there is another sleight of hand going on? Pensioners who are getting increases tied to RPI are getting more money. That money does not come from nowhere, it comes from the schemes paying or, in the case of the taxpayer for unfunded schemes, from present contributors. Index linking is supposed to protect the recipient from the ravages of inflation (in truth more of a nibble than a bit in recent decades), it is not supposed to be a method of increasing the contractual entitlement.
We currently have the most generously funded generation of pensioners we are ever likely to have. Those that retire at 60 on an index linked final salary pension have had every financial risk borne by others, most of whom will never see anything similar. It is immoral, bordering on disgraceful in my view and almost certainly unsustainable. I suspect that over the next decade as the differences between the haves with such rights and the have nots who don't become ever more exposed there is going to be a lot of angry resentment about this. While the former cruise around the world several times a year the latter are taking on jobs in shops into their 70s to make ends meet. The fact that the latter are still paying tax to fund the former is a further aggravation.
What does a government (assuming one can be found that is not terrified of one of our most active voting segments) do about this? The change you have described is one step but not sufficient. We need to incorporate NI into IT so it is paid on all income both pensions and dividends as well as money actually worked for. I expect there to be further paring back on the "tax free" lump sums. I expect eventually some of the perks enjoyed by pensioners such as the bus pass, cheaper rail fares, TV licences, additional tax relief for the elderly, etc to be trimmed back for those receiving more than the average wage. Most significantly I expect eventually a government will be brave enough to go back to May's ideas by which the elderly will have to prioritise paying for their care over handing over large sums of money and property to the next generation.
There, I feel better now. Nothing like a good rant.
{{APPLAUSE}}
There is already massive resentment. I know Oxbridge grads from poorer backgrounds who, having worked incredibly hard to get the grades, know they will not be able to join a London middle-class which is now only on offer to those who come from money.
Aside from YouGov which is showing something like 14% Tory leads the recent polls don't look too bad for during Johnson's honeymoon period from a Labour perspective. Every reason to think we could make up a few percent before an election and a few percent during it.
OK. I found it. This was kind of indicated by his earlier tweet. The polls are everywhere except YouGov consistently gives the Tories big or massive leads. There could be methodological divergence. Either, the YouGov is correct and the others wrong or YouGov is wrong. Really there is only one way to find out.
Indeed there is. The polling average is probably still the best guide till the wonders in parliament decide it's time for an election though.
polling average is about as reliable as Stuart Dickson's subsamples amalgamations for Scotland.
There's a Queen's speech at the start of each session, not only after each election. The current session is the longest one in about 400 years.
But to avoid it being a farce there needs to be a functioning government in place with the ability to legislate the contents. This QS does not meet that test. It has 2 goals, neither of which have anything to do with what it is ostensibly about.
(1) Reduce parliamentary time for debating Brexit. (2) Puff up the Tory party policy platform for the coming election.
This seems wholly improper to me. Perhaps it cannot be cancelled but it ought to be.
The only way to cancel it would be to have an election. Opposition MPs chose not to have one.
There's a Queen's speech at the start of each session, not only after each election. The current session is the longest one in about 400 years.
But to avoid it being a farce there needs to be a functioning government in place with the ability to legislate the contents. This QS does not meet that test. It has 2 goals, neither of which have anything to do with what it is ostensibly about.
(1) Reduce parliamentary time for debating Brexit. (2) Puff up the Tory party policy platform for the coming election.
This seems wholly improper to me. Perhaps it cannot be cancelled but it ought to be.
Reduce time to debate Brexit? Just how many days of debate has it had on the subject over the past three years, and how many concrete proposals has that time translated in to? As for puffing up policy... well, isn't that the whole point of the Queen's speech?
The MSM and left are acting as though BJ has broken the law already..can i remind everybody he hasnt. This is all part of the demonization of Boris that seems to be at the forefront of any radio phone in or forum chat. There is obviously extreme concern within that cohort that Boris can still reach the voters that other voters can not reach.
I think for many a statement of willingness to break the law (notwithstanding the arguments that he has said he is prepared to defy the instruction to extend, because he doesn't think he would be actually breaking the law in so doing) is sufficient.
Can you think of any other circumstances where a Prime Minister (especially a Conservative Prime Minister) has argued from such a position - whether in relation to themselves or the actions of others? There's a big difference between expressing sympathy for a cause (eg. pursued by those breaking the law) and expressing support for/potentially encouraging the lawbreaking itself.
(It could be pointed out that this is a line oft put forward by the current Labour leadership, and I think a major part of where they find themselves today - Europe issue notwithstanding)
Where has he actually said he will break the law? Thats your and their interpretation of what he has said. Last time i checked you havent broken any law until you have. Now the "remainers" want to have a court case because in their view he may break the law... This is quite mad and people are seeing through it.
You must have failed to read the bit where I said : notwithstanding the arguments that he has said he is prepared to defy the instruction to extend, because he doesn't think he would be actually breaking the law in so doing
He has said he is prepared to defy a law passed by Parliament. He has also said "in theory" he would be breaking the law by so doing.
But you are now wanting to effectively bring in a prosecution for "thought".. I say again in this country you have not broken the law until you have no matter what you say.
No. It’s “conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.”
Thank you they were the words I was looking for. With possible penalties of Up to life imprisonment and unlimited damages.
I don't know if Boris has had unlimited dames, but he has certainly had quite a few...
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
"One nation" and "remain" don't mean the same thing and it is cheeky of remainers to try and pretend they represent the one nation wing. It isn't one nation MPs that are leaving it is remainers.
Boris is a one nation Tory. What he's not is a remainer. One nation never meant 48% of the nation.
But I am not a remainer. I supported TM deal from day one and most of the 21 ex conservative mps voted 3 times to leave
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
You will have to hold your nose and vote Labour.
That will not happen under Corbyn under any circumstances
What if your Labour candidate is a strong Corbyn sceptic? Or are you saying that you might vote Labour if you don't think he will end up in no10? (and how would you determine that?) Otherwise I would suggest you are being slightly disingenuous in saying that it is a difficult decision (assuming you are clear that you WILL vote, and WILL only vote for one of the two main parties). Because you are saying you will only vote Conservative or Labour, and then only Conservative. So whether you do so under protest or not, you are still doing so.
It depends on the constituency. If I was in a seat that voting lib dem could beat labour I would do so. But Aberconwy is a marginal and the labour candidate is a Corbynista so I will vote conservative, but with some dismay I have to do this
Excellent piece Alastair but can I suggest that there is another sleight of hand going on? Pensioners who are getting increases tied to RPI are getting more money. That money does not come from nowhere, it comes from the schemes paying or, in the case of the taxpayer for unfunded schemes, from present contributors. Index linking is supposed to protect the recipient from the ravages of inflation (in truth more of a nibble than a bit in recent decades), it is not supposed to be a method of increasing the contractual entitlement.
We currently have the most generously funded generation of pensioners we are ever likely to have. Those that retire at 60 on an index linked final salary pension have had every financial risk borne by others, most of whom will never see anything similar. It is immoral, bordering on disgraceful in my view and almost certainly unsustainable. I suspect that over the next decade as the differences between the haves with such rights and the have nots who don't become ever more exposed there is going to be a lot of angry resentment about this. While the former cruise around the world several times a year the latter are taking on jobs in shops into their 70s to make ends meet. The fact that the latter are still paying tax to fund the former is a further aggravation.
What does a government (assuming one can be found that is not terrified of one of our most active voting segments) do about this? The change you have described is one step but not sufficient. We need to incorporate NI into IT so it is paid on all income both pensions and dividends as well as money actually worked for. I expect there to be further paring back on the "tax free" lump sums. I expect eventually some of the perks enjoyed by pensioners such as the bus pass, cheaper rail fares, TV licences, additional tax relief for the elderly, etc to be trimmed back for those receiving more than the average wage. Most significantly I expect eventually a government will be brave enough to go back to May's ideas by which the elderly will have to prioritise paying for their care over handing over large sums of money and property to the next generation.
There, I feel better now. Nothing like a good rant.
{{APPLAUSE}}
There is already massive resentment. I know Oxbridge grads from poorer backgrounds who, having worked incredibly hard to get the grades, know they will not be able to join a London middle-class which is now only on offer to those who come from money.
Especially as "diversity" now mitigates against them - blind recruitment policies that omit educational institutions for example. I heard a radio interview with one woman who'd bust a gut to get to cambCambr from a poor background then found it counted against her.
Excellent piece Alastair but can I suggest that there is another sleight of hand going on? Pensioners who are getting increases tied to RPI are getting more money. That money does not come from nowhere, it comes from the schemes paying or, in the case of the taxpayer for unfunded schemes, from present contributors. Index linking is supposed to protect the recipient from the ravages of inflation (in truth more of a nibble than a bite in recent decades), it is not supposed to be a method of increasing the contractual entitlement.
We currently have the most generously funded generation of pensioners we are ever likely to have. Those that retire at 60 on an index linked final salary pension have had every financial risk borne by others, most of whom will never see anything similar. It is immoral, bordering on disgraceful in my view and almost certainly unsustainable. I suspect that over the next decade as the differences between the haves with such rights and the have nots who don't become ever more exposed there is going to be a lot of angry resentment about this. While the former cruise around the world several times a year the latter are taking on jobs in shops into their 70s to make ends meet. The fact that the latter are still paying tax to fund the former is a further aggravation.
What does a government (assuming one can be found that is not terrified of one of our most active voting segments) do about this? The change you have described is one step but not sufficient. We need to incorporate NI into IT so it is paid on all income both pensions and dividends as well as money actually worked for. I expect there to be further paring back on the "tax free" lump sums. I expect eventually some of the perks enjoyed by pensioners such as the bus pass, cheaper rail fares, TV licences, additional tax relief for the elderly, etc to be trimmed back for those receiving more than the average wage. Most significantly I expect eventually a government will be brave enough to go back to May's ideas by which the elderly will have to prioritise paying for their care over handing over large sums of money and property to the next generation.
There, I feel better now. Nothing like a good rant.
A lot of us have had our pensions trashed by our firms going bust.. it is not all gold braid out there...
Sure, I appreciate that. Some of those firms also went bust because their pension liabilities were so onerous but these were contractual obligations they took on, a financial risk under estimated in times of higher returns and higher inflation which degraded the rights being granted. Most schemes have some limits on the level of increasing obligations but these are not triggered in the low inflation/deflation world we have lived in since the GFC.
Declining the offer of an election may look good for Labour but is it good for the country? It is beginning to feel ludicrous.
Some Labour strategists might think declining the election you have spent the last two years calling for is a wheeze. The sensibles in the other universe just think "twats....let us vote."
People can wait until November. They have other things to do. Brexit is not the only thing. Stopping No Deal Brexit is now more important.
Aside from YouGov which is showing something like 14% Tory leads the recent polls don't look too bad for during Johnson's honeymoon period from a Labour perspective. Every reason to think we could make up a few percent before an election and a few percent during it.
OK. I found it. This was kind of indicated by his earlier tweet. The polls are everywhere except YouGov consistently gives the Tories big or massive leads. There could be methodological divergence. Either, the YouGov is correct and the others wrong or YouGov is wrong. Really there is only one way to find out.
Indeed there is. The polling average is probably still the best guide till the wonders in parliament decide it's time for an election though.
polling average is about as reliable as Stuart Dickson's subsamples amalgamations for Scotland.
About 99.99 percent of you reading this right now aren’t actually pollsters, though. So what’s my advice to you as news consumers when you encounter a poll that looks like an outlier?
To a first approximation, the best advice is to toss it into the average.
Morning all. The polling would seem to split into two camps. All polling agrees on the LD and BXP rough position and the Tories seem to be low 30s. The question is are labour low 20s or high 20s? That seems to be the key and the difference between well hung and possibly a small majority
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
You will have to hold your nose and vote Labour.
That will not happen under Corbyn under any circumstances
Yep.
If Jeremy Corbyn were to be ousted, Boris and Brexit would be flushed away in moments.
I am not sure who I detest more.
One thing you can say about the broad and loose coalition we have currently is that it constrains both Johnson and Corbyn.
Ladies and gentlemen I bring you .... PR
Yeah, because the current period of minority parties trying to scrabble around for power has REALLY made the case for perpetual coalition governments.
Because FPTP encourages monolith parties.
If Rudd and Francois were in separate parties, and Corbyn and Starmer similarly, building a stable coalition would be easy. But the monolithic two parties and FPTP make that impossible.
Easy? Pfffft!!! Say you have six parties with equal numbers of MPs, each headed by Boris, Corbyn, Farage, Sturgeon, Starmer and Swinson. Where's your stable coalition there? Personalities would play an even bigger part.
Tell that to the MPs that decided not to vote for an election then.
I surely would. But the fact a GE is being blocked does not mean that an invalid QS becomes a valid one. It plainly isn't. It should be delayed until it can be given by a functioning government, whether that be after a GE or formed by some other mechanism.
I think, on that poll. All others no change or near enough.
And a very strange and curious exception. That must at least partly refer to traffic directly from the Tories to Labour, which I don't think I've seen in any other recent polling, really.
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
"One nation" and "remain" don't mean the same thing and it is cheeky of remainers to try and pretend they represent the one nation wing. It isn't one nation MPs that are leaving it is remainers.
Boris is a one nation Tory. What he's not is a remainer. One nation never meant 48% of the nation.
But I am not a remainer. I supported TM deal from day one and most of the 21 ex conservative mps voted 3 times to leave
Can you name one of the ex Conservative MPs who voted against extending back in March when there was a free vote on it?
The Conservatives had a leadership election and it was democratically agreed the policy was to not extend again. That is a matter of confidence now. Why should these MPs not follow the party whip but still hold the party whip?
That what Boris has done seems shocking just shows how much Theresa May debased our politics with her dreadful breakdown of discipline. He's following in the footsteps of John Major [Maastricht etc] and every other PM whose ever faced an issue of the day being a matter of confidence.
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
You will have to hold your nose and vote Labour.
That will not happen under Corbyn under any circumstances
What if your Labour candidate is a strong Corbyn sceptic? Or are you saying that you might vote Labour if you don't think he will end up in no10? (and how would you determine that?) Otherwise I would suggest you are being slightly disingenuous in saying that it is a difficult decision (assuming you are clear that you WILL vote, and WILL only vote for one of the two main parties). Because you are saying you will only vote Conservative or Labour, and then only Conservative. So whether you do so under protest or not, you are still doing so.
It depends on the constituency. If I was in a seat that voting lib dem could beat labour I would do so. But Aberconwy is a marginal and the labour candidate is a Corbynista so I will vote conservative, but with some dismay I have to do this
Big_G - you always seem to find a reluctant reason to support the Tories. Perhaps you should rejoin?
At least if you vote Lib Dem, the candidate may not get elected but any increase in support carries the momentum onward.
If you really want what is best for Britain, you will not be finding it in the former Tory party. It is not what it once was.
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
You will have to hold your nose and vote Labour.
That will not happen under Corbyn under any circumstances
What if your Labour candidate is a strong Corbyn sceptic? Or are you saying that you might vote Labour if you don't think he will end up in no10? (and how would you determine that?) Otherwise I would suggest you are being slightly disingenuous in saying that it is a difficult decision (assuming you are clear that you WILL vote, and WILL only vote for one of the two main parties). Because you are saying you will only vote Conservative or Labour, and then only Conservative. So whether you do so under protest or not, you are still doing so.
It depends on the constituency. If I was in a seat that voting lib dem could beat labour I would do so. But Aberconwy is a marginal and the labour candidate is a Corbynista so I will vote conservative, but with some dismay I have to do this
Tell that to the MPs that decided not to vote for an election then.
I surely would. But the fact a GE is being blocked does not mean that an invalid QS becomes a valid one. It plainly isn't. It should be delayed until it can be given by a functioning government, whether that be after a GE or formed by some other mechanism.
The QS is valid, its needed annually and this is long overdue and now scheduled. It can't be delayed further.
The two options are QS or GE. There is literally no alternative. If MPs vote down a GE there must be a QS.
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
You will have to hold your nose and vote Labour.
That will not happen under Corbyn under any circumstances
Yep.
If Jeremy Corbyn were to be ousted, Boris and Brexit would be flushed away in moments.
I am not sure who I detest more.
One thing you can say about the broad and loose coalition we have currently is that it constrains both Johnson and Corbyn.
Ladies and gentlemen I bring you .... PR
Yeah, because the current period of minority parties trying to scrabble around for power has REALLY made the case for perpetual coalition governments.
Because FPTP encourages monolith parties.
If Rudd and Francois were in separate parties, and Corbyn and Starmer similarly, building a stable coalition would be easy. But the monolithic two parties and FPTP make that impossible.
Easy? Pfffft!!! Say you have six parties with equal numbers of MPs, each headed by Boris, Corbyn, Farage, Sturgeon, Starmer and Swinson. Where's your stable coalition there? Personalities would play an even bigger part.
Because you wouldn't have a garage and a Johnson party. It would be a garage and a Clarke party.
But why is Johnson allowing himself to be overruled?
Presumably Cummings came as part of the package from the big money donors who paid for all the no deal lobbying on social media over the last year and bankrolled the Johnson campaign for leader. I think it's quite obvious that Johnson is the figurehead but Cummings is the CEO of this regime.
Declining the offer of an election may look good for Labour but is it good for the country? It is beginning to feel ludicrous.
Some Labour strategists might think declining the election you have spent the last two years calling for is a wheeze. The sensibles in the other universe just think "twats....let us vote."
People can wait until November. They have other things to do. Brexit is not the only thing. Stopping No Deal Brexit is now more important.
How does a delayed Brexit stop No Deal, if the delayed election in say November still allows a party to say "we will try for a deal, but if an acceptable deal is not forthcoming from the EU, we will leave without a deal" and once that gets a working majority, then leaving with No Deal?
Delay delay delay - at a billion £ a month price tag plus loss of economic growth from uncertainty - is all that is being achieved.
Excellent piece Alastair but can I suggest that there is another sleight of hand going on? Pensioners who are getting increases tied to RPI are getting more money. That money does not come from nowhere, it comes from the schemes paying or, in the case of the taxpayer for unfunded schemes, from present contributors. Index linking is supposed to protect the recipient from the ravages of inflation (in truth more of a nibble than a bit in recent decades), it is not supposed to be a method of increasing the contractual entitlement.
We currently have the most generously funded generation of pensioners we are ever likely to have. Those that retire at 60 on an index linked final salary pension have had every financial risk borne by others, most of whom will never see anything similar. It is immoral, bordering on disgraceful in my view and almost certainly unsustainable. I suspect that over the next decade as the differences between the haves with such rights and the have nots who don't become ever more exposed there is going to be a lot of angry resentment about this. While the former cruise around the world several times a year the latter are taking on jobs in shops into their 70s to make ends meet. The fact that the latter are still paying tax to fund the former is a further aggravation.
What does a government (assuming one can be found that is not terrified of one of our most active voting segments) do about this? The change you have described is one step but not sufficient. We need to incorporate NI into IT so it is paid on all income both pensions and dividends as well as money actually worked for. I expect there to be further paring back on the "tax free" lump sums. I expect eventually some of the perks enjoyed by pensioners such as the bus pass, cheaper rail fares, TV licences, additional tax relief for the elderly, etc to be trimmed back for those receiving more than the average wage. Most significantly I expect eventually a government will be brave enough to go back to May's ideas by which the elderly will have to prioritise paying for their care over handing over large sums of money and property to the next generation.
There, I feel better now. Nothing like a good rant.
{{APPLAUSE}}
There is already massive resentment. I know Oxbridge grads from poorer backgrounds who, having worked incredibly hard to get the grades, know they will not be able to join a London middle-class which is now only on offer to those who come from money.
Poor diddums, tell the thickos to go outside London and enjoy a decent life.
Thank you Mr Meeks for a welcome departure from the usual subject matter.
The complexities of communicating facts about pension products and the effort required for the average customer to have an understanding of what a product will even do suggest strongly one thing: the market is not the way to provide retirement income.
Most customers of private pension schemes do not know what they are buying. A lot couldn't even provide more than the most general hand-waving explanation. The level of detail needed to make a good choice, and to monitor its performance over a number of decades will boggle the majority of people. Most customers won't even bother.
All of which does raise the question about how the market is supposed to benefit the consumer. The essence of the free market is that the consumer is best placed to make the choice of which products to consume, and indeed whether to. It is clearly absurd to suggest anything more than a minority of consumers are making justifiable choices on this. So the question here is, is there a better way to do this?
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
You will have to hold your nose and vote Labour.
That will not happen under Corbyn under any circumstances
What if your Labour candidate is a strong Corbyn sceptic? Or are you saying that you might vote Labour if you don't think he will end up in no10? (and how would you determine that?) Otherwise I would suggest you are being slightly disingenuous in saying that it is a difficult decision (assuming you are clear that you WILL vote, and WILL only vote for one of the two main parties). Because you are saying you will only vote Conservative or Labour, and then only Conservative. So whether you do so under protest or not, you are still doing so.
It depends on the constituency. If I was in a seat that voting lib dem could beat labour I would do so. But Aberconwy is a marginal and the labour candidate is a Corbynista so I will vote conservative, but with some dismay I have to do this
Or you could not vote.
Not in a GE. I have voted in every GE
Vote LD
If LD gets the plurality of votes it deligitimises FPTP seats
On topic. I am a pensioner whose company pension is linked to RPI and as I took early retirement my pension is currently around 8% higher than it would be under CPI over the years. I am unsure if teachers, civil service pensions etc are still linked to RPI, if that is the case clearly the government would also gain from a change in the long term
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
You will have to hold your nose and vote Labour.
That will not happen under Corbyn under any circumstances
Yep.
If Jeremy Corbyn were to be ousted, Boris and Brexit would be flushed away in moments.
I am not sure who I detest more.
One thing you can say about the broad and loose coalition we have currently is that it constrains both Johnson and Corbyn.
Ladies and gentlemen I bring you .... PR
Yeah, because the current period of minority parties trying to scrabble around for power has REALLY made the case for perpetual coalition governments.
Because FPTP encourages monolith parties.
If Rudd and Francois were in separate parties, and Corbyn and Starmer similarly, building a stable coalition would be easy. But the monolithic two parties and FPTP make that impossible.
Easy? Pfffft!!! Say you have six parties with equal numbers of MPs, each headed by Boris, Corbyn, Farage, Sturgeon, Starmer and Swinson. Where's your stable coalition there? Personalities would play an even bigger part.
Because you wouldn't have a garage and a Johnson party. It would be a garage and a Clarke party.
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
"One nation" and "remain" don't mean the same thing and it is cheeky of remainers to try and pretend they represent the one nation wing. It isn't one nation MPs that are leaving it is remainers.
Boris is a one nation Tory. What he's not is a remainer. One nation never meant 48% of the nation.
He expelled people who voted for the May's withdrawal agreement, whereas he opposed it. You need to find a better narrative, once that actually fits the facts.
One thing you can say about the broad and loose coalition we have currently is that it constrains both Johnson and Corbyn.
Ladies and gentlemen I bring you .... PR
Yeah, because the current period of minority parties trying to scrabble around for power has REALLY made the case for perpetual coalition governments.
Put PR up against benevolent dictator in a referendum, and that dictator is a shoo-in....
The problems with FPTP have been well-rehearsed... but sod it, I shall summarise again anyway.
Under the current system...
1. Most voters are stuck in safe seats with MPs that are almost immovable 2. Many of the voters in marginals still throw their votes away if they pick any party other than the two leading ones. This frequently leads to dilemmas such as that faced by Big G, where they have to pick between two choices that stink and they feel obliged to pick the one that smells slightly less rotten 3. Elections are, in fact, typically decided by the behaviour of a few hundred thousand swing voters in key marginal constituencies. The rest of us might as well not bother to turn up 4. Wildly unrepresentative Parliaments and Governments that represent a minority of public opinion are normal. Blair won a comfortable majority in 2005 with only 35% of the popular vote. It's quite possible to envision a situation in the next election where four parties separated by not much more than 10% in terms of the popular vote in England win something like 350, 220, 20 and zero seats respectively. It's bonkers 5. The major parties are free to go mental, safe in the knowledge that most of their voters will stick with them - partly out of conviction, partly out of habit, but largely because they feel they have nowhere else to go. Corbyn Labour and the Johnson Tories survive because of their voters' mutual fear of and antagonism towards each other and, crucially, the fact that shunning one means enabling the other in most of the country. A proportional voting system would allow the centre-right and centre-left to break off with a good prospect of success, and both these existing blocs would therefore lose much of their support overnight
FPTP is worse than useless and encourages polarisation. It should be binned.
I think, on that poll. All others no change or near enough.
And a very strange and curious exception. That must at least partly refer to traffic directly from the Tories to Labour, which I don't think I've seen in any other recent polling, really.
Not really. Quite a few polls show a very small Tory lead, with Lab in the lead if Brexit delayed.
Reduce time to debate Brexit? Just how many days of debate has it had on the subject over the past three years, and how many concrete proposals has that time translated in to? As for puffing up policy... well, isn't that the whole point of the Queen's speech?
Lots of time gone, yes, but the remaining time is at a premium. In any case, you're surely not seriously disputing that was the main driver?
Puffing up policy? Sure, but if it is Tory policy that cannot be implemented unless the party wins a GE, the proper place for it is the Tory manifesto for that GE, no?
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
You will have to hold your nose and vote Labour.
That will not happen under Corbyn under any circumstances
Yep.
If Jeremy Corbyn were to be ousted, Boris and Brexit would be flushed away in moments.
I am not sure who I detest more.
One thing you can say about the broad and loose coalition we have currently is that it constrains both Johnson and Corbyn.
Ladies and gentlemen I bring you .... PR
Yeah, because the current period of minority parties trying to scrabble around for power has REALLY made the case for perpetual coalition governments.
Because FPTP encourages monolith parties.
If Rudd and Francois were in separate parties, and Corbyn and Starmer similarly, building a stable coalition would be easy. But the monolithic two parties and FPTP make that impossible.
Easy? Pfffft!!! Say you have six parties with equal numbers of MPs, each headed by Boris, Corbyn, Farage, Sturgeon, Starmer and Swinson. Where's your stable coalition there? Personalities would play an even bigger part.
Because you wouldn't have a garage and a Johnson party. It would be a garage and a Clarke party.
Declining the offer of an election may look good for Labour but is it good for the country? It is beginning to feel ludicrous.
Some Labour strategists might think declining the election you have spent the last two years calling for is a wheeze. The sensibles in the other universe just think "twats....let us vote."
People can wait until November. They have other things to do. Brexit is not the only thing. Stopping No Deal Brexit is now more important.
How does a delayed Brexit stop No Deal, if the delayed election in say November still allows a party to say "we will try for a deal, but if an acceptable deal is not forthcoming from the EU, we will leave without a deal" and once that gets a working majority, then leaving with No Deal?
Delay delay delay - at a billion £ a month price tag plus loss of economic growth from uncertainty - is all that is being achieved.
You are naturally looking at it from the leave/no deal point of view.
For remainers/anti no dealers the economic argument is the opposite, we are being protected with the status quo for another couple of months. And the democratic argument for remainers is no deal is worse without a mandate (it got 1.8% at the last GE, and has no majority in parliament) than it would be if the country have voted for it. (And no that doesnt mean an election in October as we dont know if the PM would simply move it to November).
What does a government (assuming one can be found that is not terrified of one of our most active voting segments) do about this? The change you have described is one step but not sufficient. We need to incorporate NI into IT so it is paid on all income both pensions and dividends as well as money actually worked for. I expect there to be further paring back on the "tax free" lump sums. I expect eventually some of the perks enjoyed by pensioners such as the bus pass, cheaper rail fares, TV licences, additional tax relief for the elderly, etc to be trimmed back for those receiving more than the average wage. Most significantly I expect eventually a government will be brave enough to go back to May's ideas by which the elderly will have to prioritise paying for their care over handing over large sums of money and property to the next generation.
Morning David - hope the rant has made you feel better.
It's a huge subject and not really about pensions at all but more about our economic culture and especially the notions of consumption and inheritance.
Our economy relies on spending and indeed debt. When people stop spending the economy seizes up as we saw in 2008 - tax receipts plummet and the public finances quickly go into debt and deficit.
At the same time, the notion of inheritance is incredibly popular. IHT rates or the amount after which your assets cannot be taken to pay care home fees are huge symbols for people. "Leaving something for the children" is a notion embedded within the psyche and the economic culture.
So you have to have enough to both spend and save for yourself as well as leaving something for the children - that's a challenge but the manipulation of the land and property market has been a godsend as your primary capital asset appreciates well above inflation year after year even if you spend next to nothing on it.
As more people live longer the cost of running pension schemes escalates as more people are drawing on them for longer. "Three score years and ten" has now become "70 is the new 50". If you have health and wealth it's never been a better time to be elderly. The corollary is more people living longer with fewer dependants equals a huge need for the kind of housing that works for the elderly so that probably doesn't mean tower blocks full of tiny flats - the Hong Kong solution now springing up in London.
I think, on that poll. All others no change or near enough.
And a very strange and curious exception. That must at least partly refer to traffic directly from the Tories to Labour, which I don't think I've seen in any other recent polling, really.
Not really. Quite a few polls show a very small Tory lead, with Lab in the lead if Brexit delayed.
Let. Him. Stew.
But those are hypotheticals for the future, aren't they ? These seem to refer to any possible change in voters attitude to the present.
May not be significant, ofcourse. Everything is up in the air in the moment, but that also makes every potential anomaly a potentially useful guide , or helpful hint of something.
Declining the offer of an election may look good for Labour but is it good for the country? It is beginning to feel ludicrous.
Some Labour strategists might think declining the election you have spent the last two years calling for is a wheeze. The sensibles in the other universe just think "twats....let us vote."
People can wait until November. They have other things to do. Brexit is not the only thing. Stopping No Deal Brexit is now more important.
How does a delayed Brexit stop No Deal, if the delayed election in say November still allows a party to say "we will try for a deal, but if an acceptable deal is not forthcoming from the EU, we will leave without a deal" and once that gets a working majority, then leaving with No Deal?
Delay delay delay - at a billion £ a month price tag plus loss of economic growth from uncertainty - is all that is being achieved.
No. Delay might rip the Tory party apart, make Johnson look a complete fool (that should not be too hard) and cause the Tories to lose the election, or fail to get a majority.
It could result in a huge delay to Brexit or even a revocation, but it will hopefully kill off the No Deal the nutters so crave.
Reduce time to debate Brexit? Just how many days of debate has it had on the subject over the past three years, and how many concrete proposals has that time translated in to? As for puffing up policy... well, isn't that the whole point of the Queen's speech?
Lots of time gone, yes, but the remaining time is at a premium. In any case, you're surely not seriously disputing that was the main driver?
Puffing up policy? Sure, but if it is Tory policy that cannot be implemented unless the party wins a GE, the proper place for it is the Tory manifesto for that GE, no?
MPs have no intention of delivering brexit, nor do they have the stomach to cancel it, it's just going to be one extension after another with the present lot. The sooner we get a fresh Parliament, the better.
Excellent piece Alastair but can I suggest that there is another sleight of hand going on? Pensioners who are getting increases tied to RPI are getting more money. That money does not come from nowhere, it comes from the schemes paying or, in the case of the taxpayer for unfunded schemes, from present contributors. Index linking is supposed to protect the recipient from the ravages of inflation (in truth more of a nibble than a bite in recent decades), it is not supposed to be a method of increasing the contractual entitle
What does a government (assuming one can be found that is not terrified of one of our most active voting segments) do about this? The change you have described is one step but not sufficient. We need to incorporate NI into IT so it is paid on all income both pensions and dividends as well as money actually worked for. I expect there to be further paring back on the "tax free" lump sums. I expect eventually some of the perks enjoyed by pensioners such as the bus pass, cheaper rail fares, TV licences, additional tax relief for the elderly, etc to be trimmed back for those receiving more than the average wage. Most significantly I expect eventually a government will be brave enough to go back to May's ideas by which the elderly will have to prioritise paying for their care over handing over large sums of money and property to the next generation. M There, I feel better now. Nothing like a good rant.
A lot of us have had our pensions trashed by our firms going bust.. it is not all gold braid out there...
Sure, I appreciate that. Some of those firms also went bust because their pension liabilities were so onerous but these were contractual obligations they took on, a financial risk under estimated in times of higher returns and higher inflation which degraded the rights being granted. Most schemes have some limits on the level of increasing obligations but these are not triggered in the low inflation/deflation world we have lived in since the GFC.
Most dropped final salary schemes long ago. There are some with large liabilities but most of that is down to. Greed and them milking the schemes in the good times with no contributions to get Execs bigger bonuses.
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
You will have to hold your nose and vote Labour.
That will not happen under Corbyn under any circumstances
What if your Labour candidate is a strong Corbyn sceptic? Or are you saying that you might vote Labour if you don't think he will end up in no10? (and how would you determine that?) Otherwise I would suggest you are being slightly disingenuous in saying that it is a difficult decision (assuming you are clear that you WILL vote, and WILL only vote for one of the two main parties). Because you are saying you will only vote Conservative or Labour, and then only Conservative. So whether you do so under protest or not, you are still doing so.
It depends on the constituency. If I was in a seat that voting lib dem could beat labour I would do so. But Aberconwy is a marginal and the labour candidate is a Corbynista so I will vote conservative, but with some dismay I have to do this
You may as well be voting for Farage. If he joins will that stop you voting "Conservative", in reality already bluekip trying to implement the least conservative policy in living memory.
RPI should have been abolished for CPI some years ago
On Boris he is on course to destroy the one nation section which includes myself and requires each mp to sign a no deal pledge. Any conservative refusing will be deselected but the problem is that there is an army of TBP MEPs who could be used in an agreement between Farage and Boris. Farage has already announced he will not stand his candidates in the 28 spartan seats and is looking at an agreement that his party will be given free run in Doncaster to take on Ed Miliband
It also looks as if Boris is to seek a judicial review on the no deal act and no doubt John Bercow will be at the heart of the case on the grounds he failed to act impartially and assisted one side of the argument, rather than being even handed
When a GE comes around it raises a huge issue for me. In almost every case I would not vote conservative but if by doing so I put Corbyn in no 10 that would be a step too far. I suspect many thousands of conservatives face the same difficult decision.
I would say I could vote lib dem and quite like Jo Swinson and in any election I hope she does well but in Aberconwy it is a straight conservative-labour marginal
"One nation" and "remain" don't mean the same thing and it is cheeky of remainers to try and pretend they represent the one nation wing. It isn't one nation MPs that are leaving it is remainers.
Boris is a one nation Tory. What he's not is a remainer. One nation never meant 48% of the nation.
He expelled people who voted for the May's withdrawal agreement, whereas he opposed it. You need to find a better narrative, once that actually fits the facts.
May's withdrawal agreement is not relevant to the point. It lost by the biggest landslide defeat ever recorded in the modern era. May chose NOT to make it a matter of confidence.
You can't compare votes on a matter of confidence with votes not a matter of confidence. Major suffered many serious rebellions over Maastricht. When he declared Maastricht was a matter of confidence not a single Tory voted against it. That is discipline. That is what should have happened when Boris declared it a matter of confidence, or if May had chosen to risk her premiership by doing so.
Comments
Setting out policies which you intend to implement if you win a GE is what manifestos are for.
Ladies and gentlemen I bring you .... PR
They are now utterly dispensable, as the ERG and DUP will be in due course if the Cummings strategy is allowed to play out.
Put PR up against benevolent dictator in a referendum, and that dictator is a shoo-in....
There could be methodological divergence. Either, the YouGov is correct and the others wrong or YouGov is wrong. Really there is only one way to find out.
We currently have the most generously funded generation of pensioners we are ever likely to have. Those that retire at 60 on an index linked final salary pension have had every financial risk borne by others, most of whom will never see anything similar. It is immoral, bordering on disgraceful in my view and almost certainly unsustainable. I suspect that over the next decade as the differences between the haves with such rights and the have nots who don't become ever more exposed there is going to be a lot of angry resentment about this. While the former cruise around the world several times a year the latter are taking on jobs in shops into their 70s to make ends meet. The fact that the latter are still paying tax to fund the former is a further aggravation.
What does a government (assuming one can be found that is not terrified of one of our most active voting segments) do about this? The change you have described is one step but not sufficient. We need to incorporate NI into IT so it is paid on all income both pensions and dividends as well as money actually worked for. I expect there to be further paring back on the "tax free" lump sums. I expect eventually some of the perks enjoyed by pensioners such as the bus pass, cheaper rail fares, TV licences, additional tax relief for the elderly, etc to be trimmed back for those receiving more than the average wage. Most significantly I expect eventually a government will be brave enough to go back to May's ideas by which the elderly will have to prioritise paying for their care over handing over large sums of money and property to the next generation.
There, I feel better now. Nothing like a good rant.
If Rudd and Francois were in separate parties, and Corbyn and Starmer similarly, building a stable coalition would be easy. But the monolithic two parties and FPTP make that impossible.
Boris is a one nation Tory. What he's not is a remainer. One nation never meant 48% of the nation.
https://twitter.com/matthancock/status/1170443310860840960?s=21
https://twitter.com/ianbirrell/status/1170591787297255424?s=21
(1) Reduce parliamentary time for debating Brexit.
(2) Puff up the Tory party policy platform for the coming election.
This seems wholly improper to me. Perhaps it cannot be cancelled but it ought to be.
I know Oxbridge grads from poorer backgrounds who, having worked incredibly hard to get the grades, know they will not be able to join a London middle-class which is now only on offer to those who come from money.
I don’t think so.
One for the poll fans on here, such as HY.
BURN THE WITCHES!!!!
To Cummings, that might represent an opportunity rather than a danger, though.
Lab +4
I think, on that poll. All others no change or near enough.
About 99.99 percent of you reading this right now aren’t actually pollsters, though. So what’s my advice to you as news consumers when you encounter a poll that looks like an outlier?
To a first approximation, the best advice is to toss it into the average.
All polling agrees on the LD and BXP rough position and the Tories seem to be low 30s. The question is are labour low 20s or high 20s? That seems to be the key and the difference between well hung and possibly a small majority
Just allow Cummings to run the show whilst you become the figurehead of Brexit ?
The Conservatives had a leadership election and it was democratically agreed the policy was to not extend again. That is a matter of confidence now. Why should these MPs not follow the party whip but still hold the party whip?
That what Boris has done seems shocking just shows how much Theresa May debased our politics with her dreadful breakdown of discipline. He's following in the footsteps of John Major [Maastricht etc] and every other PM whose ever faced an issue of the day being a matter of confidence.
May was the shocking exception, not Boris.
At least if you vote Lib Dem, the candidate may not get elected but any increase in support carries the momentum onward.
If you really want what is best for Britain, you will not be finding it in the former Tory party. It is not what it once was.
The two options are QS or GE. There is literally no alternative. If MPs vote down a GE there must be a QS.
Then Clarke Swinson Starmer.
Sajid Javid unraveling on Marr.
Westminster voting intention:
"A General Election is held after extending the Brexit deadline beyond the 31st of October 2019":
LAB: 28%
CON: 26%
LDEM: 20%
BREX: 17%
GRN: 4%
Delay delay delay - at a billion £ a month price tag plus loss of economic growth from uncertainty - is all that is being achieved.
to go outside London and enjoy a decent life.
The complexities of communicating facts about pension products and the effort required for the average customer to have an understanding of what a product will even do suggest strongly one thing: the market is not the way to provide retirement income.
Most customers of private pension schemes do not know what they are buying. A lot couldn't even provide more than the most general hand-waving explanation. The level of detail needed to make a good choice, and to monitor its performance over a number of decades will boggle the majority of people. Most customers won't even bother.
All of which does raise the question about how the market is supposed to benefit the consumer. The essence of the free market is that the consumer is best placed to make the choice of which products to consume, and indeed whether to. It is clearly absurd to suggest anything more than a minority of consumers are making justifiable choices on this. So the question here is, is there a better way to do this?
If LD gets the plurality of votes it deligitimises FPTP seats
CON: 31%
LAB: 28%
LDEM: 19%
BREX: 15%
GRN: 2%
via @Panelbase, 05 - 06 Sep
Under the current system...
1. Most voters are stuck in safe seats with MPs that are almost immovable
2. Many of the voters in marginals still throw their votes away if they pick any party other than the two leading ones. This frequently leads to dilemmas such as that faced by Big G, where they have to pick between two choices that stink and they feel obliged to pick the one that smells slightly less rotten
3. Elections are, in fact, typically decided by the behaviour of a few hundred thousand swing voters in key marginal constituencies. The rest of us might as well not bother to turn up
4. Wildly unrepresentative Parliaments and Governments that represent a minority of public opinion are normal. Blair won a comfortable majority in 2005 with only 35% of the popular vote. It's quite possible to envision a situation in the next election where four parties separated by not much more than 10% in terms of the popular vote in England win something like 350, 220, 20 and zero seats respectively. It's bonkers
5. The major parties are free to go mental, safe in the knowledge that most of their voters will stick with them - partly out of conviction, partly out of habit, but largely because they feel they have nowhere else to go. Corbyn Labour and the Johnson Tories survive because of their voters' mutual fear of and antagonism towards each other and, crucially, the fact that shunning one means enabling the other in most of the country. A proportional voting system would allow the centre-right and centre-left to break off with a good prospect of success, and both these existing blocs would therefore lose much of their support overnight
FPTP is worse than useless and encourages polarisation. It should be binned.
Let. Him. Stew.
Puffing up policy? Sure, but if it is Tory policy that cannot be implemented unless the party wins a GE, the proper place for it is the Tory manifesto for that GE, no?
The point stands though
For remainers/anti no dealers the economic argument is the opposite, we are being protected with the status quo for another couple of months. And the democratic argument for remainers is no deal is worse without a mandate (it got 1.8% at the last GE, and has no majority in parliament) than it would be if the country have voted for it. (And no that doesnt mean an election in October as we dont know if the PM would simply move it to November).
It's a huge subject and not really about pensions at all but more about our economic culture and especially the notions of consumption and inheritance.
Our economy relies on spending and indeed debt. When people stop spending the economy seizes up as we saw in 2008 - tax receipts plummet and the public finances quickly go into debt and deficit.
At the same time, the notion of inheritance is incredibly popular. IHT rates or the amount after which your assets cannot be taken to pay care home fees are huge symbols for people. "Leaving something for the children" is a notion embedded within the psyche and the economic culture.
So you have to have enough to both spend and save for yourself as well as leaving something for the children - that's a challenge but the manipulation of the land and property market has been a godsend as your primary capital asset appreciates well above inflation year after year even if you spend next to nothing on it.
As more people live longer the cost of running pension schemes escalates as more people are drawing on them for longer. "Three score years and ten" has now become "70 is the new 50". If you have health and wealth it's never been a better time to be elderly. The corollary is more people living longer with fewer dependants equals a huge need for the kind of housing that works for the elderly so that probably doesn't mean tower blocks full of tiny flats - the Hong Kong solution now springing up in London.
May not be significant, ofcourse. Everything is up in the air in the moment, but that also makes every potential anomaly a potentially useful guide , or helpful hint of something.
It could result in a huge delay to Brexit or even a revocation, but it will hopefully kill off the No Deal the nutters so crave.
So the delay is in the national interest.
You can't compare votes on a matter of confidence with votes not a matter of confidence. Major suffered many serious rebellions over Maastricht. When he declared Maastricht was a matter of confidence not a single Tory voted against it. That is discipline. That is what should have happened when Boris declared it a matter of confidence, or if May had chosen to risk her premiership by doing so.