Just like we used to have years ago. I used to volunteer at one such in North Kensington, doing housing and criminal work.
Why did they fall out of favour?
They were funded by councils and got squeezed when there were budget cuts. Also as legal aid got cut it became ever harder to get payment for defence work or other work.
Unless you have money you don't realistically have any sort of access to justice these days. It is a disgrace in a country which used to boast about the rule of law.
What do you think local councils should have cut instead considering that there was no money left?
I've got a few suggestions but curious what you think.
They cut my marginal tax rate by 5%, slashed corporation tax and increased the inheritance tax threshold to £1mn so there was definitely some money left.
Says someone who has never heard of the Laffer Curve. What matters is revenues not percentages.
Revenues have grown year on year not fallen. Indeed you claim corporation tax has been slashed but corporation tax is bringing in record revenues despite a supposed decade of lost growth. Go figure!
Come on then - give us either a definition of the Laffer curve so that we can plot it against a real x-axis, or proof that it in any way reflects the real world.
It doesn't exempt Boeing from blame, but it treats in detail with the problems in the institutional culture and operations of the two airlines involved in particular, and in the industry in general.
Labour are coming up with some excellent policies. The state should always be on the side of regular people and help them defend their interests against the powerful via the law.
As ever, it is populist nonsense - based on the idea that there is an elite out to crush everyone.
Yes, people should have access to the law - but not like this.
It's not populist nonsense. Law centres did useful and worthwhile work.
There has been a 40% cut in the budget for the justice system. That is why judges aren't sitting, courts are being closed and people are waiting a year or more for trials to happen.
In the recent budget statement there was an increase of 5% for the justice system. That does nothing to deal with the issues. The government can boast all it likes about 20,000 additional police officers but unless you fund the rest of the system properly that will achieve nothing.
And that doesn't deal with the almost wholesale destruction of legal aid for civil matters. So how else are people without money to get the advice they need on complicated issues like housing, immigration, welfare and the rest? They can't - unless you have bodies such as law centres or Citizens Advice Bureaux or similar. There is a real need for this and Labour is right to try and address this issue.
Well yes I an ideal world throwing money that you have at every solution makes it better.
Though we have a mammoth debt mountain and are still running a deficit despite these cuts and Labour aren't prioritising criminal justice they are proposing to throw money at everything.
That isn't a solution. A solution would be making criminal justice a priority by proposing other cuts to counteract or realistic revenues to fund it.
Perhaps by increasing Police numbers by 15,000 rather than 20,000 and spending the rest of the money on the inbetween stages of the Justice system.
Labour are coming up with some excellent policies. The state should always be on the side of regular people and help them defend their interests against the powerful via the law.
As ever, it is populist nonsense - based on the idea that there is an elite out to crush everyone.
Yes, people should have access to the law - but not like this.
It's not populist nonsense. Law centres did useful and worthwhile work.
There has been a 40% cut in the budget for the justice system. That is why judges aren't sitting, courts are being closed and people are waiting a year or more for trials to happen.
In the recent budget statement there was an increase of 5% for the justice system. That does nothing to deal with the issues. The government can boast all it likes about 20,000 additional police officers but unless you fund the rest of the system properly that will achieve nothing.
And that doesn't deal with the almost wholesale destruction of legal aid for civil matters. So how else are people without money to get the advice they need on complicated issues like housing, immigration, welfare and the rest? They can't - unless you have bodies such as law centres or Citizens Advice Bureaux or similar. There is a real need for this and Labour is right to try and address this issue.
Well yes I an ideal world throwing money that you have at every solution makes it better.
Though we have a mammoth debt mountain and are still running a deficit despite these cuts and Labour aren't prioritising criminal justice they are proposing to throw money at everything.
That isn't a solution. A solution would be making criminal justice a priority by proposing other cuts to counteract or realistic revenues to fund it.
Perhaps by increasing Police numbers by 15,000 rather than 20,000 and spending the rest of the money on the inbetween stages of the Justice system.
Now we are getting somewhere.
Though not sure how much would be saved doing that but compromises are the path to serious governance. Not saying "I want that one and that one and that one and that one and that one" like a Little Britain sketch.
On topic, the threader header is incorrect - Johnson still has the confidence of the commons till the opposition leader tables a Vote of No Confidence. May maintained the confidence of the commons right throughout her leadership even though she lost her first MV by over 200 votes. That the Johnson ministry has decided to try and enforce party discipline by dewhipping desent and has now a notional majority of -43 is neither here nor there. The LOTO (Corbyn) needs to call a specific confidence motion.
I’m not sure that is correct even in theory any more. Confidence in Boris Johnson has never been tested. He was installed and no one has tested whether he has the confidence of the Commons (only one man has had the chance to test it and has chosen not to do that yet). He has yet to win a vote. He is doing his best to avoid finding out whether the Commons has confidence in him.
The correct term for Boris Johnson at present is placeholder.
Nah, right now he has the confidence of the Commons. That it's a result of
i) Labour attempting to game political advantage out of not testing it ii) Plenty in the Commons being absolubtely horrified at the thought of PM Corbyn
reflects more on the shambles in the Commons than Johnson methinks.
You’re guessing. Boris Johnson has lost every vote of his tenure, including the ones which he sought to treat as a matter of party discipline (not confidence, or he would have resigned).
I expect we’ll find out soon enough.
Yes but Mr Meeks two of those votes he lost were votes whereby he asked for parliament to be dissolved for a GE. If the opposition parties were confident they could beat the terribly unpopular “Bozo” and the nasty Tories then surely they should have voted with him. The election would have been before 31/10 and the new shiny remainer government could have dealt with an extension of revocation with plenty of time.
All else, to be honest, is just noise.
As I said, a placeholder doesn’t get to choose the time of maximum advantage for himself. The majority can properly break and discard him first.
The maximum advantage for the principled remainer is to have a government of their persuasion before 31/10. Unless one is playing party politics. Which I think is the actual motive rather than any altruistic desire to genuinely protect the country from no deal.
Never fight a battle on your opponent’s preferred terrain if you can avoid it.
In a war of attrition, a man who is going to do or die by 31 October is in trouble if he hasn’t done by that date.
Just like we used to have years ago. I used to volunteer at one such in North Kensington, doing housing and criminal work.
Why did they fall out of favour?
They were funded by councils and got squeezed when there were budget cuts. Also as legal aid got cut it became ever harder to get payment for defence work or other work.
Unless you have money you don't realistically have any sort of access to justice these days. It is a disgrace in a country which used to boast about the rule of law.
What do you think local councils should have cut instead considering that there was no money left?
I've got a few suggestions but curious what you think.
They cut my marginal tax rate by 5%, slashed corporation tax and increased the inheritance tax threshold to £1mn so there was definitely some money left.
Says someone who has never heard of the Laffer Curve. What matters is revenues not percentages.
Revenues have grown year on year not fallen. Indeed you claim corporation tax has been slashed but corporation tax is bringing in record revenues despite a supposed decade of lost growth. Go figure!
Corporation tax cuts cost more than £16bn/year according to IFS.
Just like we used to have years ago. I used to volunteer at one such in North Kensington, doing housing and criminal work.
Why did they fall out of favour?
They were funded by councils and got squeezed when there were budget cuts. Also as legal aid got cut it became ever harder to get payment for defence work or other work.
Unless you have money you don't realistically have any sort of access to justice these days. It is a disgrace in a country which used to boast about the rule of law.
What do you think local councils should have cut instead considering that there was no money left?
I've got a few suggestions but curious what you think.
They cut my marginal tax rate by 5%, slashed corporation tax and increased the inheritance tax threshold to £1mn so there was definitely some money left.
Says someone who has never heard of the Laffer Curve. What matters is revenues not percentages.
Revenues have grown year on year not fallen. Indeed you claim corporation tax has been slashed but corporation tax is bringing in record revenues despite a supposed decade of lost growth. Go figure!
We've all heard of the laffer curve. What we haven't heard is why we should believe the peak is where you think it is
Because cutting corporation tax rates increased corporation tax revenues over the past decade?
Because this government is bringing in record revenues?
Labour are coming up with some excellent policies. The state should always be on the side of regular people and help them defend their interests against the powerful via the law.
As ever, it is populist nonsense - based on the idea that there is an elite out to crush everyone.
Yes, people should have access to the law - but not like this.
It's not populist nonsense. Law centres did useful and worthwhile work.
There has been a 40% cut in the budget for the justice system. That is why judges aren't sitting, courts are being closed and people are waiting a year or more for trials to happen.
In the recent budget statement there was an increase of 5% for the justice system. That does nothing to deal with the issues. The government can boast all it likes about 20,000 additional police officers but unless you fund the rest of the system properly that will achieve nothing.
And that doesn't deal with the almost wholesale destruction of legal aid for civil matters. So how else are people without money to get the advice they need on complicated issues like housing, immigration, welfare and the rest? They can't - unless you have bodies such as law centres or Citizens Advice Bureaux or similar. There is a real need for this and Labour is right to try and address this issue.
Well yes I an ideal world throwing money that you have at every solution makes it better.
Though we have a mammoth debt mountain and are still running a deficit despite these cuts and Labour aren't prioritising criminal justice they are proposing to throw money at everything.
That isn't a solution. A solution would be making criminal justice a priority by proposing other cuts to counteract or realistic revenues to fund it.
Perhaps by increasing Police numbers by 15,000 rather than 20,000 and spending the rest of the money on the inbetween stages of the Justice system.
Now we are getting somewhere.
Though not sure how much would be saved doing that but compromises are the path to serious governance. Not saying "I want that one and that one and that one and that one and that one" like a Little Britain sketch.
But that is exactly what Boris has done with our Justice system. He throw money at the sexy public friendly bits (Police / Prisons) and ignored the more important but less public friendly bits that actually do the real work (Courts / Probation)..
I disagree with this. If the house doesn't have confidence in a government, then we have a GE.
It's not up to the house to decide or have a factor in who the Tory leader is.
Why should the Commons not agreeing with the PM result in a general election when it's not what the Commons wants
Under the FTPA the Commons has two ways to remove Boris. They can vote for a General Election (which Boris tabled, twice) or they can VONC which the Opposition declined to table.
As such the Commons has voted, twice, to keep Boris in place.
The FTPA is not a complete code governing the dismissal and formation of governments. It doesn't, for example, stop governments resigning or being dismissed by the monarch and it doesn't regulate the process of becoming PM. So, for example, it leaves open possibilities for the House such as a humble address asking for the PM to be dismissed or asking for the PM to be replaced by a named person. Perhaps we should have such a code, and it is a legitimate criticism of the FTPA that it isn't one, but we don't.
Indeed it doesn't rule out those options but the Commons chose to forego all its options.
Not so. It took the option of voting against him in a vote he himself declared to be a vote of confidence. The process that defeat set off should have ended with his resignation on 9 September and so there was no need to do anything in the meantime. The time to take further action would have been after 9 September, but the PM immediately prorogued, so preventing that further action.
Never done it, never will. Really not a good thing. Re Trudeau, therefore, I take a dim view. Just as I would if it were Eric Trump. That Trudeau is a liberal makes no odds to me. I am objective almost to a fault. Unlike the following categories of people. (1) Those cutting him a ton of slack because he's on the correct side of the culture war. (2) Those pretending they are outraged when in fact they see little wrong with a bit of blacking up when the occasion demands it.
That's fair, and pretty well my view. And in such a close election, I wouldn't be at all surprised if were to tip the balance against him.
But that is exactly what Boris has done with our Justice system. He throw money at the sexy public friendly bits (Police / Prisons) and ignored the more important but less public friendly bits that actually do the real work (Courts / Probation)..
Boris tried to dissolve parliament, which was an admission that he didn't carry the house. He was blocked by parliament, so with no viable alternative, he is correct to carry on.
I think Boris will get a (slightly) improved deal from the EU and will bring it to the house before Oct 31st, and parliament will vote it down.
I think the big key play is whether Boris can win the politics of the improved deal. To do this he will need to show he has the (full) support of the DUP, the ERG and the whole of the Tory party.
If he can do that and it still gets voted down I think he'll be happy, because he can then at least tell the country that a Remain parliament is blocking the will of the people.
It will send us round in circles again but will enable Boris to live beyond the 31st October.
If this were to happen it WOULD be a Remainer parliament blocking Brexit in a manner that would be impossible to justify.
Tbf is that just typical political hype à la 'prepare for government' rather than a real prediction?
No doubt, but it's a bit crap in a book released more than 3 weeks after Davidson resigned and after months of copious evidence that the SCons are going to get reamed for the foreseeable future (those two situations entirely unconnected of course).
It's not populist nonsense. Law centres did useful and worthwhile work.
There has been a 40% cut in the budget for the justice system. That is why judges aren't sitting, courts are being closed and people are waiting a year or more for trials to happen.
In the recent budget statement there was an increase of 5% for the justice system. That does nothing to deal with the issues. The government can boast all it likes about 20,000 additional police officers but unless you fund the rest of the system properly that will achieve nothing.
And that doesn't deal with the almost wholesale destruction of legal aid for civil matters. So how else are people without money to get the advice they need on complicated issues like housing, immigration, welfare and the rest? They can't - unless you have bodies such as law centres or Citizens Advice Bureaux or similar. There is a real need for this and Labour is right to try and address this issue.
Indeed. And this comes on top of a 'not bad' Brexit position and an 'excellent' focus on local buses. I really do sense you coming around to Labour.
Don't think you are mortally offended by VAT on private schools either, IIRC.
"Raise the scarlet standard high Beneath its folds we'll live and die Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here!"
I have voted Labour in the past. But I will never vote Labour while Corbyn and his merry band or people coming from the same part of the Far Left world are in charge.
So sorry to disappoint. I am not coming round to Labour. If anything I feel that Labour are turning into a mixture of Respect and SWP.
But I am quite willing to give credit for individual policies or actions. For instance and for balance, Johnson is right to take students out of the immigration figures.
"If … there had been an effort to legitimise his premiership by winning a key vote in the Commons."
Surely the usual way for a new PM to legitimise his premiership is by calling a general election? Don't the voters count anymore?
If they did, Boris Johnson would not have been installed as Prime Minister in the first place.
To be fair, people are saying both that Boris needs an election to legitimise being PM, while arguing that this was not the right time for an election.
Boris could have asked for an election in July and Parliament would have had great difficulty voting against a request for a September election.
Yes. That was his only chance of getting a mandate to push for his version of Brexit. It might have worked, but it would have been a risk. IMO Parliament would have voted for an election had he announced one immediately on taking office and Johnson might well have won. Now it is too late. The window has closed and will not reopen.
It doesn't exempt Boeing from blame, but it treats in detail with the problems in the institutional culture and operations of the two airlines involved in particular, and in the industry in general.
Would I be way off the mark in thinking that the very short read is "pilot error".
The overnight lending market is what seized up in the last financial crisis as banks no longer trusted other banks to make good on their ultra short term loans.
It's not a good sign, certainly.
Clearly rumors are stating that a bank is in big trouble. Is this the end days for Deutsche Bank? (it collapsing in the next 2 weeks wouldn't surprise me given it typical Brexit logic and it going would overshadow Brexit at just the wrong time).
It is not a good time for the system of financial regulation in Europe to be fractured, certainly.
And if something like a bank in trouble happens at the same time as a major country embarks on a disorderly withdrawal from all its trading, commercial and other relationships, well .... that will be fun, won't it?
Labour are coming up with some excellent policies. The state should always be on the side of regular people and help them defend their interests against the powerful via the law.
As ever, it is populist nonsense - based on the idea that there is an elite out to crush everyone.
Yes, people should have access to the law - but not like this.
It's not populist nonsense. Law centres did useful and worthwhile work.
There has been a 40% cut in the budget for the justice system. That is why judges aren't sitting, courts are being closed and people are waiting a year or more for trials to happen.
In the recent budget statement there was an increase of 5% for the justice system. That does nothing to deal with the issues. The government can boast all it likes about 20,000 additional police officers but unless you fund the rest of the system properly that will achieve nothing.
And that doesn't deal with the almost wholesale destruction of legal aid for civil matters. So how else are people without money to get the advice they need on complicated issues like housing, immigration, welfare and the rest? They can't - unless you have bodies such as law centres or Citizens Advice Bureaux or similar. There is a real need for this and Labour is right to try and address this issue.
Well yes I an ideal world throwing money that you have at every solution makes it better.
Though we have a mammoth debt mountain and are still running a deficit despite these cuts and Labour aren't prioritising criminal justice they are proposing to throw money at everything.
That isn't a solution. A solution would be making criminal justice a priority by proposing other cuts to counteract or realistic revenues to fund it.
Perhaps by increasing Police numbers by 15,000 rather than 20,000 and spending the rest of the money on the inbetween stages of the Justice system.
Well, as you have proposed it, why not cost it and see if it is remotely plausible?
Cutting 5000 police gives you maybe 150 million pounds annually (allowing a bit for training, etc as well as salary).
How much does 150 million pounds annually buy you in the judicial system ?
"If … there had been an effort to legitimise his premiership by winning a key vote in the Commons."
Surely the usual way for a new PM to legitimise his premiership is by calling a general election? Don't the voters count anymore?
If they did, Boris Johnson would not have been installed as Prime Minister in the first place.
To be fair, people are saying both that Boris needs an election to legitimise being PM, while arguing that this was not the right time for an election.
Boris could have asked for an election in July and Parliament would have had great difficulty voting against a request for a September election.
Yes. That was his only chance of getting a mandate to push for his version of Brexit. It might have worked, but it would have been a risk. IMO Parliament would have voted for an election had he announced one immediately on taking office and Johnson might well have won. Now it is too late. The window has closed and will not reopen.
I don’t think it would have voted for a GE - parliaments singular function is to delay Brexit until enough time has passed that they think they can get away with ignoring the result.
Boris resigning helps that cause - he was right not to do so.
I have voted Labour in the past. But I will never vote Labour while Corbyn and his merry band or people coming from the same part of the Far Left world are in charge.
So sorry to disappoint. I am not coming round to Labour. If anything I feel that Labour are turning into a mixture of Respect and SWP.
But I am quite willing to give credit for individual policies or actions. For instance and for balance, Johnson is right to take students out of the immigration figures.
Yes, point taken, but if the policies you like keep mounting up there could just possibly be a tipping point.
Labour are coming up with some excellent policies. The state should always be on the side of regular people and help them defend their interests against the powerful via the law.
As ever, it is populist nonsense - based on the idea that there is an elite out to crush everyone.
Yes, people should have access to the law - but not like this.
It's not populist nonsense. Law centres did useful and worthwhile work.
There has been a 40% cut in the budget for the justice system. That is why judges aren't sitting, courts are being closed and people are waiting a year or more for trials to happen.
In the recent budget statement there was an increase of 5% for the justice system. That does nothing to deal with the issues. The government can boast all it likes about 20,000 additional police officers but unless you fund the rest of the system properly that will achieve nothing.
And that doesn't deal with the almost wholesale destruction of legal aid for civil matters. So how else are people without money to get the advice they need on complicated issues like housing, immigration, welfare and the rest? They can't - unless you have bodies such as law centres or Citizens Advice Bureaux or similar. There is a real need for this and Labour is right to try and address this issue.
Well yes I an ideal world throwing money that you have at every solution makes it better.
Though we have a mammoth debt mountain and are still running a deficit despite these cuts and Labour aren't prioritising criminal justice they are proposing to throw money at everything.
That isn't a solution. A solution would be making criminal justice a priority by proposing other cuts to counteract or realistic revenues to fund it.
Perhaps by increasing Police numbers by 15,000 rather than 20,000 and spending the rest of the money on the inbetween stages of the Justice system.
Well, as you have proposed it, why not cost it and see if it is remotely plausible?
Cutting 5000 police gives you maybe 150 million pounds annually (allowing a bit for training, etc as well as salary).
How much does 150 million pounds annually buy you in the judicial system ?
The current budget of HMCTS is £1.2bn. Clearly that's not the full cost of the judicial system but it shows the disparity pretty well.
Labour are coming up with some excellent policies. The state should always be on the side of regular people and help them defend their interests against the powerful via the law.
As ever, it is populist nonsense - based on the idea that there is an elite out to crush everyone.
Yes, people should have access to the law - but not like this.
It's not populist nonsense. Law centres did useful and worthwhile work.
There has been a 40% cut in the budget for the justice system. That is why judges aren't sitting, courts are being closed and people are waiting a year or more for trials to happen.
In the recent budget statement there was an increase of 5% for the justice system. That does nothing to deal with the issues. The government can boast all it likes about 20,000 additional police officers but unless you fund the rest of the system properly that will achieve nothing.
And that doesn't deal with the almost wholesale destruction of legal aid for civil matters. So how else are people without money to get the advice they need on complicated issues like housing, immigration, welfare and the rest? They can't - unless you have bodies such as law centres or Citizens Advice Bureaux or similar. There is a real need for this and Labour is right to try and address this issue.
Well yes I an ideal world throwing money that you have at every solution makes it better.
Though we have a mammoth debt mountain and are still running a deficit despite these cuts and Labour aren't prioritising criminal justice they are proposing to throw money at everything.
That isn't a solution. A solution would be making criminal justice a priority by proposing other cuts to counteract or realistic revenues to fund it.
Perhaps by increasing Police numbers by 15,000 rather than 20,000 and spending the rest of the money on the inbetween stages of the Justice system.
Well, as you have proposed it, why not cost it and see if it is remotely plausible?
Cutting 5000 police gives you maybe 150 million pounds annually (allowing a bit for training, etc as well as salary).
How much does 150 million pounds annually buy you in the judicial system ?
The current budget of HMCTS is £1.2bn. Clearly that's not the full cost of the judicial system but it shows the disparity pretty well.
So that adds another 12% to the HMCTS service which is better than nothing..
Just like we used to have years ago. I used to volunteer at one such in North Kensington, doing housing and criminal work.
Why did they fall out of favour?
They were funded by councils and got squeezed when there were budget cuts. Also as legal aid got cut it became ever harder to get payment for defence work or other work.
Unless you have money you don't realistically have any sort of access to justice these days. It is a disgrace in a country which used to boast about the rule of law.
What do you think local councils should have cut instead considering that there was no money left?
I've got a few suggestions but curious what you think.
They cut my marginal tax rate by 5%, slashed corporation tax and increased the inheritance tax threshold to £1mn so there was definitely some money left.
Says someone who has never heard of the Laffer Curve. What matters is revenues not percentages.
Revenues have grown year on year not fallen. Indeed you claim corporation tax has been slashed but corporation tax is bringing in record revenues despite a supposed decade of lost growth. Go figure!
I have heard of the Ladder curve. But you have never heard of a counterfactual.
Nevertheless, you are right that overall govt revenues as a % of GDP are relatively high. My point is that they could be higher, allowing for better public services, like in many other high income European countries.
FWIW I think that corporation tax is a stupid tax. In an ideal tax system it would be eliminated and and we would tax wealth and rents (in the economic sense of the word) a lot more. But I also believe, like many tax experts, that cutting it has cost some revenue, which the govt could Ill afford given the appalling state of public services, especially in local govt.
Tbf is that just typical political hype à la 'prepare for government' rather than a real prediction?
No doubt, but it's a bit crap in a book released more than 3 weeks after Davidson resigned and after months of copious evidence that the SCons are going to get reamed for the foreseeable future (those two situations entirely unconnected of course).
It doesn't exempt Boeing from blame, but it treats in detail with the problems in the institutional culture and operations of the two airlines involved in particular, and in the industry in general.
Would I be way off the mark in thinking that the very short read is "pilot error".
So the plan now is to blame pilot training rather than software that created contradictions that pilots couldn't override.
I supposed even that is better for Boeing than blaming airlines for not buying optional features that turned out to be necessary in the real world.
Like all Britons, without exception, I am incapable of looking at Mark Francois and not thinking about Dorian Gray. Attic picture jokes will of course be returned to sender, unopened. What I am thinking of, when I behold the Conservative MP for Rayleigh and Wickford, is a line Lord Henry breathes admiringly at Dorian: “You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found.”
And so with Francois, the undisputed breakout star of Britain’s Brexit shitshow. No public figure better crystallises this most edifying of ages, and the terrifying implication of that is the mood music to all our lives.
Just like we used to have years ago. I used to volunteer at one such in North Kensington, doing housing and criminal work.
Why did they fall out of favour?
They were funded by councils and got squeezed when there were budget cuts. Also as legal aid got cut it became ever harder to get payment for defence work or other work.
Unless you have money you don't realistically have any sort of access to justice these days. It is a disgrace in a country which used to boast about the rule of law.
What do you think local councils should have cut instead considering that there was no money left?
I've got a few suggestions but curious what you think.
They cut my marginal tax rate by 5%, slashed corporation tax and increased the inheritance tax threshold to £1mn so there was definitely some money left.
Says someone who has never heard of the Laffer Curve. What matters is revenues not percentages.
Revenues have grown year on year not fallen. Indeed you claim corporation tax has been slashed but corporation tax is bringing in record revenues despite a supposed decade of lost growth. Go figure!
We've all heard of the laffer curve. What we haven't heard is why we should believe the peak is where you think it is
Because cutting corporation tax rates increased corporation tax revenues over the past decade?
Because this government is bringing in record revenues?
In 2017 the corporation tax take was lower in real terms than 2006, and lower as a percentage of GDP than 2000. It's almost as if cherry-picking two points in time and a specific tax rate to compare and totally ignoring any factor other than the rate is utterly inadequate as an analysis of the Laffer curve.
I have voted Labour in the past. But I will never vote Labour while Corbyn and his merry band or people coming from the same part of the Far Left world are in charge.
So sorry to disappoint. I am not coming round to Labour. If anything I feel that Labour are turning into a mixture of Respect and SWP.
But I am quite willing to give credit for individual policies or actions. For instance and for balance, Johnson is right to take students out of the immigration figures.
Yes, point taken, but if the policies you like keep mounting up there could just possibly be a tipping point.
No - not while Corbyn is in charge.
Why? Because when anti-semitism is normalised, encouraged or tolerated, it is an indication of a profound political sickness, the growth of an illiberal, intolerant contempt for democratic open culture, for democracy, a preference for ignorant populism and a conspiratorial view of the world where people are not judged on their actions but on whether they are one of us or not. And if they are, all is forgiven; if they are not, everything they say or do is assumed to be in bad faith.
Both main parties seem more and more to be prey to this approach to politics
I cannot support either of them until this changes.
I think that is a bit unkind to call them the LibTals or LibBans. I'm not sure that Lab and LibDems are heading into the realms of extensive tactical voting, which will be good for LibDems and possibly Cons
This current discord between Labour and the Liberal Democrats will be like manna from heaven for the Brexiters, and Cummings will be lapping it up in his game theory war-gaming headquarters. From a Remainer point of view, it's madness.
I wonder if the Lib Dems or Labour have considered some under-the-counter campaigning for the Brexit Party in their target constituencies.
Take Devon North, for example. Lib Dem target #7, but 57% Leave, 43% Remain.
Most Leavers are never going to vote Lib Dem. But they might vote Brexit Party, especially given that the incumbent Conservative is a one-time Remainer. And the more Con->BXP switchers, the easier it is for the Lib Dems to regain the seat.
Two superb postings by Giles Wilkes recently that flesh this out:
My brother is senior management at Whipps Cross hospital. When Johnson was there on Wednesday my bro had coffee and biscuits with him and a 20 minute one on one chinwag. Said that the guy has an obvious charisma BUT he is strangely very unintimidating (unlike Brown, who he has also met) and is extremely easy to talk to. He really did feel like he could 'have a pint with him' no problem at all.
He (my brother) is a lifelong member of the Labour party and something of an activist. He hates the Tories.
"The real issue, surely, is that Johnson does not have the confidence of the Commons and therefore the Commons should have No Confidenced him instead of passing the Benn bill.
Except they couldn't, because although Johnson has nothing close to a majority, he's still probably closer to one than any of the various factions his opponents are split into. So they passed the abomination that is the Benn bill, with not-so-tacit assistance from a lame duck and utterly compromised Speaker.
My brother is senior management at Whipps Cross hospital. When Johnson was there on Wednesday my bro had coffee and biscuits with him and a 20 minute one on one chinwag. Said that the guy has an obvious charisma BUT he is strangely very unintimidating (unlike Brown, who he has also met) and is extremely easy to talk to. He really did feel like he could 'have a pint with him' no problem at all.
He (my brother) is a lifelong member of the Labour party and something of an activist. He hates the Tories.
"The real issue, surely, is that Johnson does not have the confidence of the Commons and therefore the Commons should have No Confidenced him instead of passing the Benn bill.
Except they couldn't, because although Johnson has nothing close to a majority, he's still probably closer to one than any of the various factions his opponents are split into. So they passed the abomination that is the Benn bill, with not-so-tacit assistance from a lame duck and utterly compromised Speaker.
Parliament couldn't VONC Boris as the time wasn't there to do so - other things had to be done first.
It doesn't exempt Boeing from blame, but it treats in detail with the problems in the institutional culture and operations of the two airlines involved in particular, and in the industry in general.
Would I be way off the mark in thinking that the very short read is "pilot error".
That's not my read, which is that the blame lies in a combination of inadequate, incompetent or plain corrupt management of maintenance, highly inadequately trained pilots, and an airframe which, in unusual conditions requires a well trained and calm pilot to prevent disaster.
Boeing is absolutely to blame, as it seem evident that it was well aware of the first two factors, and is, of course, directly responsible for the third.
I would not happily fly in Indonesia any time soon (though as the author points out, even with their miserable safety record, the odds of a crash are still pretty low).
So that adds another 12% to the HMCTS service which is better than nothing..
I asked what do I get for the money? I am making 5000 policeman redundant, and I'd like to understand in concrete terms what I am getting in return.
Current legal aid budget is 1.6 billion, it seems.
You are not making 5,000 policemen redundant you are recruiting 15,000 rather than 20,000 and spending the money that would have been spent on those 5,000 NEW police officers on ensuring the other 15,000 new police officers can actually send any criminals they catch to jail.
Does it matter if the government have to "un prerogue" parliament? It seems to me that the damage that is the Benn bill has been done.
They key thing to understand now is that if the govenement agrees a deal with the EU (which I think is very possible) the commons still will not pass it - with Corbyn whipping against it - because if passed it would reflect glory on the Conservatice Party.
Does it matter if the government have to "un prerogue" parliament? It seems to me that the damage that is the Benn bill has been done.
They key thing to understand now is that if the govenement agrees a deal with the EU (which I think is very possible) the commons still will not pass it - with Corbyn whipping against it - because if passed it would reflect glory on the Conservatice Party.
What then?
Boris has to go back and ask for another extension as negotiations continue...
My brother is senior management at Whipps Cross hospital. When Johnson was there on Wednesday my bro had coffee and biscuits with him and a 20 minute one on one chinwag. Said that the guy has an obvious charisma BUT he is strangely very unintimidating (unlike Brown, who he has also met) and is extremely easy to talk to. He really did feel like he could 'have a pint with him' no problem at all.
He (my brother) is a lifelong member of the Labour party and something of an activist. He hates the Tories.
(emoticon for "go figure")
This is a variation on an oft-told story, that when people actually meet politicians, they are surprised how nice they seem. Notwithstanding the tales of when they're rude, of course, such as the one about Cameron putting his hand in a stewardess's face. I've met a few politicians too, from councillors through MPs to a First Minister, and they all seemed ok. It's just their /beliefs/ that are the problem. Because no matter how nice you are, any policy you implement is going to spoil someone else's day, or even life. It's frankly unavoidable. The only thing you can do is look like you give a shit and try to do as little damage as possible. And on that front, I'd go for a pint with Boris too. If only to keep him away from wrecking this fucking country for an hour or two.
Just found this verbatim transcript of a Trump “speech” at a press conference. Mind boggling.
“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible.”
That was four years ago. He's deteriorated significantly since then.
Does it matter if the government have to "un prerogue" parliament? It seems to me that the damage that is the Benn bill has been done.
They key thing to understand now is that if the govenement agrees a deal with the EU (which I think is very possible) the commons still will not pass it - with Corbyn whipping against it - because if passed it would reflect glory on the Conservatice Party.
What then?
Boris doesn't bring it back. He waits for Labour to own No Deal.....
But it won't happen, because if Boris does a deal it will be linked to no further extensions from the EU.
Sorry, Remainers, if it means they can prevent the Eu-wide recession of No Deal then the EU will leave you to twist in the breeze....
MarqueeMark says: "But it won't happen, because if Boris does a deal it will be linked to no further extensions from the EU."
That`s a good point - hope they have thought of that - this should force Labour to support it (or at least abstain) i would have thought.
Given EU`s evident dislike of Boris, maybe they would refuse a "no further extensions" clause.
I don't get the idea of why the EU wouldn't accept further extensions. Every additonal extension gives the EU more money and increases the likelihood we will eventually remain
I'm at the climate strike protest in Edinburgh and obviously there are lots of very young people here, but the crowd noticeably skews more female than protests normally.
My brother is senior management at Whipps Cross hospital. When Johnson was there on Wednesday my bro had coffee and biscuits with him and a 20 minute one on one chinwag. Said that the guy has an obvious charisma BUT he is strangely very unintimidating (unlike Brown, who he has also met) and is extremely easy to talk to. He really did feel like he could 'have a pint with him' no problem at all.
He (my brother) is a lifelong member of the Labour party and something of an activist. He hates the Tories.
(emoticon for "go figure")
This is a variation on an oft-told story, that when people actually meet politicians, they are surprised how nice they seem. Notwithstanding the tales of when they're rude, of course, such as the one about Cameron putting his hand in a stewardess's face. I've met a few politicians too, from councillors through MPs to a First Minister, and they all seemed ok. It's just their /beliefs/ that are the problem. Because no matter how nice you are, any policy you implement is going to spoil someone else's day, or even life. It's frankly unavoidable. The only thing you can do is look like you give a shit and try to do as little damage as possible. And on that front, I'd go for a pint with Boris too. If only to keep him away from wrecking this fucking country for an hour or two.
Yes, I have met a load of politicians through work and in the main they were pretty charming and nice people. Even Liam Fox seemed kind of alright. The only two who didn't seem like very nice people were Peter Mandelson and John Redwood. Cameron did seem arrogant though, and Johnson came over as needy, but both were pleasant to talk to. If it's a meal, the best guide is to see how they treat the serving staff. In that regard John Major was the clear winner. But it's the policies that matter, and even the lovely Major messed up the train industry.
MarqueeMark says: "But it won't happen, because if Boris does a deal it will be linked to no further extensions from the EU."
That`s a good point - hope they have thought of that - this should force Labour to support it (or at least abstain) i would have thought.
Given EU`s evident dislike of Boris, maybe they would refuse a "no further extensions" clause.
I don't get the idea of why the EU wouldn't accept further extensions. Every additonal extension gives the EU more money and increases the likelihood we will eventually remain
I don't think the money issue is really at the forefront of the priorities.
I'm at the climate strike protest in Edinburgh and obviously there are lots of very young people here, but the crowd noticeably skews more female than protests normally.
My brother is senior management at Whipps Cross hospital. When Johnson was there on Wednesday my bro had coffee and biscuits with him and a 20 minute one on one chinwag. Said that the guy has an obvious charisma BUT he is strangely very unintimidating (unlike Brown, who he has also met) and is extremely easy to talk to. He really did feel like he could 'have a pint with him' no problem at all.
He (my brother) is a lifelong member of the Labour party and something of an activist. He hates the Tories.
(emoticon for "go figure")
This is a variation on an oft-told story, that when people actually meet politicians, they are surprised how nice they seem. Notwithstanding the tales of when they're rude, of course, such as the one about Cameron putting his hand in a stewardess's face. I've met a few politicians too, from councillors through MPs to a First Minister, and they all seemed ok. It's just their /beliefs/ that are the problem. Because no matter how nice you are, any policy you implement is going to spoil someone else's day, or even life. It's frankly unavoidable. The only thing you can do is look like you give a shit and try to do as little damage as possible. And on that front, I'd go for a pint with Boris too. If only to keep him away from wrecking this fucking country for an hour or two.
Yes, I have met a load of politicians through work and in the main they were pretty charming and nice people. Even Liam Fox seemed kind of alright. The only two who didn't seem like very nice people were Peter Mandelson and John Redwood. Cameron did seem arrogant though, and Johnson came over as needy, but both were pleasant to talk to. If it's a meal, the best guide is to see how they treat the serving staff. In that regard John Major was the clear winner. But it's the policies that matter, and even the lovely Major messed up the train industry.
+1 I never like Major's policies, but he seems like a gentleman. My guess for the PMs of my lifetime for how nice they would be / have been to meet: Major Blair May Cameron Johnson Brown Thatcher
Pop Corbyn in at about the same level as Johnson if he becomes PM. Swinson can go in just above May. Clarke just below Blair. What other candidates am I missing?
MarqueeMark says: "But it won't happen, because if Boris does a deal it will be linked to no further extensions from the EU."
That`s a good point - hope they have thought of that - this should force Labour to support it (or at least abstain) i would have thought.
Given EU`s evident dislike of Boris, maybe they would refuse a "no further extensions" clause.
I don't get the idea of why the EU wouldn't accept further extensions. Every additonal extension gives the EU more money and increases the likelihood we will eventually remain
I don't think the money issue is really at the forefront of the priorities.
Avoiding the blame for No Deal and the recession that follows will be so the idea that the EU won't allow an extension is one for the birds.
MarqueeMark says: "But it won't happen, because if Boris does a deal it will be linked to no further extensions from the EU."
That`s a good point - hope they have thought of that - this should force Labour to support it (or at least abstain) i would have thought.
Given EU`s evident dislike of Boris, maybe they would refuse a "no further extensions" clause.
A no further extensions clause is as watertight as the WA cant be opened up, you have 30 days to get a deal, you have a week to get a deal etc that we are going through this summer.
In reality they will act in their best interests at the time and not be constrained by prior deadlines or threats. If the options open to them are only no deal or extend, expect them to extend whatever they have said before. It is not guaranteed but very likely.
MarqueeMark says: "But it won't happen, because if Boris does a deal it will be linked to no further extensions from the EU."
That`s a good point - hope they have thought of that - this should force Labour to support it (or at least abstain) i would have thought.
Given EU`s evident dislike of Boris, maybe they would refuse a "no further extensions" clause.
I don't get the idea of why the EU wouldn't accept further extensions. Every additonal extension gives the EU more money and increases the likelihood we will eventually remain
I don't think the money issue is really at the forefront of the priorities.
Avoiding the blame for No Deal and the recession that follows will be so the idea that the EU won't allow an extension is one for the birds.
I'm at the climate strike protest in Edinburgh and obviously there are lots of very young people here, but the crowd noticeably skews more female than protests normally.
How white is it skewing ?
Hard to tell. Edinburgh always seems very white to me because I grew up in South London. Young people are also less white than the population at large.
I think among the young people it's reasonably representative of the city. Probably less so for the adults.
My brother is senior management at Whipps Cross hospital. When Johnson was there on Wednesday my bro had coffee and biscuits with him and a 20 minute one on one chinwag. Said that the guy has an obvious charisma BUT he is strangely very unintimidating (unlike Brown, who he has also met) and is extremely easy to talk to. He really did feel like he could 'have a pint with him' no problem at all.
He (my brother) is a lifelong member of the Labour party and something of an activist. He hates the Tories.
(emoticon for "go figure")
This is a variation on an oft-told story, that when people actually meet politicians, they are surprised how nice they seem. Notwithstanding the tales of when they're rude, of course, such as the one about Cameron putting his hand in a stewardess's face. I've met a few politicians too, from councillors through MPs to a First Minister, and they all seemed ok. It's just their /beliefs/ that are the problem. Because no matter how nice you are, any policy you implement is going to spoil someone else's day, or even life. It's frankly unavoidable. The only thing you can do is look like you give a shit and try to do as little damage as possible. And on that front, I'd go for a pint with Boris too. If only to keep him away from wrecking this fucking country for an hour or two.
Yes, I have met a load of politicians through work and in the main they were pretty charming and nice people. Even Liam Fox seemed kind of alright. The only two who didn't seem like very nice people were Peter Mandelson and John Redwood. Cameron did seem arrogant though, and Johnson came over as needy, but both were pleasant to talk to. If it's a meal, the best guide is to see how they treat the serving staff. In that regard John Major was the clear winner. But it's the policies that matter, and even the lovely Major messed up the train industry.
+1 I never like Major's policies, but he seems like a gentleman. My guess for the PMs of my lifetime for how nice they would be / have been to meet: Major Blair May Cameron Johnson Brown Thatcher
Pop Corbyn in at about the same level as Johnson if he becomes PM. Swinson can go in just above May. Clarke just below Blair. What other candidates am I missing?
I met Thatcher. Towards the end of her career. She was perfectly pleasant and amiable, though aware of her star quality.
PM is an untrustworthy liar who cannot be allowed a GE till No Deal is off the table.
Everything else is Johnson bluster.
The problem is that if he gets a deal and an election is then called Labour will be decimated. Their best cance has to be Johnson not getting a deal.
Depends on the deal, and how Farage and the Brexit Party portray it.
It'll be May's deal with a more flamboyant salesman. It really won't matter what Farage does or says. Leavers will be happy it's over and strong remainers will go Lib Dem. Labour will be in no mans land
My brother is senior management at Whipps Cross hospital. When Johnson was there on Wednesday my bro had coffee and biscuits with him and a 20 minute one on one chinwag. Said that the guy has an obvious charisma BUT he is strangely very unintimidating (unlike Brown, who he has also met) and is extremely easy to talk to. He really did feel like he could 'have a pint with him' no problem at all.
He (my brother) is a lifelong member of the Labour party and something of an activist. He hates the Tories.
(emoticon for "go figure")
This is a variation on an oft-told story, that when people actually meet politicians, they are surprised how nice they seem. Notwithstanding the tales of when they're rude, of course, such as the one about Cameron putting his hand in a stewardess's face. I've met a few politicians too, from councillors through MPs to a First Minister, and they all seemed ok. It's just their /beliefs/ that are the problem. Because no matter how nice you are, any policy you implement is going to spoil someone else's day, or even life. It's frankly unavoidable. The only thing you can do is look like you give a shit and try to do as little damage as possible. And on that front, I'd go for a pint with Boris too. If only to keep him away from wrecking this fucking country for an hour or two.
Yes, I have met a load of politicians through work and in the main they were pretty charming and nice people. Even Liam Fox seemed kind of alright. The only two who didn't seem like very nice people were Peter Mandelson and John Redwood. Cameron did seem arrogant though, and Johnson came over as needy, but both were pleasant to talk to. If it's a meal, the best guide is to see how they treat the serving staff. In that regard John Major was the clear winner. But it's the policies that matter, and even the lovely Major messed up the train industry.
+1 I never like Major's policies, but he seems like a gentleman. My guess for the PMs of my lifetime for how nice they would be / have been to meet: Major Blair May Cameron Johnson Brown Thatcher
Pop Corbyn in at about the same level as Johnson if he becomes PM. Swinson can go in just above May. Clarke just below Blair. What other candidates am I missing?
I met Thatcher. Towards the end of her career. She was perfectly pleasant and amiable, though aware of her star quality.
It's amazing how much your life story seems to coincide with that other PB poster, SeanT ...
My brother is senior management at Whipps Cross hospital. When Johnson was there on Wednesday my bro had coffee and biscuits with him and a 20 minute one on one chinwag. Said that the guy has an obvious charisma BUT he is strangely very unintimidating (unlike Brown, who he has also met) and is extremely easy to talk to. He really did feel like he could 'have a pint with him' no problem at all.
He (my brother) is a lifelong member of the Labour party and something of an activist. He hates the Tories.
(emoticon for "go figure")
This is a variation on an oft-told story, that when people actually meet politicians, they are surprised how nice they seem. Notwithstanding the tales of when they're rude, of course, such as the one about Cameron putting his hand in a stewardess's face. I've met a few politicians too, from councillors through MPs to a First Minister, and they all seemed ok. It's just their /beliefs/ that are the problem. Because no matter how nice you are, any policy you implement is going to spoil someone else's day, or even life. It's frankly unavoidable. The only thing you can do is look like you give a shit and try to do as little damage as possible. And on that front, I'd go for a pint with Boris too. If only to keep him away from wrecking this fucking country for an hour or two.
Yes, I have met a load of politicians through work and in the main they were pretty charming and nice people. Even Liam Fox seemed kind of alright. The only two who didn't seem like very nice people were Peter Mandelson and John Redwood. Cameron did seem arrogant though, and Johnson came over as needy, but both were pleasant to talk to. If it's a meal, the best guide is to see how they treat the serving staff. In that regard John Major was the clear winner. But it's the policies that matter, and even the lovely Major messed up the train industry.
Margaret Thatcher treated her underlings immaculately and treated her equals appallingly.
I met John Redwood. I wouldn't describe him as not nice but he was very odd, brainy and otherworldly.
I suppose the best thing I could say about John Redwood is that he has sacrificed what would surely have been a lucrative financial career for three decades of public service, knowing he'll never get a top job again. There must be something noble (and slightly weird) in that.
Good morning all. It strikes me that the increasingly vocal cries of parliament is sovereign! from MPs are at some point going to be drowned out by 'run along now, the electorate is here to sort this out'. There is as much frustration with MPs as there is with government and change is coming. If it's really the case that Chuka can win westminister then cooper can lose castleford, thornberry can lose islington and the Tories can evaporate in the south whilst storming the north. Outside of metropolitan liverpool and Manchester and the SNP stranglehold on much of Scotland I expect safe seats to be rare to tartar. The biggest FU ever delivered
It's been at least a week - and a long week - since we did this. Shall we have another round of guess the Brexit outcome? My feelings have changed somewhat, so here's my new assessment.
Good morning all. It strikes me that the increasingly vocal cries of parliament is sovereign! from MPs are at some point going to be drowned out by 'run along now, the electorate is here to sort this out'. There is as much frustration with MPs as there is with government and change is coming. If it's really the case that Chuka can win westminister then cooper can lose castleford, thornberry can lose islington and the Tories can evaporate in the south whilst storming the north. Outside of metropolitan liverpool and Manchester and the SNP stranglehold on much of Scotland I expect safe seats to be rare to tartar. The biggest FU ever delivered
Well all those things are possible, but you perhaps need to remove your partisan blinkers and realise that there are a lot of other possibilities too. One big possibility is that a lot of people look at the dishonest and incompetent Johnson and think he doesn't offer them anything better than Mr Thicky Corbyn. Another hung parliament is perhaps the most likely outcome ( I guess!).
I'm at the climate strike protest in Edinburgh and obviously there are lots of very young people here, but the crowd noticeably skews more female than protests normally.
How white is it skewing ?
Hard to tell. Edinburgh always seems very white to me because I grew up in South London. Young people are also less white than the population at large.
I think among the young people it's reasonably representative of the city. Probably less so for the adults.
I'm at the climate strike protest in Edinburgh and obviously there are lots of very young people here, but the crowd noticeably skews more female than protests normally.
How white is it skewing ?
Hard to tell. Edinburgh always seems very white to me because I grew up in South London. Young people are also less white than the population at large.
I think among the young people it's reasonably representative of the city. Probably less so for the adults.
Apartheid by house price.
Hence why Cambridge is whiter than Glastonbury.
Are you saying the free market doesn't work in the housing market?
My brother is senior management at Whipps Cross hospital. When Johnson was there on Wednesday my bro had coffee and biscuits with him and a 20 minute one on one chinwag. Said that the guy has an obvious charisma BUT he is strangely very unintimidating (unlike Brown, who he has also met) and is extremely easy to talk to. He really did feel like he could 'have a pint with him' no problem at all.
He (my brother) is a lifelong member of the Labour party and something of an activist. He hates the Tories.
(emoticon for "go figure")
Boris is someone with a deep need to be loved. Comedian types usually are. It doesn't surprise me that he has learnt how to be likable.
PM is an untrustworthy liar who cannot be allowed a GE till No Deal is off the table.
Everything else is Johnson bluster.
The problem is that if he gets a deal and an election is then called Labour will be decimated. Their best cance has to be Johnson not getting a deal.
Depends on the deal, and how Farage and the Brexit Party portray it.
It'll be May's deal with a more flamboyant salesman. It really won't matter what Farage does or says. Leavers will be happy it's over and strong remainers will go Lib Dem. Labour will be in no mans land
So once a deal is done, there is no remain , just re-join. So you are expecting that to be instantly popular ?
My brother is senior management at Whipps Cross hospital. When Johnson was there on Wednesday my bro had coffee and biscuits with him and a 20 minute one on one chinwag. Said that the guy has a
He (my brother) is a lifelong member of the Labour party and something of an activist. He hates the Tories.
(emoticon for "go figure")
This is a variation on an oft-told story, that when people actually meet politicians, they are surprised how nice they seem. Notwithstanding the tales of when they're rude, of course, such as the one about Cameron putting his hand in a stewardess's face. I've met a few politicians too, from councillors through MPs to a First Minister, and they all seemed ok. It's just their /beliefs/ that are the problem. Because no matter how nice you are, any policy you implement is going to spoil someone else's day, or even life. It's frankly unavoidable. The only thing you can do is look like you give a shit and try to do as little damage as possible. And on that front, I'd go for a pint with Boris too. If only to keep him away from wrecking this fucking country for an hour or two.
Yes, I have met a load of politicians through work and in the main they were pretty charming and nice people. Even Liam Fox seemed kind of alright. The only two who didn't seem like very nice people were Peter Mandelson and John Redwood. Cameron did seem arrogant though, and Johnson came over as needy, but both were pleasant to talk to. If it's a meal, the best guide is to see how they treat the serving staff. In that regard John Major was the clear winner. But it's the policies that matter, and even the lovely Major messed up the train industry.
Margaret Thatcher treated her underlings immaculately and treated her equals appallingly.
I met John Redwood. I wouldn't describe him as not nice but he was very odd, brainy and otherworldly.
I suppose the best thing I could say about John Redwood is that he has sacrificed what would surely have been a lucrative financial career for three decades of public service, knowing he'll never get a top job again. There must be something noble (and slightly weird) in that.
I have heard the same about MT and underlings. One must not confuse policy implications and public persona with how an individual interacts behind the scenes.
With regard to John Redwood. It is difficult to ever envisage him in the cabinet or a shadow cabinet but look at Corbyn! Politics is a funny profession. Being an MP does not stop the member being a director or undertaking lucrative work of some kind.
I can’t see the EU giving Bozo the stick of deal or no extension .
They’re quite aware of the hardcore no dealers in the Conservative party and are also aware that if they give an extension and an election happens , the deal could still get through with a decent Tory majority or another government either delivers a softer Brexit or another EU referendum .
I'm at the climate strike protest in Edinburgh and obviously there are lots of very young people here, but the crowd noticeably skews more female than protests normally.
How white is it skewing ?
Hard to tell. Edinburgh always seems very white to me because I grew up in South London. Young people are also less white than the population at large.
I think among the young people it's reasonably representative of the city. Probably less so for the adults.
Apartheid by house price.
Hence why Cambridge is whiter than Glastonbury.
Are you saying the free market doesn't work in the housing market?
It isn't a free market. Supply is seriously capped.
Never fight a battle on your opponent’s preferred terrain if you can avoid it.
In a war of attrition, a man who is going to do or die by 31 October is in trouble if he hasn’t done by that date.
Precisely. This is the absolute key point when considering what is likely to happen over the next few weeks. I don't think I'm exactly putting my neck on the line if I say that it seems to me that opposition parties might have noticed this point, and that they will not be falling over themselves to give Boris a massive electoral boost by helping meet his stupid self-imposed and artificial target.
I'm at the climate strike protest in Edinburgh and obviously there are lots of very young people here, but the crowd noticeably skews more female than protests normally.
How white is it skewing ?
Hard to tell. Edinburgh always seems very white to me because I grew up in South London. Young people are also less white than the population at large.
I think among the young people it's reasonably representative of the city. Probably less so for the adults.
Apartheid by house price.
Hence why Cambridge is whiter than Glastonbury.
I don't think that's right. Around here it's remarkably white and we don't have high house prices.
Comments
Laffer curve = neoliberal mumbo-jumbo
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html
It doesn't exempt Boeing from blame, but it treats in detail with the problems in the institutional culture and operations of the two airlines involved in particular, and in the industry in general.
Though not sure how much would be saved doing that but compromises are the path to serious governance. Not saying "I want that one and that one and that one and that one and that one" like a Little Britain sketch.
In a war of attrition, a man who is going to do or die by 31 October is in trouble if he hasn’t done by that date.
Because this government is bringing in record revenues?
And in such a close election, I wouldn't be at all surprised if were to tip the balance against him.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Barrister-Stories-Law-Broken/dp/1509841105
So sorry to disappoint. I am not coming round to Labour. If anything I feel that Labour are turning into a mixture of Respect and SWP.
But I am quite willing to give credit for individual policies or actions. For instance and for balance, Johnson is right to take students out of the immigration figures.
The rest is noise frankly.
It is not a good time for the system of financial regulation in Europe to be fractured, certainly.
And if something like a bank in trouble happens at the same time as a major country embarks on a disorderly withdrawal from all its trading, commercial and other relationships, well .... that will be fun, won't it?
That Trump ramble - one would hope that is made up for laughs but (incredibly) it is only a hope.
Satire IS dead, isn't it.
Cutting 5000 police gives you maybe 150 million pounds annually (allowing a bit for training, etc as well as salary).
How much does 150 million pounds annually buy you in the judicial system ?
Very much a weathercock.
Boris resigning helps that cause - he was right not to do so.
Everything else is Johnson bluster.
https://www.cityam.com/erg-chair-steve-baker-vows-to-vote-against-brexit-in-name-only-deal/
"Francois said he will still vote against any new deal, even if the backstop was removed."
Coveneys trolling us
"I think the mood music has improved," Mr Coveney told BBC radio. “I think Boris Johnson’s visit to Dublin was a success.”
“I think he did convince ... the Irish prime minister that he was serious about trying to find a deal,” Coveney said.
https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/coveney-says-mood-music-has-changed-on-brexit-but-were-not-close-to-a-deal-right-now-38516493.html
Nevertheless, you are right that overall govt revenues as a % of GDP are relatively high. My point is that they could be higher, allowing for better public services, like in many other high income European countries.
FWIW I think that corporation tax is a stupid tax. In an ideal tax system it would be eliminated and and we would tax wealth and rents (in the economic sense of the word) a lot more. But I also believe, like many tax experts, that cutting it has cost some revenue, which the govt could Ill afford given the appalling state of public services, especially in local govt.
My sources in Canada (they're family and they're liberals) tell me Trudeau is likely to lose.
I supposed even that is better for Boeing than blaming airlines for not buying optional features that turned out to be necessary in the real world.
Because the liar in no.10 cannot be allowed to crash us out with no deal during said GE.
It's not rocket science.
And so with Francois, the undisputed breakout star of Britain’s Brexit shitshow. No public figure better crystallises this most edifying of ages, and the terrifying implication of that is the mood music to all our lives.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2019/sep/19/could-mark-francois-brexit-bellower-be-tvs-next-explosive-star
Why? Because when anti-semitism is normalised, encouraged or tolerated, it is an indication of a profound political sickness, the growth of an illiberal, intolerant contempt for democratic open culture, for democracy, a preference for ignorant populism and a conspiratorial view of the world where people are not judged on their actions but on whether they are one of us or not. And if they are, all is forgiven; if they are not, everything they say or do is assumed to be in bad faith.
Both main parties seem more and more to be prey to this approach to politics
I cannot support either of them until this changes.
Current legal aid budget is 1.6 billion, it seems.
Take Devon North, for example. Lib Dem target #7, but 57% Leave, 43% Remain.
Most Leavers are never going to vote Lib Dem. But they might vote Brexit Party, especially given that the incumbent Conservative is a one-time Remainer. And the more Con->BXP switchers, the easier it is for the Lib Dems to regain the seat.
Two superb postings by Giles Wilkes recently that flesh this out:
My brother is senior management at Whipps Cross hospital. When Johnson was there on Wednesday my bro had coffee and biscuits with him and a 20 minute one on one chinwag. Said that the guy has an obvious charisma BUT he is strangely very unintimidating (unlike Brown, who he has also met) and is extremely easy to talk to. He really did feel like he could 'have a pint with him' no problem at all.
He (my brother) is a lifelong member of the Labour party and something of an activist. He hates the Tories.
(emoticon for "go figure")
"The real issue, surely, is that Johnson does not have the confidence of the Commons and therefore the Commons should have No Confidenced him instead of passing the Benn bill.
Except they couldn't, because although Johnson has nothing close to a majority, he's still probably closer to one than any of the various factions his opponents are split into. So they passed the abomination that is the Benn bill, with not-so-tacit assistance from a lame duck and utterly compromised Speaker.
Boeing is absolutely to blame, as it seem evident that it was well aware of the first two factors, and is, of course, directly responsible for the third.
I would not happily fly in Indonesia any time soon (though as the author points out, even with their miserable safety record, the odds of a crash are still pretty low).
They key thing to understand now is that if the govenement agrees a deal with the EU (which I think is very possible) the commons still will not pass it - with Corbyn whipping against it - because if passed it would reflect glory on the Conservatice Party.
What then?
I've met a few politicians too, from councillors through MPs to a First Minister, and they all seemed ok. It's just their /beliefs/ that are the problem. Because no matter how nice you are, any policy you implement is going to spoil someone else's day, or even life. It's frankly unavoidable. The only thing you can do is look like you give a shit and try to do as little damage as possible. And on that front, I'd go for a pint with Boris too. If only to keep him away from wrecking this fucking country for an hour or two.
He's deteriorated significantly since then.
But it won't happen, because if Boris does a deal it will be linked to no further extensions from the EU.
Sorry, Remainers, if it means they can prevent the Eu-wide recession of No Deal then the EU will leave you to twist in the breeze....
That`s a good point - hope they have thought of that - this should force Labour to support it (or at least abstain) i would have thought.
Given EU`s evident dislike of Boris, maybe they would refuse a "no further extensions" clause.
That's the line. Don't screw it up now...
I never like Major's policies, but he seems like a gentleman.
My guess for the PMs of my lifetime for how nice they would be / have been to meet:
Major
Blair
May
Cameron
Johnson
Brown
Thatcher
Pop Corbyn in at about the same level as Johnson if he becomes PM.
Swinson can go in just above May.
Clarke just below Blair.
What other candidates am I missing?
In reality they will act in their best interests at the time and not be constrained by prior deadlines or threats. If the options open to them are only no deal or extend, expect them to extend whatever they have said before. It is not guaranteed but very likely.
I think among the young people it's reasonably representative of the city. Probably less so for the adults.
I met John Redwood. I wouldn't describe him as not nice but he was very odd, brainy and otherworldly.
I suppose the best thing I could say about John Redwood is that he has sacrificed what would surely have been a lucrative financial career for three decades of public service, knowing he'll never get a top job again. There must be something noble (and slightly weird) in that.
If it's really the case that Chuka can win westminister then cooper can lose castleford, thornberry can lose islington and the Tories can evaporate in the south whilst storming the north. Outside of metropolitan liverpool and Manchester and the SNP stranglehold on much of Scotland I expect safe seats to be rare to tartar.
The biggest FU ever delivered
At the end of Oct 31 2019, we will have:
Extension: 50%
Deal: 30%
No Deal: 10%
Revoke: 5%
Something Freakadelic: 5%
At the end of Dec 31, 2020, we will have:
Deal: 30%
Referendum and Remain: 30%
Revoke: 15%
Referendum and Leave: 10%
Something Freakadelic: 10%
No Deal: 5%
The chances of something freakadelic - weird, black swanny, and entirely unforeseen - increase over time.
Hence why Cambridge is whiter than Glastonbury.
So you are expecting that to be instantly popular ?
With regard to John Redwood. It is difficult to ever envisage him in the cabinet or a shadow cabinet but look at Corbyn! Politics is a funny profession. Being an MP does not stop the member being a director or undertaking lucrative work of some kind.
They’re quite aware of the hardcore no dealers in the Conservative party and are also aware that if they give an extension and an election happens , the deal could still get through with a decent Tory majority or another government either delivers a softer Brexit or another EU referendum .
Extension: 80%
Deal: 15%
No Deal: 5%
Revoke: 0%
Something Freakadelic: 0%
At the end of Dec 31, 2020, we will have:
Deal: 60%
Referendum and Remain: 20%
Revoke: 5%
Referendum and Leave: 5%
Something Freakadelic: 5%
No Deal: 5%