As a general rule, I think betting on the LibDems is for people with more money than sense. But I think they'll absolutely walk Richmond Park. If the majority is less than 7-8,000 I'd be very surprised.
Do you remember that guy who became a regular on PB about 10 years ago. Think he lived in Canada. The poor sod bet his shirt on the Lib Dems, based purely on advice here. When he lost big time, the screams of agony were intolerable. He’s never been seen again. Buyer beware!
The LDs role in this election appears to be to split the opposition vote and gift Boris a majority. It took 14 years to recover from that last time.
We can blame moderate ex Labour members for letting the Tories win again by voting LD
It's fairly arrogant to assume that anyone who doesn't like the Tories in".
But the Coaliton clearly showed the LDs to be a party of the Centre-Right!How many left of centre parties would have backed the introduction of significant fees re- Employment Tribunals?
It wasn't an LD majority government!
Raising the threshold for income tax, introducing the pupil premium were redistributive policies of LD origin.
They could still have blocked it.
A period of austerity was not the time to be reducing Income Tax - even via higher thresholds. The poorest gained nothing from that whilst losing a great deal from Benefit cuts and freezes.
Simply not true. The working poor gained significantly. It was a reditributive act as surely you can agree.
The poorest gained nothing from raising Income Tax thresholds in that their earnings were too low to be liable to pay tax. They did lose significantly from the Coalition cuts to Benefits. Reducing Income Tax at the same time as slashing public spending was a very right wing policy - even if a cut in the basic rate would have been worse still. A reduction in VAT to 15% would have been more progressive.
I know people on JSA, who are basically umemployable and have not had their benefits increased since 2015. At least the coalition increased benefits, the Tories just freeze them or cut them. The welfare state has failed people under the Tories...
Boris has increased spending on the NHS, police etc relative to the Coalition and also increased the minimum wage again too
Blair was very much a centre-right figure - well to the right of people such as Macmillan, Eden,Butler, Macleod and Heath. He was a war criminal , and - with Bush - was more guilty under the Nuremberg indictment relating to 'Planning for War' than any of the Nazi leaders put on trial in 1945/46 - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop. I was happy to support the LDs under Charles Kennedy in both 2001 and 2005.
While I despise Blair almost as much as you do, I would gently suggest it is more than a little extreme to suggest he was more guilty on that head than Goering - or for that matter, Raeder, Neurath or Keitel.
I disagree. Goering did not want a war in 1939 at all. Raeder and Keitel were senior military personnel and had no role in political decision making at all. They were no more guilty than people on the British side such as Ironside - Dowding - Dudley Pound - or Alanbrooke. Neurath was not a Nazi and had been Foreign Minister before Hitler became Chancellor. He was close to Hindenburg and strongly disapproved of Hitler's aggressive war aims. He suffered a series of heart attacks in late 1937 after attending he conference where Hitler revealed his real intentions.
Goering - the man in charge of the Luftwaffe and converting the German economy to a war footing - was not implicated in waging aggressive war?
Okaaaay...the way I find logic in your position is to note he was utterly rubbish at both jobs, but even so.
As for your other comment, there is every reason to think Hitler didn't want a war in 1939, except a brief one against Poland. He miscalculated, but that is another story.
Mr. Nashe, depends how hard Remainers view things. War over, or war goes on?
If being pro-EU remains a critical political identity that's very helpful for the Lib Dems.
I'm with you here.
There's a pro-eu poster on this site who believes that, if we revoked, then (because it had all been such a hassle) the question of leaving the EU wouldn't come up again in his lifetime. It's such an extraordinary view, I don't know if I should laugh, or laugh hysterically.
But there are even more who think the same on the Brexit side. Somehow, all those people who turned out to march for the EU (or who cheered then on from their barstool or armchair) will shrug their shoulders and let it go.
There are already local groups getting ready for the rejoin campaign once we've left. In some ways, they are more frustrated by the delay than the leavers. Once we know what exactly we are leaving then individual activists can start marking out things they can do to get us back in. All the time everything is up in the air all that can be done is planning. I don't know what the other side have in mind, but if they aren't prepared to continually fight every move to restore European integration we aren't going to be out for long.
As a “die hard” remainer, the putative deal looks reasonable to me, given the negotiating parameters. I can also see the DUP and the ERGers going along with it.
Obviously I will be disappointed that this is ultimately a hard Brexit (I wanted to stay in the single market) but perhaps that is not ruled out for the future.
I would still like to see a referendum on this though. It’s taken three years to get to this point and I believe the original mandate was flawed. I think Leave would win and I’d be fairly happy with that.
The Express article refers to a'thumping 5% lead'. Perhaps the vote shares have been rounded.
Front of the express calls it thumping 5% lead that will lead to an amazing 15 seat majority.
I think everyone on PB now expect polls to narrow soon as gun is fired and focus turns from dispatch box to constituency’s, so all polls are meaningless until then.
I'm by no means clear that is a 'PB' consensus. A clear GE victory for one party is certainly eminently possible. At the moment more likely for the Tories. Time will tell - much depends on Labour pulling back LD voters at this time.
Having campaigned for the Libs and then the LibDems for many years, I still feel embarrassed by what Clegg agreed to.
To be fair to him, he got suckered in by the narrative that the UK was on the verge of some kind of Greek style bankruptcy. And to be even fairer, a lot of economic orthodoxy was being thrown out of the window at the time. Nowadays you have countries with debt in excessive of 200% GDP and investors aren't as worried as they were 10 years ago. QE, low inflation, low unemployment.. it's a new world. The austerity narrative, the bond markets, Clegg, and even some in Labour were still thinking in old terms. And so, priority for Clegg was "saving the UK from the previous Labour government". The narrative made sense at the time. Nowadays it looks a little more naive and tends to be trotted out only be those who haven't quite caught up. I switched away from the Lib Dems in the last two elections, but they've done their time now, and everyone has learned a bit more about the world. I'm probably switching back next election. Not least because the coalition now looks like an island of sanity in the receding distance. The Lib Dems deserve a share of the credit for that.
Agree with much of that. Brown’s government was in a dreadful mess, and SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE! Liam Byrne wasn’t far away from the truth. However there were a number of things done which no ‘Liberal’ should have, as well of course the way the tuition fees issue was handled. And I remain firmly of the opinion that Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices.
However, that’s one for the historians (sorry, Ydoethr) and I suspect the modern LibDems would be a bit more chary of coalition. The DUP seem to have done better, to date, out of confidence and supply.
As a general rule, I think betting on the LibDems is for people with more money than sense. But I think they'll absolutely walk Richmond Park. If the majority is less than 7-8,000 I'd be very surprised.
!
The LDs role in this election appears to be to split the opposition vote and gift Boris a majority. It took 14 years to recover from that last time.
We can blame moderate ex Labour members for letting the Tories win again by voting LD
It's fairly arrogant to assume that anyone who doesn't like the Tories are duty-bound to vote Labour. If Labour don't want to appeal to centre-left voters then that's their choice but it's no use moaning that they then vote for somebody else and "let the Tories in".
But the Coaliton clearly showed the LDs to be a party of the Centre-Right!How many left of centre parties would have backed the introduction of significant fees re- Employment Tribunals?
It wasn't an LD majority government!
Raising the threshold for income tax, introducing the pupil premium were redistributive policies of LD origin.
They could still have blocked it.
A period of austerity was not the time to be reducing Income Tax - even via higher thresholds. The poorest gained nothing from that whilst losing a great deal from Benefit cuts and freezes.
Simply not true. The working poor gained significantly. It was a reditributive act as surely you can agree.
The poorest gained nothing from raising Income Tax thresholds in that their earnings were too low to be liable to pay tax. They did lose significantly from the Coalition cuts to Benefits. Reducing Income Tax at the same time as slashing public spending was a very right wing policy - even if a cut in the basic rate would have been worse still. A reduction in VAT to 15% would have been more progressive.
Why is a policy designed to help the working poor being judged against helping the very poorest (who by definition are not working)? One of the lessons from Brexit is surely that the working poor (and below average) have not had the attention of governments for many years, so the coalition income tax policy was a rare one in their favour.
The Express article refers to a'thumping 5% lead'. Perhaps the vote shares have been rounded.
Front of the express calls it thumping 5% lead that will lead to an amazing 15 seat majority.
I think everyone on PB now expect polls to narrow soon as gun is fired and focus turns from dispatch box to constituency’s, so all polls are meaningless until then.
I'm by no means clear that is a 'PB' consensus. A clear GE victory for one party is certainly eminently possible. At the moment more likely for the Tories. Time will tell - much depends on Labour pulling back LD voters at this time.
The next result will hang as much on the geography as on the polls.
As a general rule, I think betting on the LibDems is for people with more money than sense. But I think they'll absolutely walk Richmond Park. If the majority is less than 7-8,000 I'd be very surprised.
!
The LDs role in this election appears to be to split the opposition vote and gift Boris a majority. It took 14 years to recover from that last time.
We can blame moderate ex Labour members for letting the Tories win again by voting LD
It's fairly arrogant to assume that anyone who doesn't like the Tories in".
It wasn't an LD majority government!
Raising the threshold for income tax, introducing the pupil premium were redistributive policies of LD origin.
They could still have blocked it.
A period of austerity was not the time to be reducing Income Tax - even via higher thresholds. The poorest gained nothing from that whilst losing a great deal from Benefit cuts and freezes.
Simply not true. The working poor gained significantly. It was a reditributive act as surely you can agree.
The poorest gained nothing from raising Income Tax thresholds in that their earnings were too low to be liable to pay tax. They did lose significantly from the Coalition cuts to Benefits. Reducing Income Tax at the same time as slashing public spending was a very right wing policy - even if a cut in the basic rate would have been worse still. A reduction in VAT to 15% would have been more progressive.
I know people on JSA, who are basically umemployable and have not had their benefits increased since 2015. At least the coalition increased benefits, the Tories just freeze them or cut them. The welfare state has failed people under the Tories...
Boris has increased spending on the NHS, police etc relative to the Coalition and also increased the minimum wage again too
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
As a “die hard” remainer, the putative deal looks reasonable to me, given the negotiating parameters. I can also see the DUP and the ERGers going along with it.
Obviously I will be disappointed that this is ultimately a hard Brexit (I wanted to stay in the single market) but perhaps that is not ruled out for the future.
I would still like to see a referendum on this though. It’s taken three years to get to this point and I believe the original mandate was flawed. I think Leave would win and I’d be fairly happy with that.
I think a referendum now would be pretty much 50:50 if what I'm seeing is representative. Nobody has changed their minds, but the motivation is higher on the remain side.
(Caveat - I live in the country. Big towns and cities are where most people live.)
Having campaigned for the Libs and then the LibDems for many years, I still feel embarrassed by what Clegg agreed to.
To be fair to him, he got suckered in by the narrative that the UK was on the verge of some kind of Greek style bankruptcy. And to be even fairer, a lot of economic orthodoxy was being thrown out of the window at the time. Nowadays you have countries with debt in excessive of 200% GDP and investors aren't as worried as they were 10 years ago. QE, low inflation, low unemployment.. it's a new world. The austerity narrative, the bond markets, Clegg, and even some in Labour were still thinking in old terms. And so, priority for Clegg was "saving the UK from the previous Labour government". The narrative made sense at the time. Nowadays it looks a little more naive and tends to be trotted out only be those who haven't quite caught up. I switched away from the Lib Dems in the last two elections, but they've done their time now, and everyone has learned a bit more about the world. I'm probably switching back next election. Not least because the coalition now looks like an island of sanity in the receding distance. The Lib Dems deserve a share of the credit for that.
Agree with much of that. Brown’s government was in a dreadful mess, and SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE! Liam Byrne wasn’t far away from the truth. However there were a number of things done which no ‘Liberal’ should have, as well of course the way the tuition fees issue was handled. And I remain firmly of the opinion that Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices.
However, that’s one for the historians (sorry, Ydoethr) and I suspect the modern LibDems would be a bit more chary of coalition. The DUP seem to have done better, to date, out of confidence and supply.
History won’t be overly kind to Clegg.
I believe he made the right call going into coalition, but he spunked his credibility up the wall on tertiary education, electoral reform, and now Facebook.
The problem wasn’t coalition per se, it was that the Lib Dems didn’t have a strategy on how to survive a coalition.
Blair was very much a centre-right figure - well to the right of people such as Macmillan, Eden,Butler, Macleod and Heath. He was a war criminal , and - with Bush - was more guilty under the Nuremberg indictment relating to 'Planning for War' than any of the Nazi leaders put on trial in 1945/46 - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop. I was happy to support the LDs under Charles Kennedy in both 2001 and 2005.
While I despise Blair almost as much as you do, I would gently suggest it is more than a little extreme to suggest he was more guilty on that head than Goering - or for that matter, Raeder, Neurath or Keitel.
I disagree. Goering did not want a war in 1939 at all. Raeder and Keitel were senior military personnel and had no role in political decision making at all. They were no more guilty than people on the British side such as Ironside - Dowding - Dudley Pound - or Alanbrooke. Neurath was not a Nazi and had been Foreign Minister before Hitler became Chancellor. He was close to Hindenburg and strongly disapproved of Hitler's aggressive war aims. He suffered a series of heart attacks in late 1937 after attending he conference where Hitler revealed his real intentions.
Goering - the man in charge of the Luftwaffe and converting the German economy to a war footing - was not implicated in waging aggressive war?
Okaaaay...the way I find logic in your position is to note he was utterly rubbish at both jobs, but even so.
As for your other comment, there is every reason to think Hitler didn't want a war in 1939, except a brief one against Poland. He miscalculated, but that is another story.
The war came earlier than Hitler had initially planned. At the late 1937 Conference he was thinking in terms of 1942 or 1943 - rather than 1938 or 1939. He subsequently acted when opportunities in Austria , Sudetenland - and finally Poland - came his way. Goering was certainly involved in the rearmament programme - and ,as you say , was not very effective in the role. Nevertheless , he was not a driving force behind Hitler's plans - even though he went along with them. Had he been head of state rather than Hitler , a war would have been much less likely. Ribbentrop - by contrast - was certainly egging Hitler on.
As a general rule, I think betting on the LibDems is for people with more money than sense. But I think they'll absolutely walk Richmond Park. If the majority is less than 7-8,000 I'd be very surprised.
!
The LDs role in this election appears to be to split the opposition vote and gift Boris a majority. It took 14 years to recover from that last time.
We can blame moderate ex Labour members for letting the Tories win again by voting LD
It's fairly arrogant to assume that anyone who doesn't like the Tories in".
It wasn't an LD majority government!
Raising the threshold for income tax, introducing the pupil premium were redistributive policies of LD origin.
They could still have blocked it.
A period of austerity was not the time to be reducing Income Tax - even via higher thresholds. The poorest gained nothing from that whilst losing a great deal from Benefit cuts and freezes.
Simply not true. The working poor gained significantly. It was a reditributive act as surely you can agree.
The poorest gained nothing from raising Income Tax thresholds in that their earnings were too low to be liable to pay tax. They did lose significantly from essive.
I know people on JSA, who are basically umemployable and have not had their benefits increased since 2015. At least the coalition increased benefits, the Tories just freeze them or cut them. The welfare state has failed people under the Tories...
Boris has increased spending on the NHS, police etc relative to the Coalition and also increased the minimum wage again too
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
If you are a Tory you believe welfare should only be a short term basic safety net until you get back to work not a permanent way of life.
If your focus is increasing welfare benefits you will never vote anything but Labour anyway
Having campaigned for the Libs and then the LibDems for many years, I still feel embarrassed by what Clegg agreed to.
To be fair to him, he got suckered in by the narrative that the UK was on the verge of some kind of Greek style bankruptcy. And to be even fairer, a lot of economic orthodoxy was being thrown out of the window at the time. Nowadays you have countries with debt in excessive of 200% GDP and investors aren't as worried as they were 10 years ago. QE, low inflation, low unemployment.. it's a new world. The austerity narrative, the bond markets, Clegg, and even some in Labour were still thinking in old terms. And so, priority for Clegg was "saving the UK from the previous Labour government". The narrative made sense at the time. Nowadays it looks a little more naive and tends to be trotted out only be those who haven't quite caught up. I switched away from the Lib Dems in the last two elections, but they've done their time now, and everyone has learned a bit more about the world. I'm probably switching back next election. Not least because the coalition now looks like an island of sanity in the receding distance. The Lib Dems deserve a share of the credit for that.
Agree with much of that. Brown’s government was in a dreadful mess, and SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE! Liam Byrne wasn’t far away from the truth. However there were a number of things done which no ‘Liberal’ should have, as well of course the way the tuition fees issue was handled. And I remain firmly of the opinion that Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices.
However, that’s one for the historians (sorry, Ydoethr) and I suspect the modern LibDems would be a bit more chary of coalition. The DUP seem to have done better, to date, out of confidence and supply.
I think ultimately the coalition will be seen by historians as a great opportunity missed, partly through the practical demands of the financial crisis and partly due to errors by the various actors involved. Tuition fees were a debacle, although in the long run the chaos the public exam system is descending into may be more damaging to both parties.
But then, that is true of Blairism as well. Almost every problem we have today - the ongoing financial situation, the divided country, the devolved governments either not working or being suspended, the depth of feeling over Europe and the deep distrust of politicians - can legitimately be laid at New Labour's door through either errors, or omissions, or in the case of the EU, both.
Having campaigned for the Libs and then the LibDems for many years, I still feel embarrassed by what Clegg agreed to.
To be fair to him, he got suckered in by the narrative that the UK was on the verge of some kind of Greek style bankruptcy. And to be even fairer, a lot of economic orthodoxy was being thrown out of the window at the time. Nowadays you have countries with debt in excessive of 200% GDP and investors aren't as worried as they were 10 years ago. QE, low inflation, low unemployment.. it's a new world. The austerity narrative, the bond markets, Clegg, and even some in Labour were still thinking in old terms. And so, priority for Clegg was "saving the UK from the previous Labour government". The narrative made sense at the time. Nowadays it looks a little more naive and tends to be trotted out only be those who haven't quite caught up. I switched away from the Lib Dems in the last two elections, but they've done their time now, and everyone has learned a bit more about the world. I'm probably switching back next election. Not least because the coalition now looks like an island of sanity in the receding distance. The Lib Dems deserve a share of the credit for that.
Agree with much of that. Brown’s government was in a dreadful mess, and SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE! Liam Byrne wasn’t far away from the truth. However there were a number of things done which no ‘Liberal’ should have, as well of course the way the tuition fees issue was handled. And I remain firmly of the opinion that Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices.
However, that’s one for the historians (sorry, Ydoethr) and I suspect the modern LibDems would be a bit more chary of coalition. The DUP seem to have done better, to date, out of confidence and supply.
The Lib Dems have ruled out all coalitions after any coming election.
Having campaigned for the Libs and then the LibDems for many years, I still feel embarrassed by what Clegg agreed to.
To be fair to him, he got suckered in by the narrative that the UK was on the verge of some kind of Greek style bankruptcy. And to be even fairer, a lot of economic orthodoxy was being thrown out of the window at the time. Nowadays you have countries with debt in excessive of 200% GDP and investors aren't as worried as they were 10 years ago. QE, low inflation, low unemployment.. it's a new world. The austerity narrative, the bond markets, Clegg, and even some in Labour were still thinking in old terms. And so, priority for Clegg was "saving the UK from the previous Labour government". The narrative made sense at the time. Nowadays it looks a little more naive and tends to be trotted out only be those who haven't quite caught up. I switched away from the Lib Dems in the last two elections, but they've done their time now, and everyone has learned a bit more about the world. I'm probably switching back next election. Not least because the coalition now looks like an island of sanity in the receding distance. The Lib Dems deserve a share of the credit for that.
Agree with much of that. Brown’s government was in a dreadful mess, and SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE! Liam Byrne wasn’t far away from the truth. However there were a number of things done which no ‘Liberal’ should have, as well of course the way the tuition fees issue was handled. And I remain firmly of the opinion that Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices.
However, that’s one for the historians (sorry, Ydoethr) and I suspect the modern LibDems would be a bit more chary of coalition. The DUP seem to have done better, to date, out of confidence and supply.
The DUP are not a protest party unlike the LD usp pre 2010. The DUP, will have a certain bankable vote in NI, whatever they do in Westminster until maybe the UUP shaft the DUP in the same way that the DUP did to them...
Having campaigned for the Libs and then the LibDems for many years, I still feel embarrassed by what Clegg agreed to.
To be fair to him, he got suckered in by the narrative that the UK was on the verge of some kind of Greek style bankruptcy. And to be even fairer, a lot of economic orthodoxy was being thrown out of the window at the time. Nowadays you have countries with debt in excessive of 200% GDP and investors aren't as worried as they were 10 years ago. QE, low inflation, low unemployment.. it's a new world. The austerity narrative, the bond markets, Clegg, and even some in Labour were still thinking in old terms. And so, priority for Clegg was "saving the UK from the previous Labour government". The narrative made sense at the time. Nowadays it looks a little more naive and tends to be trotted out only be those who haven't quite caught up. I switched away from the Lib Dems in the last two elections, but they've done their time now, and everyone has learned a bit more about the world. I'm probably switching back next election. Not least because the coalition now looks like an island of sanity in the receding distance. The Lib Dems deserve a share of the credit for that.
Agree with much of that. Brown’s government was in a dreadful mess, and SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE! Liam Byrne wasn’t far away from the truth. However there were a number of things done which no ‘Liberal’ should have, as well of course the way the tuition fees issue was handled. And I remain firmly of the opinion that Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices.
However, that’s one for the historians (sorry, Ydoethr) and I suspect the modern LibDems would be a bit more chary of coalition. The DUP seem to have done better, to date, out of confidence and supply.
History won’t be overly kind to Clegg.
I believe he made the right call going into coalition, but he spunked his credibility up the wall on tertiary education, electoral reform, and now Facebook.
The problem wasn’t coalition per se, it was that the Lib Dems didn’t have a strategy on how to survive a coalition.
Good point. I do wonder if they actually did have a strategy but never used it. I remember hearing Paddy Ashdown being interviewed when he was a leader giving a very good account of the difficulties for the Lib Dems in a hung parliament, and he was very prescient about exactly what would happen. It's hard to believe that having worked out the problems in such detail he hadn't also devised a strategy to mitigate them. He wouldn't have announced it on the telly if he had. I wonder if there was a strategy lying around in the office somewhere that Clegg chose not to follow.
A key element in the unexpected and entirely undeserved rehabilitation of the Liberal Democrats is no one took the oppertunity to replace them. Change UK was both too late and disasterously handled. The Greens in England and Wales are too Watermelon and too obsessed with being an alternative to Labour and were too slow to see Corbyn meant that was a cul de sac anyway. I think if they'd got to the Berry/Bartley stage earlier things might have been different. Ditto Plaid under Leanne Wood. UKIP did become a sucessful third party for a while but on too different a part of the spectrum to replace the Lib Dems.
So regretably while not the heroes we want or need they are the heroes we are left with. You can't beat something with nothing.
Having campaigned for the Libs and then the LibDems for many years, I still feel embarrassed by what Clegg agreed to.
To be fair to him, he got suckered in by the narrative that the UK was on the verge of some kind of Greek style bankruptcy. And to be even fairer, a lot of economic orthodoxy was being thrown out of the window at the time. Nowadays you have countries with debt in excessive of 200% GDP and investors aren't as worried as they were 10 years ago. QE, low inflation, low unemployment.. it's a new world. The austerity narrative, the bond markets, Clegg, and even some in Labour were still thinking in old terms. And so, priority for Clegg was "saving the UK from the previous Labour government". The narrative made sense at the time. Nowadays it looks a little more naive and tends to be trotted out only be those who haven't quite caught up. I switched away from the Lib Dems in the last two elections, but they've done their time now, and everyone has learned a bit more about the world. I'm probably switching back next election. Not least because the coalition now looks like an island of sanity in the receding distance. The Lib Dems deserve a share of the credit for that.
Agree with much of that. Brown’s government was in a dreadful mess, and SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE! Liam Byrne wasn’t far away from the truth. However there were a number of things done which no ‘Liberal’ should have, as well of course the way the tuition fees issue was handled. And I remain firmly of the opinion that Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices.
However, that’s one for the historians (sorry, Ydoethr) and I suspect the modern LibDems would be a bit more chary of coalition. The DUP seem to have done better, to date, out of confidence and supply.
The Lib Dems have ruled out all coalitions after any coming election.
So has Corbyn.
When they realise the logic of that is that Boris Johnson remains in power, they may of course change their minds.
Having campaigned for the Libs and then the LibDems for many years, I still feel embarrassed by what Clegg agreed to.
To be fair to him, he got suckered in by the narrative that the UK was on the verge of some kind of Greek style bankruptcy. And so, priority for Clegg was "saving the UK from the previous Labour government". The narrative made sense at the time. Nowadays it looks a little more naive and tends to be trotted out only be those who haven't quite caught up. I switched away from the Lib Dems in the last two elections, but they've done their time now, and everyone has learned a bit more about the world. I'm probably switching back next election. Not least because the coalition now looks like an island of sanity in the receding distance. The Lib Dems deserve a share of the credit for that.
Agree with much of that. Brown’s government was in a dreadful mess, and SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE! Liam Byrne wasn’t far away from the truth. However there were a number of things done which no ‘Liberal’ should have, as well of course the way the tuition fees issue was handled. And I remain firmly of the opinion that Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices.
However, that’s one for the historians (sorry, Ydoethr) and I suspect the modern LibDems would be a bit more chary of coalition. The DUP seem to have done better, to date, out of confidence and supply.
History won’t be overly kind to Clegg.
I believe he made the right call going into coalition, but he spunked his credibility up the wall on tertiary education, electoral reform, and now Facebook.
The problem wasn’t coalition per se, it was that the Lib Dems didn’t have a strategy on how to survive a coalition.
Good point. I do wonder if they actually did have a strategy but never used it. I remember hearing Paddy Ashdown being interviewed when he was a leader giving a very good account of the difficulties for the Lib Dems in a hung parliament, and he was very prescient about exactly what would happen. It's hard to believe that having worked out the problems in such detail he hadn't also devised a strategy to mitigate them. He wouldn't have announced it on the telly if he had. I wonder if there was a strategy lying around in the office somewhere that Clegg chose not to follow.
I suspect David Laws and Danny Alexander have a lot to answer for. Freezing out Charlie Kennedy wasn’t a good idea, either.
Having campaigned for the Libs and then the LibDems for many years, I still feel embarrassed by what Clegg agreed to.
To be fair to him, he got suckered in by the narrative that the UK was on the verge of some kind of Greek style bankruptcy. And to be even fairer, a lot of economic orthodoxy was being e time. Nowadays it looks a little more naive and tends to be trotted out only be those who haven't quite caught up. I switched away from the Lib Dems in the last two elections, but they've done their time now, and everyone has learned a bit more about the world. I'm probably switching back next election. Not least because the coalition now looks like an island of sanity in the receding distance. The Lib Dems deserve a share of the credit for that.
Agree with much of that. Brown’s government was in a dreadful mess, and SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE! Liam Byrne wasn’t far away from the truth. However there were a number of things done which no ‘Liberal’ should have, as well of course the way the tuition fees issue was handled. And I remain firmly of the opinion that Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices.
However, that’s one for the historians (sorry, Ydoethr) and I suspect the modern LibDems would be a bit more chary of coalition. The DUP seem to have done better, to date, out of confidence and supply.
History won’t be overly kind to Clegg.
I believe he made the right call going into coalition, but he spunked his credibility up the wall on tertiary education, electoral reform, and now Facebook.
The problem wasn’t coalition per se, it was that the Lib Dems didn’t have a strategy on how to survive a coalition.
Good point. I do wonder if they actually did have a strategy but never used it. I remember hearing Paddy Ashdown being interviewed when he was a leader giving a very good account of the difficulties for the Lib Dems in a hung parliament, and he was very prescient about exactly what would happen. It's hard to believe that having worked out the problems in such detail he hadn't also devised a strategy to mitigate them. He wouldn't have announced it on the telly if he had. I wonder if there was a strategy lying around in the office somewhere that Clegg chose not to follow.
Identifying problems is generally easier than resolving them. The experience of junior coalition partners around the world suggests that a definitive solution is still awaited.
As a general rule, I think betting on the LibDems is for people with more money than sense. But I think they'll absolutely walk Richmond Park. If the majority is less than 7-8,000 I'd be very surprised.
!
The LDs role in this election appears to be to split the opposition vote and gift Boris a majority. It took 14 years to recover from that last time.
We can blame moderate ex Labour members for letting the Tories win again by voting LD
It's fairly arrogant to assume that anyone who doesn't like the Tories in".
It wasn't an LD majority government!
Raising the threshold for income tax, introducing the pupil premium were redistributive policies of LD origin.
They could still have blocked it.
.
Simply not true. The working poor gained significantly. It was a reditributive act as surely you can agree.
.
Boris has increased spending on the NHS, police etc relative to the Coalition and also increased the minimum wage again too
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
If you are a Tory you believe welfare should only be a short term basic safety net until you get back to work not a permanent way of life.
If your focus is increasing welfare benefits you will never vote anything but Labour anyway
Its not just the long term unemployed i am talking about. Those who were in work and then find themselves out of work for a period, will find that £70 p/week is not a springboard into work but a millstone around their neck. Added to which in many local authorities someone on JSA now have to pay 20% council tax. If people start getting county court judgements against them. It makes them less employable and a vicious cycle emerges. Sometimes you need to seperate the dogma for reality!
Having campaigned for the Libs and then the LibDems for many years, I still feel embarrassed by what Clegg agreed to.
Agree with much of that. Brown’s government was in a dreadful mess, and SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE! Liam Byrne wasn’t far away from the truth. However there were a number of things done which no ‘Liberal’ should have, as well of course the way the tuition fees issue was handled. And I remain firmly of the opinion that Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices.
However, that’s one for the historians (sorry, Ydoethr) and I suspect the modern LibDems would be a bit more chary of coalition. The DUP seem to have done better, to date, out of confidence and supply.
History won’t be overly kind to Clegg.
I believe he made the right call going into coalition, but he spunked his credibility up the wall on tertiary education, electoral reform, and now Facebook.
The problem wasn’t coalition per se, it was that the Lib Dems didn’t have a strategy on how to survive a coalition.
Good point. I do wonder if they actually did have a strategy but never used it. I remember hearing Paddy Ashdown being interviewed when he was a leader giving a very good account of the difficulties for the Lib Dems in a hung parliament, and he was very prescient about exactly what would happen. It's hard to believe that having worked out the problems in such detail he hadn't also devised a strategy to mitigate them. He wouldn't have announced it on the telly if he had. I wonder if there was a strategy lying around in the office somewhere that Clegg chose not to follow.
I suspect David Laws and Danny Alexander have a lot to answer for. Freezing out Charlie Kennedy wasn’t a good idea, either.
The LibDems would probably have been better served had a few of them acted as Peter Lloyd - Eastbourne MP - has done in this Patliament. If Kennedy, Sanders, Hughes, Pugh, Andrew George et al had opted to sit on the Opposition benches , fewer voters would have deserted them.
A key element in the unexpected and entirely undeserved rehabilitation of the Liberal Democrats is no one took the oppertunity to replace them. Change UK was both too late and disasterously handled. The Greens in England and Wales are too Watermelon and too obsessed with being an alternative to Labour and were too slow to see Corbyn meant that was a cul de sac anyway. I think if they'd got to the Berry/Bartley stage earlier things might have been different. Ditto Plaid under Leanne Wood. UKIP did become a sucessful third party for a while but on too different a part of the spectrum to replace the Lib Dems.
The Libs didn't need to be replaced. The circumstances were there for them to continue in the political wilderness just like they did for some 30 postwar years. Their rehabilitation now is dependent upon the delivery of the Labour Party into the arms of the extreme left under Corbyn, notwithstanding the particular opportunity that Brexit gave rise to.
Having campaigned for the Libs and then the LibDems for many years, I still feel embarrassed by what Clegg agreed to.
Agree with much of that. Brown’s government was in a dreadful mess, and SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE! Liam Byrne wasn’t far away from the truth. However there were a number of things done which no ‘Liberal’ should have, as well of course the way the tuition fees issue was handled. And I remain firmly of the opinion that Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices.
However, that’s one for the historians (sorry, Ydoethr) and I suspect the modern LibDems would be a bit more chary of coalition. The DUP seem to have done better, to date, out of confidence and supply.
History won’t be overly kind to Clegg.
I believe he made the right call going into coalition, but he spunked his credibility up the wall on tertiary education, electoral reform, and now Facebook.
The problem wasn’t coalition per se, it was that the Lib Dems didn’t have a strategy on how to survive a coalition.
Good point. I do wonder if they actually did have a strategy but never used it. I remember hearing Paddy Ashdown being interviewed when he was a leader giving a very good account of the difficulties for the Lib Dems in a hung parliament, and he was very prescient about exactly what would happen. It's hard to believe that having worked out the problems in such detail he hadn't also devised a strategy to mitigate them. He wouldn't have announced it on the telly if he had. I wonder if there was a strategy lying around in the office somewhere that Clegg chose not to follow.
I suspect David Laws and Danny Alexander have a lot to answer for. Freezing out Charlie Kennedy wasn’t a good idea, either.
The LibDems would probably have been better served had a few of them acted as Peter Lloyd - Eastbourne MP - has done in this Patliament. If Kennedy, Sanders, Hughes, Pugh, Andrew George et al opted to sit on the Opposition benches , fewer voters would have deserted them.
Voters deserted them because for five years they did not distinguish themselves from the Tories.
Having campaigned for the Libs and then the LibDems for many years, I still feel embarrassed by what Clegg agreed to.
Agree with much of that. Brown’s government was in a dreadful mess, and SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE! Liam Byrne wasn’t far away from the truth. However there were a number of things done which no ‘Liberal’ should have, as well of course the way the tuition fees issue was handled. And I remain firmly of the opinion that Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices.
However, that’s one for the historians (sorry, Ydoethr) and I suspect the modern LibDems would be a bit more chary of coalition. The DUP seem to have done better, to date, out of confidence and supply.
History won’t be overly kind to Clegg.
I believe he made the right call going into coalition, but he spunked his credibility up the wall on tertiary education, electoral reform, and now Facebook.
The problem wasn’t coalition per se, it was that the Lib Dems didn’t have a strategy on how to survive a coalition.
Good point. I do wonder if they actually did have a strategy but never used it. I remember hearing Paddy Ashdown being interviewed when he was a leader giving a very good account of the difficulties for the Lib Dems in a hung parliament, and he was very prescient about exactly what would happen. It's hard to believe that having worked out the problems in such detail he hadn't also devised a strategy to mitigate them. He wouldn't have announced it on the telly if he had. I wonder if there was a strategy lying around in the office somewhere that Clegg chose not to follow.
I suspect David Laws and Danny Alexander have a lot to answer for. Freezing out Charlie Kennedy wasn’t a good idea, either.
The LibDems would probably have been better served had a few of them acted as Peter Lloyd - Eastbourne MP - has done in this Patliament. If Kennedy, Sanders, Hughes, Pugh, Andrew George et al opted to sit on the Opposition benches , fewer voters would have deserted them.
Voters deserted them because for five years they did not distinguish themselves from the Tories.
There was also deliberate targeting of LibDem seats by the Tories. But for the gains from them, Cameron would have been where he was before. IIRC he actually lost seats to Labour.
Having campaigned for the Libs and then the LibDems for many years, I still feel embarrassed by what Clegg agreed to.
Agree with much of that. Brown’s government was in a dreadful mess, and SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE! Liam Byrne wasn’t far away from the truth. However there were a number of things done which no ‘Liberal’ should have, as well of course the way the tuition fees issue was handled. And I remain firmly of the opinion that Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices.
However, that’s one for the historians (sorry, Ydoethr) and I suspect the modern LibDems would be a bit more chary of coalition. The DUP seem to have done better, to date, out of confidence and supply.
History won’t be overly kind to Clegg.
I believe he made the right call going into coalition, but he spunked his credibility up the wall on tertiary education, electoral reform, and now Facebook.
The problem wasn’t coalition per se, it was that the Lib Dems didn’t have a strategy on how to survive a coalition.
Good point. I do wonder if they actually did have a strategy but never used it. I remember hearing Paddy Ashdown being interviewed when he was a leader giving a very good account of the difficulties for the Lib Dems in a hung parliament, and he was very prescient about exactly what would happen. It's hard to believe that having worked out the problems in such detail he hadn't also devised a strategy to mitigate them. He wouldn't have announced it on the telly if he had. I wonder if there was a strategy lying around in the office somewhere that Clegg chose not to follow.
I suspect David Laws and Danny Alexander have a lot to answer for. Freezing out Charlie Kennedy wasn’t a good idea, either.
The LibDems would probably have been better served had a few of them acted as Peter Lloyd - Eastbourne MP - has done in this Patliament. If Kennedy, Sanders, Hughes, Pugh, Andrew George et al opted to sit on the Opposition benches , fewer voters would have deserted them.
Voters deserted them because for five years they did not distinguish themselves from the Tories.
“Vote for us and we will never enter government” - it’s not working for Corbyn so far.
Having campaigned for the Libs and then the LibDems for many years, I still feel embarrassed by what Clegg agreed to.
To be fair to him, he got suckered in by the narrative that the UK was on the verge of some kind of Greek style bankruptcy. And to be even fairer, a lot of economic orthodoxy was being e time. Nowadays it looks a little more naive and tends to be trotted out only be those who haven't quite caught up. I switched away from the Lib Dems in the last two elections, but they've done their time now, and everyone has learned a bit more about the world. I'm probably switching back next election. Not least because the coalition now looks like an island of sanity in the receding distance. The Lib Dems deserve a share of the credit for that.
Agree with much of that. Brown’s government was in a dreadful mess, and SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE! Liam Byrne wasn’t far away from the truth. However there were a number of things done which no ‘Liberal’ should have, as well of course the way the tuition fees issue was handled. And I remain firmly of the opinion that Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices.
However, that’s one for the historians (sorry, Ydoethr) and I suspect the modern LibDems would be a bit more chary of coalition. The DUP seem to have done better, to date, out of confidence and supply.
History won’t be overly kind to Clegg.
I believe he made the right call going into coalition, but he spunked his credibility up the wall on tertiary education, electoral reform, and now Facebook.
The problem wasn’t coalition per se, it was that the Lib Dems didn’t have a strategy on how to survive a coalition.
Good point. I do wonder if they actually did have a strategy but never used it. I remember hearing Paddy Ashdown being interviewed when he was a leader giving a very good account of the difficulties for the Lib Dems in a hung parliament, and he was very prescient about exactly what would happen. It's hard to believe that having worked out the problems in such detail he hadn't also devised a strategy to mitigate them. He wouldn't have announced it on the telly if he had. I wonder if there was a strategy lying around in the office somewhere that Clegg chose not to follow.
Identifying problems is generally easier than resolving them. The experience of junior coalition partners around the world suggests that a definitive solution is still awaited.
Lega in Italy looked like they'd cracked it, but may have tripped over their own feet.
Re ' Austerity : Here in deepest Leaverstan I was shocked yet not remotely surprised to discover a pilot of a Winter Nighshelter was being launched. Unthinkable in a small market town even 5 years ago and now desperately needed. Not a single statutory agency involved or funding although everyone gagging to refer to it. Entirely down to a coalition of churches plus one experienced fundraiser who works in the field. Everyone engaged I talk to locally says we are seeing a level of public destitution not seen since the last slum clearences in the ' 30s.
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To? As she injects chaos into the 2020 Democratic primary by accusing her own party of “rigging” the election, an array of alt-right internet stars, white nationalists and Russians have praised her.
Voters deserted them because for five years they did not distinguish themselves from the Tories.
They were distinguished from the Tories by the anguish they expressed about doing the things they were forced to do as part of the Coalition, while the Tories embraced the policies they conceded to the Lib Dems (like the increase in the personal allowance, or the pupil premium), or simply defeated them (AV, Lords reform).
Consequently, everyone could tell you the things that the Lib Dems had conceded to the Tories (tuition fees, austerity) but no-one could tell you what the Tories had conceded to the Lib Dems.
They had nothing to point to that would justify the sacrifices made. They were unable to say, "we forced the Tories to do x and if you vote for us we'll fight for y and z"
Re ' Austerity : Here in deepest Leaverstan I was shocked yet not remotely surprised to discover a pilot of a Winter Nighshelter was being launched. Unthinkable in a small market town even 5 years ago and now desperately needed. Not a single statutory agency involved or funding although everyone gagging to refer to it. Entirely down to a coalition of churches plus one experienced fundraiser who works in the field. Everyone engaged I talk to locally says we are seeing a level of public destitution not seen since the last slum clearences in the ' 30s.
Don't know where you live, but that's been common in every market town in Gloucestershire for 15 years.
Re ' Austerity : Here in deepest Leaverstan I was shocked yet not remotely surprised to discover a pilot of a Winter Nighshelter was being launched. Unthinkable in a small market town even 5 years ago and now desperately needed. Not a single statutory agency involved or funding although everyone gagging to refer to it. Entirely down to a coalition of churches plus one experienced fundraiser who works in the field. Everyone engaged I talk to locally says we are seeing a level of public destitution not seen since the last slum clearences in the ' 30s.
Given BJ wants to give tax cuts to the rich as a priority and his leadership election comments. It is a sad indictment on opposition parties that they are unable to link the dire situation of the destitute to the misplaced agenda of giving more to those with wealth. It is simply not right to have the level of homelessness, beggers and needy in the numbers we have now. Something needs to change...
Re ' Austerity : Here in deepest Leaverstan I was shocked yet not remotely surprised to discover a pilot of a Winter Nighshelter was being launched. Unthinkable in a small market town even 5 years ago and now desperately needed. Not a single statutory agency involved or funding although everyone gagging to refer to it. Entirely down to a coalition of churches plus one experienced fundraiser who works in the field. Everyone engaged I talk to locally says we are seeing a level of public destitution not seen since the last slum clearences in the ' 30s.
Given BJ wants to give tax cuts to the rich as a priority and his leadership election comments. It is a sad indictment on opposition parties that they are unable to link the dire situation of the destitute to the misplaced agenda of giving more to those with wealth. It is simply not right to have the level of homelessness, beggers and needy in the numbers we have now. Something needs to change...
It is the US Republican strategy. Tax cuts for rich individuals and companies, with electoral support gained on red meat social policies, such as bashing foreigners and those on welfare. It is not a bad strategy in terms of elections, just a desperately bad one from the point of living in a socially cohesive country.
Re ' Austerity : Here in deepest Leaverstan I was shocked yet not remotely surprised to discover a pilot of a Winter Nighshelter was being launched. Unthinkable in a small market town even 5 years ago and now desperately needed. Not a single statutory agency involved or funding although everyone gagging to refer to it. Entirely down to a coalition of churches plus one experienced fundraiser who works in the field. Everyone engaged I talk to locally says we are seeing a level of public destitution not seen since the last slum clearences in the ' 30s.
Don't know where you live, but that's been common in every market town in Gloucestershire for 15 years.
The number of rough sleepers in Leicester has definitely got a lot worse over the last few years. Too many lives wasted.
Re ' Austerity : Here in deepest Leaverstan I was shocked yet not remotely surprised to discover a pilot of a Winter Nighshelter was being launched. Unthinkable in a small market town even 5 years ago and now desperately needed. Not a single statutory agency involved or funding although everyone gagging to refer to it. Entirely down to a coalition of churches plus one experienced fundraiser who works in the field. Everyone engaged I talk to locally says we are seeing a level of public destitution not seen since the last slum clearences in the ' 30s.
Given BJ wants to give tax cuts to the rich as a priority and his leadership election comments. It is a sad indictment on opposition parties that they are unable to link the dire situation of the destitute to the misplaced agenda of giving more to those with wealth. It is simply not right to have the level of homelessness, beggers and needy in the numbers we have now. Something needs to change...
It is the US Republican strategy. Tax cuts for rich individuals and companies, with electoral support gained on red meat social policies, such as bashing foreigners and those on welfare. It is not a bad strategy in terms of elections, just a desperately bad one from the point of living in a socially cohesive country.
Not so sure it will work in the UK, given the multi-party system. Tactical voting might cause the US strategy to fail in the UK!
Re ' Austerity : Here in deepest Leaverstan I was shocked yet not remotely surprised to discover a pilot of a Winter Nighshelter was being launched. Unthinkable in a small market town even 5 years ago and now desperately needed. Not a single statutory agency involved or funding although everyone gagging to refer to it. Entirely down to a coalition of churches plus one experienced fundraiser who works in the field. Everyone engaged I talk to locally says we are seeing a level of public destitution not seen since the last slum clearences in the ' 30s.
Thankfully the voters of Leaverstan voted leave so now all their problems will be over, right?
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To? As she injects chaos into the 2020 Democratic primary by accusing her own party of “rigging” the election, an array of alt-right internet stars, white nationalists and Russians have praised her.
There has been speculation for at least six months she's positioning for a Third Party run. Cynics say to take leftish Democrats a la Jill Stein who will never vote Trump. The expectation being she'd leave the party just after the elimination of Sanders. I think the problem for her is it was all wargamed on Biden or Harris being the nominee. It's much harder to run to the anti corporatist left of Elizabeth Warren.
I watched the first 30 minutes of her Joe Rogan experience interview and felt a disturbance in the Force. She's incredibly talented but also obviously a sociopath.
Rough sleeping is noticeably worse in the past three years. Almost back to early 90s.
Visually London looks similar to, but not quite as bad, as the 90s were. Rough sleeping was almost eradicated outside the west end by the end of the Blair years, so it is probably an increase of something between 3-6 times since then.
Re ' Austerity : Here in deepest Leaverstan I was shocked yet not remotely surprised to discover a pilot of a Winter Nighshelter was being launched. Unthinkable in a small market town even 5 years ago and now desperately needed. Not a single statutory agency involved or funding although everyone gagging to refer to it. Entirely down to a coalition of churches plus one experienced fundraiser who works in the field. Everyone engaged I talk to locally says we are seeing a level of public destitution not seen since the last slum clearences in the ' 30s.
Given BJ wants to give tax cuts to the rich as a priority and his leadership election comments. It is a sad indictment on opposition parties that they are unable to link the dire situation of the destitute to the misplaced agenda of giving more to those with wealth. It is simply not right to have the level of homelessness, beggers and needy in the numbers we have now. Something needs to change...
It is the US Republican strategy. Tax cuts for rich individuals and companies, with electoral support gained on red meat social policies, such as bashing foreigners and those on welfare. It is not a bad strategy in terms of elections, just a desperately bad one from the point of living in a socially cohesive country.
Not so sure it will work in the UK, given the multi-party system. Tactical voting might cause the US strategy to fail in the UK!
If Labour had a platform halfway between New Labour and Blue Labour we would defeat it every time.
Re ' Austerity : Here in deepest Leaverstan I was shocked yet not remotely surprised to discover a pilot of a Winter Nighshelter was being launched. Unthinkable in a small market town even 5 years ago and now desperately needed. Not a single statutory agency involved or funding although everyone gagging to refer to it. Entirely down to a coalition of churches plus one experienced fundraiser who works in the field. Everyone engaged I talk to locally says we are seeing a level of public destitution not seen since the last slum clearences in the ' 30s.
Thankfully the voters of Leaverstan voted leave so now all their problems will be over, right?
Indeed, a smaller economy compared to staying in the EU is not going to lead to a massive flow of cash to Leave areas. The only way that could happen is through a leftwing government that would destabilize an already damaged economy.
As a general rule, I think betting on the LibDems is for people with more money than sense. But I think they'll absolutely walk Richmond Park. If the majority is less than 7-8,000 I'd be very surprised.
!
The LDs role in this election appears to be to split the opposition vote and gift Boris a majority. It took 14 years to recover from that last time.
We can blame moderate ex Labour members for letting the Tories win again by voting LD
It's fairly arrogant to assume that anyone who doesn't like the Tories in".
It wasn't an LD majority government!
Raising the threshold for income tax, introducing the pupil premium were redistributive policies of LD origin.
They could still have blocked it.
.
Simply not true. The working poor gained significantly. It was a reditributive act as surely you can agree.
.
Boris has increased spending on the NHS, police etc relative to the Coalition and also increased the minimum wage again too
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a for nearly a decade ...
If you are a Tory you believe welfare should only be a short term basic safety net until you get back to work not a permanent way of life.
If your focus is increasing welfare benefits you will never vote anything but Labour anyway
Its not just the long term unemployed i am talking about. Those who were in work and then find themselves out of work for a period, will find that £70 p/week is not a springboard into work but a millstone around their neck. Added to which in many local authorities someone on JSA now have to pay 20% council tax. If people start getting county court judgements against them. It makes them less employable and a vicious cycle emerges. Sometimes you need to seperate the dogma for reality!
Those who are in work and out of work for a short period will find there are plenty of jobs still around and the Tories are increasing even the minimum wage to £10.50 an hour.
Inevitably the situation is rather more complicated than what was first reported.
In Bolivia, fires - some set deliberately - have destroyed more than four million hectares since May, but heavy rain may now be easing the situation. On Tuesday officials said wildfires in the east had been quelled, and footage showed firefighters in badly-hit Chiquitanía jumping for joy.
Bolivia's fires had triggered mass protests against President Evo Morales, who recently passed a decree allowing farmers to clear four times more land for agriculture - a process completed by burning.
So will all those people who were frothing about Bolsonaro do likewise about Morales ?
Re ' Austerity : Here in deepest Leaverstan I was shocked yet not remotely surprised to discover a pilot of a Winter Nighshelter was being launched. Unthinkable in a small market town even 5 years ago and now desperately needed. Not a single statutory agency involved or funding although everyone gagging to refer to it. Entirely down to a coalition of churches plus one experienced fundraiser who works in the field. Everyone engaged I talk to locally says we are seeing a level of public destitution not seen since the last slum clearences in the ' 30s.
Given BJ wants to give tax cuts to the rich as a priority and his leadership election comments. It is a sad indictment on opposition parties that they are unable to link the dire situation of the destitute to the misplaced agenda of giving more to those with wealth. It is simply not right to have the level of homelessness, beggers and needy in the numbers we have now. Something needs to change...
It is the US Republican strategy. Tax cuts for rich individuals and companies, with electoral support gained on red meat social policies, such as bashing foreigners and those on welfare. It is not a bad strategy in terms of elections, just a desperately bad one from the point of living in a socially cohesive country.
Not so sure it will work in the UK, given the multi-party system. Tactical voting might cause the US strategy to fail in the UK!
Hillary got 48% of the vote in 2016, 8% higher than Corbyn Labour got even in 2017, Trump still won
Inevitably the situation is rather more complicated than what was first reported.
In Bolivia, fires - some set deliberately - have destroyed more than four million hectares since May, but heavy rain may now be easing the situation. On Tuesday officials said wildfires in the east had been quelled, and footage showed firefighters in badly-hit Chiquitanía jumping for joy.
Bolivia's fires had triggered mass protests against President Evo Morales, who recently passed a decree allowing farmers to clear four times more land for agriculture - a process completed by burning.
So will all those people who were frothing about Bolsonaro do likewise about Morales ?
Rough sleeping is noticeably worse in the past three years. Almost back to early 90s.
Visually London looks similar to, but not quite as bad, as the 90s were. Rough sleeping was almost eradicated outside the west end by the end of the Blair years, so it is probably an increase of something between 3-6 times since then.
As a general rule, I think betting on the LibDems is for people with more money than sense. But I think they'll absolutely walk Richmond Park. If the majority is less than 7-8,000 I'd be very surprised.
Do you remember that guy who became a regular on PB about 10 years ago. Think he lived in Canada. The poor sod bet his shirt on the Lib Dems, based purely on advice here. When he lost big time, the screams of agony were intolerable. He’s never been seen again. Buyer beware!
The LDs role in this election appears to be to split the opposition vote and gift Boris a majority. It took 14 years to recover from that last time.
We can blame moderate ex Labour members for letting the Tories win again by voting LD
It's fairly arrogant to assume that anyone who doesn't like the Tories are duty-bound to vote Labour. If Labour don't want to appeal to centre-left voters then that's their choice but it's no use moaning that they then vote for somebody else and "let the Tories in".
But the Coaliton clearly showed the LDs to be a party of the Centre-Right!How many left of centre parties would have backed the introduction of significant fees re- Employment Tribunals?
It wasn't an LD majority government!
Raising the threshold for income tax, introducing the pupil premium were redistributive policies of LD origin.
They could still have blocked it.
A period of austerity was not the time to be reducing Income Tax - even via higher thresholds. The poorest gained nothing from that whilst losing a great deal from Benefit cuts and freezes.
Simply not true. The working poor gained significantly. It was a reditributive act as surely you can agree.
The poorest gained nothing from raising Income Tax thresholds in that their earnings were too low to be liable to pay tax. They did lose significantly from the Coalition cuts to Benefits. Reducing Income Tax at the same time as slashing public spending was a very right wing policy - even if a cut in the basic rate would have been worse still. A reduction in VAT to 15% would have been more progressive.
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To? As she injects chaos into the 2020 Democratic primary by accusing her own party of “rigging” the election, an array of alt-right internet stars, white nationalists and Russians have praised her.
There has been speculation for at least six months she's positioning for a Third Party run. Cynics say to take leftish Democrats a la Jill Stein who will never vote Trump. The expectation being she'd leave the party just after the elimination of Sanders. I think the problem for her is it was all wargamed on Biden or Harris being the nominee. It's much harder to run to the anti corporatist left of Elizabeth Warren.
I watched the first 30 minutes of her Joe Rogan experience interview and felt a disturbance in the Force. She's incredibly talented but also obviously a sociopath.
She was a one that went on an Assad paid trip of Syria. Pretty clearly in the Putin-Trump-Farage-Stein bloc.
Rough sleeping is noticeably worse in the past three years. Almost back to early 90s.
Visually London looks similar to, but not quite as bad, as the 90s were. Rough sleeping was almost eradicated outside the west end by the end of the Blair years, so it is probably an increase of something between 3-6 times since then.
The Homelessness Reduction Act was passed in 2017
The devil will be in the detail and implementation. Fortunately we have such a capable set of ministers.....oops the capable ones seem to have been kicked out and replaced by idiots.
"Shelter supports the legislation because it extends entitlements to help, places a renewed focus on the prevention of homelessness and local joint working, and has the potential to provide more client-focussed, personalised statutory homelessness services.
But its laudable aims to reduce homelessness will be undermined without improvements to wider housing and welfare policy, to address both the causes of homelessness and to ensure that homeless households have access to settled, affordable and suitable housing in each local authority area.
Without these improvements, there could be unintended consequences, such as 'gate-keeping' of services, unlawful decisions, increased out-of-area moves and repeat homelessness, with damaging consequences for children and other vulnerable applicants, and little improvement in meaningful outcomes"
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
And where does personal responsibility come into the equation? How does a person stay unemployable for 4 years?
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To? As she injects chaos into the 2020 Democratic primary by accusing her own party of “rigging” the election, an array of alt-right internet stars, white nationalists and Russians have praised her.
The rigging line helps with fundraising, Sanders used it as well. (TBF it wasn't completely without merit, but only at the point when Sanders had already been mathematically eliminated.)
Rough sleeping is noticeably worse in the past three years. Almost back to early 90s.
Visually London looks similar to, but not quite as bad, as the 90s were. Rough sleeping was almost eradicated outside the west end by the end of the Blair years, so it is probably an increase of something between 3-6 times since then.
The Homelessness Reduction Act was passed in 2017
Nevertheless the current level of homelessness is unacceptable, and unquestionably the direct responsibility of the Government and it’s policies.
As a “die hard” remainer, the putative deal looks reasonable to me, given the negotiating parameters. I can also see the DUP and the ERGers going along with it.
Obviously I will be disappointed that this is ultimately a hard Brexit (I wanted to stay in the single market) but perhaps that is not ruled out for the future.
I would still like to see a referendum on this though. It’s taken three years to get to this point and I believe the original mandate was flawed. I think Leave would win and I’d be fairly happy with that.
Imagine we leave, we fight hard for a Lib Dem win on a manifesto of Rejoin. Then we have a Rejoin win after a big campaign. We negotiate rejoining and are halfway through the process and it turns out we can join, stay out the Euro but lose the rebate. Should we then have another referendum on the terms? What about when the terms change in the next EU treaty?
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
And where does personal responsibility come into the equation? How does a person stay unemployable for 4 years?
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
The longer your out of work the more difficult it is to get one
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
And where does personal responsibility come into the equation? How does a person stay unemployable for 4 years?
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
According to the ONS there is a grand total of 171 thousand who have been unemployed for 24+ months - about 0.5% of the workforce.
And its not a group which will get much sympathy from the working poor.
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
And where does personal responsibility come into the equation? How does a person stay unemployable for 4 years?
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
Yes, I was a one nation tory, compasion as well as economic dynamism. That is why i suggest mandatory mental health checks and compulsary movement to the right benefits. At the moment the taxpayer is doing well as the type of individual i refer to is getting just £70 a week. What does this mean? No heating, no hot water and dependence on others for food. I mix with individuals who are being punished by the system for being mentally ill. It is not right, that is before we get into sanctioning and UC problems.
You ask how do they stay unemployed for 4 years? Mental health problems, inability to socialise/communicate or understand personal responsibility or aggresive or violent. Not the sort of person you want working for you!
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
And where does personal responsibility come into the equation? How does a person stay unemployable for 4 years?
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
The longer your out of work the more difficult it is to get one
That's true but how much of that is the fault of the 'system' or the fault of the individual concerned ?
And there's more than one way to getting back into employment.
Years of unemployment wont look good on a CV in a job application but if someone works via an agency there's no telling who they are and what they've been doing.
I wonder whether the next resignation might be Corbyn? It would make sense. It's obvious that an election held in the next few months would be a disaster for Labour particularly if Johnson gets a deal. But there's nothing Corbyn can do to prevent one which wont be humiliating for both him and the party.........except resigning.
He has a tailor made excuse. Age-after a five year term he'll be 76.
It would have the duel effect of allowing Labour to choose someone more voter friendly and enable them without losing face to delay till such time as they could win.
Could Corbyn's final act be his greatest?
A tip from Sydney Carton perhaps...
'It is a far far better thing that I do than I have ever done. It is a far far better rest that I go to than I have ever known...."
He can't resign. If he does the other parties will go for the election with Labour rudderless
They can't without Labour votes. Labour would have a legitimate reason for not agreeing to an election until they had elected a new leader. Watson could stand in or Corbyn could lead until another leader was chosen.
As discussed on here many times, if the LDs or SNP want an election, the votes are there Watson standing in will mean the NEC has control as per the conference motion A party using a strategic resignation to try and avoid a GE will cost them another few %
By my calculations 216 have to abstain or vote against. Labour cross that bridge easily. Corbyn's not stupid. He knows he's going to lose. Why be humiliated when he could resign gloriously. Maybe Jess Phillips throwing her hat into the ring might give the idea impetus. She's an attractive candidate
Rough sleeping is noticeably worse in the past three years. Almost back to early 90s.
It's a Europe-wide phenomenon, though. France is worse. So the causes are not simply 'austerity', whatever that is.
I've been very resistant to the word ' austerity ' but I've started using it myself in the last six months. It's largely living in this part of Leaverstan where the ' public realm ' is simply collapse. Everything is dirty, broken, vandalised, closing and in disrepair. Public destitution and squalor is lapping at the shore. Meanwhile everyone is concreting their garden to park their brand new PCP funded tank-sized car.
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To? As she injects chaos into the 2020 Democratic primary by accusing her own party of “rigging” the election, an array of alt-right internet stars, white nationalists and Russians have praised her.
There has been speculation for at least six months she's positioning for a Third Party run. Cynics say to take leftish Democrats a la Jill Stein who will never vote Trump. The expectation being she'd leave the party just after the elimination of Sanders. I think the problem for her is it was all wargamed on Biden or Harris being the nominee. It's much harder to run to the anti corporatist left of Elizabeth Warren.
I watched the first 30 minutes of her Joe Rogan experience interview and felt a disturbance in the Force. She's incredibly talented but also obviously a sociopath.
Rumours that Trump will drop Pence for a woman, if it looks like he’ll be up against Warren, continue to surface. However it is hard to see him having the political capital to drop his VP so late, particularly given his loyalty. Meanwhile the Trump-Pence 2020 boards are already appearing by the roadside.
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
And where does personal responsibility come into the equation? How does a person stay unemployable for 4 years?
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
The longer your out of work the more difficult it is to get one
That's true but how much of that is the fault of the 'system' or the fault of the individual concerned ?
And there's more than one way to getting back into employment.
Years of unemployment wont look good on a CV in a job application but if someone works via an agency there's no telling who they are and what they've been doing.
The "system" has an inbuilt level of unemployment. Full employment is unsustainable without major changes to the way the economy works, changes that would probably be frowned upon by most people on here, me included. Therefore it's incumbent on all of us who favour the preservation of the fundamentals of this economic system to look after those who are unemployed.
Obviously nobody should be allowed to take the piss completely, but I'd much prefer an innocent-til-proven-guilt attitude to benefits, along with a recognition that unemployment is partially a result of personal choices, partially systemic, and partially an issue of personal capability (both long-term, such as education and short-term such as acute mental illness). I think universal basic income is a potential solution to my concerns, if it can be made to work.
Rough sleeping is noticeably worse in the past three years. Almost back to early 90s.
It's a Europe-wide phenomenon, though. France is worse. So the causes are not simply 'austerity', whatever that is.
Speaking as someone who has very often voted conservative, “it” is the cutting of a large number of programmes introduced by New Labour that had worked to massively reduce homelessness. This is a policy area where cause and effect are pretty clear.
Hillary got 48% of the vote in 2016, 8% higher than Corbyn Labour got even in 2017, Trump still won
More Americans voted for Hillary than for the Racist-in-Chief.
Yet more states voted for Trump and that is key in the Electoral College FPTP system
FPTP would mean the candidate getting a plurality of the votes winning, ie Hillary Clinton.
Also you don't need to win "more states" in order to win in the electoral college.
Also everyone is aware that Trump won in the electoral college and is the US president
Apart from that a very useful comment.
No it wouldn't, what counts is winning a plurality in enough states to get you to 270 EC votes to win not in the national popular vote. Plus Churchill in 1951 won a majority under FPTP despite losing the national popular vote and Wilson won most seats in February 1974 despite losing the national popular vote.
Generally presidential election winners win most states e.g. Bush twice, Obama twice and Trump all won a majority of US states.
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
And where does personal responsibility come into the equation? How does a person stay unemployable for 4 years?
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
Yes, I was a one nation tory, compasion as well as economic dynamism. That is why i suggest mandatory mental health checks and compulsary movement to the right benefits. At the moment the taxpayer is doing well as the type of individual i refer to is getting just £70 a week. What does this mean? No heating, no hot water and dependence on others for food. I mix with individuals who are being punished by the system for being mentally ill. It is not right, that is before we get into sanctioning and UC problems.
You ask how do they stay unemployed for 4 years? Mental health problems, inability to socialise/communicate or understand personal responsibility or aggresive or violent. Not the sort of person you want working for you!
I fear you've got an enormous job on your hands dealing with the self-insulating, self-protecting propaganda on this one. Some conservatives simply don't care ; but of the large contingent who do, accepting that the reality of the situation is far more complex than has been presented, is simply too potentially threatening. There is a similar situation with the potentially destabilising consequences of accepting human impacts on the climate and eco-systems.
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
And where does personal responsibility come into the equation? How does a person stay unemployable for 4 years?
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
Yes, I was a one nation tory, compasion as well as economic dynamism. That is why i suggest mandatory mental health checks and compulsary movement to the right benefits. At the moment the taxpayer is doing well as the type of individual i refer to is getting just £70 a week. What does this mean? No heating, no hot water and dependence on others for food. I mix with individuals who are being punished by the system for being mentally ill. It is not right, that is before we get into sanctioning and UC problems.
You ask how do they stay unemployed for 4 years? Mental health problems, inability to socialise/communicate or understand personal responsibility or aggresive or violent. Not the sort of person you want working for you!
One of the best ways to tackle mental health problems is to get a job, even a minimum wage one stacking shelves or washing dishes
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
And where does personal responsibility come into the equation? How does a person stay unemployable for 4 years?
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
Yes, I was a one nation tory, compasion as well as economic dynamism. That is why i suggest mandatory mental health checks and compulsary movement to the right benefits. At the moment the taxpayer is doing well as the type of individual i refer to is getting just £70 a week. What does this mean? No heating, no hot water and dependence on others for food. I mix with individuals who are being punished by the system for being mentally ill. It is not right, that is before we get into sanctioning and UC problems.
You ask how do they stay unemployed for 4 years? Mental health problems, inability to socialise/communicate or understand personal responsibility or aggresive or violent. Not the sort of person you want working for you!
One of the best ways to tackle mental health problems is to get a job, even a minimum wage one stacking shelves or washing dishes
Only a world-class imbecile would come out with a statement like that.
Rough sleeping is noticeably worse in the past three years. Almost back to early 90s.
It's a Europe-wide phenomenon, though. France is worse. So the causes are not simply 'austerity', whatever that is.
I've been very resistant to the word ' austerity ' but I've started using it myself in the last six months. It's largely living in this part of Leaverstan where the ' public realm ' is simply collapse. Everything is dirty, broken, vandalised, closing and in disrepair. Public destitution and squalor is lapping at the shore. Meanwhile everyone is concreting their garden to park their brand new PCP funded tank-sized car.
Everything is dirty, broken, vandalised, closing and in disrepair.
Different places can have different situations and different people can have different experiences but I doubt many will say similar about their own locations.
Rough sleeping is noticeably worse in the past three years. Almost back to early 90s.
It's a Europe-wide phenomenon, though. France is worse. So the causes are not simply 'austerity', whatever that is.
I've been very resistant to the word ' austerity ' but I've started using it myself in the last six months. It's largely living in this part of Leaverstan where the ' public realm ' is simply collapse. Everything is dirty, broken, vandalised, closing and in disrepair. Public destitution and squalor is lapping at the shore. Meanwhile everyone is concreting their garden to park their brand new PCP funded tank-sized car.
Everything is dirty, broken, vandalised, closing and in disrepair.
Different places can have different situations and different people can have different experiences but I doubt many will say similar about their own locations.
Unless they're trying to make a political point.
How many Leavers on here live in majority Leave areas?
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
And where does personal responsibility come into the equation? How does a person stay unemployable for 4 years?
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
Yes, I was a one nation tory, compasion as well as economic dynamism. That is why i suggest mandatory mental health checks and compulsary movement to the right benefits. At the moment the taxpayer is doing well as the type of individual i refer to is getting just £70 a week. What does this mean? No heating, no hot water and dependence on others for food. I mix with individuals who are being punished by the system for being mentally ill. It is not right, that is before we get into sanctioning and UC problems.
You ask how do they stay unemployed for 4 years? Mental health problems, inability to socialise/communicate or understand personal responsibility or aggresive or violent. Not the sort of person you want working for you!
One of the best ways to tackle mental health problems is to get a job, even a minimum wage one stacking shelves or washing dishes
Only a world-class imbecile would come out with a statement like that.
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
And where does personal responsibility come into the equation? How does a person stay unemployable for 4 years?
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
Yes, I was a one nation tory, compasion as well as economic dynamism. That is why i suggest mandatory mental health checks and compulsary movement to the right benefits. At the moment the taxpayer is doing well as the type of individual i refer to is getting just £70 a week. What does this mean? No heating, no hot water and dependence on others for food. I mix with individuals who are being punished by the system for being mentally ill. It is not right, that is before we get into sanctioning and UC problems.
You ask how do they stay unemployed for 4 years? Mental health problems, inability to socialise/communicate or understand personal responsibility or aggresive or violent. Not the sort of person you want working for you!
One of the best ways to tackle mental health problems is to get a job, even a minimum wage one stacking shelves or washing dishes
Only a world-class imbecile would come out with a statement like that.
That comment by HYUFD is crass and ignorant.
As someone who has a member of their family suffering a serious mental health crisis with a form of PTSD it is ignorance of that form which is hard to reconcile with an intelligent or thoughtful response to a crisis in so many peoples lives
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
And where does personal responsibility come into the equation? How does a person stay unemployable for 4 years?
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
Yes, I was a one nation tory, compasion as well as economic dynamism. That is why i suggest mandatory mental health checks and compulsary movement to the right benefits. At the moment the taxpayer is doing well as the type of individual i refer to is getting just £70 a week. What does this mean? No heating, no hot water and dependence on others for food. I mix with individuals who are being punished by the system for being mentally ill. It is not right, that is before we get into sanctioning and UC problems.
You ask how do they stay unemployed for 4 years? Mental health problems, inability to socialise/communicate or understand personal responsibility or aggresive or violent. Not the sort of person you want working for you!
One of the best ways to tackle mental health problems is to get a job, even a minimum wage one stacking shelves or washing dishes
Only a world-class imbecile would come out with a statement like that.
Why? Having a purpose in life is key to staying sane. Handouts are demeaning.
70 years of the welfare state in education and NHS, and society still produces huge social problems of homelessness. It's almost as if the poor will always be with us, so why bother doing more than the bare minimum if some people will simply never ever help themselves?
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
And where does personal responsibility come into the equation? How does a person stay unemployable for 4 years?
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
Yes, I was a one nation tory, compasion as well as economic dynamism. That is why i suggest mandatory mental health checks and compulsary movement to the right benefits. At the moment the taxpayer is doing well as the type of individual i refer to is getting just £70 a week. What does this mean? No heating, no hot water and dependence on others for food. I mix with individuals who are being punished by the system for being mentally ill. It is not right, that is before we get into sanctioning and UC problems.
You ask how do they stay unemployed for 4 years? Mental health problems, inability to socialise/communicate or understand personal responsibility or aggresive or violent. Not the sort of person you want working for you!
One of the best ways to tackle mental health problems is to get a job, even a minimum wage one stacking shelves or washing dishes
Only a world-class imbecile would come out with a statement like that.
Why? Having a purpose in life is key to staying sane. Handouts are demeaning.
You miss the point.
Many people with a mental health crisis are working and not on handouts as you call them
70 years of the welfare state in education and NHS, and society still produces huge social problems of homelessness. It's almost as if the poor will always be with us, so why bother doing more than the bare minimum if some people will simply never ever help themselves?
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
And where does personal responsibility come into the equation? How does a person stay unemployable for 4 years?
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
Yes, I was a one nation tory, compasion as well as economic dynamism. That is why i suggest mandatory mental health checks and compulsary movement to the right benefits. At the moment the taxpayer is doing well as the type of individual i refer to is getting just £70 a week. What does this mean? No heating, no hot water and dependence on others for food. I mix with individuals who are being punished by the system for being mentally ill. It is not right, that is before we get into sanctioning and UC problems.
You ask how do they stay unemployed for 4 years? Mental health problems, inability to socialise/communicate or understand personal responsibility or aggresive or violent. Not the sort of person you want working for you!
One of the best ways to tackle mental health problems is to get a job, even a minimum wage one stacking shelves or washing dishes
Only a world-class imbecile would come out with a statement like that.
Why? Having a purpose in life is key to staying sane. Handouts are demeaning.
Your first statement is true. That's a world away from "One of the best ways to tackle mental health problems is to get a job". It's like telling someone who's coughing up blood to drink more water. Yeah, you do actually need to drink water, but it's probably not the cure.
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
And where does personal responsibility come into the equation? How does a person stay unemployable for 4 years?
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
Yes, I was a one nation tory, compasion as well as economic dynamism. That is why i suggest mandatory mental health checks and compulsary movement to the right benefits. At the moment the taxpayer is doing well as the type of individual i refer to is getting just £70 a week. What does this mean? No heating, no hot water and dependence on others for food. I mix with individuals who are being punished by the system for being mentally ill. It is not right, that is before we get into sanctioning and UC problems.
You ask how do they stay unemployed for 4 years? Mental health problems, inability to socialise/communicate or understand personal responsibility or aggresive or violent. Not the sort of person you want working for you!
One of the best ways to tackle mental health problems is to get a job, even a minimum wage one stacking shelves or washing dishes
Only a world-class imbecile would come out with a statement like that.
That comment by HYUFD is crass and ignorant.
As someone who has a member of their family suffering a serious mental health crisis with a form of PTSD it is ignorance of that form which is hard to reconcile with an intelligent or thoughtful response to a crisis in so many peoples lives
Rough sleeping is noticeably worse in the past three years. Almost back to early 90s.
It's a Europe-wide phenomenon, though. France is worse. So the causes are not simply 'austerity', whatever that is.
A couple of years ago in Menton which is just along the coast from Monaco and on the Italian border I saw a long line of tired African migrants making their way into France. Wearing their uniform of black track suits and back packs this long tired line trudged along the seafront past the restaurants and the cruisers with no obvious place to go. Then from nowhere some elderly women started setting up tables and people brought food. Others gathered round and gave money. It was really heart warming. The French do have a visible homeless problem but I did wonder whether this would have happened in the UK.
Yeah, that is no good if you are unemployable and been on £70 a week for 4 years (years before that as well). In this persons case a mandatory mental health check might help as the person does not understand they are mentally ill, however delicately you put it! The fact is promising money now does not reverse the absence of money for nearly a decade ...
And where does personal responsibility come into the equation? How does a person stay unemployable for 4 years?
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
Yes, I was a one nation tory, compasion as well as economic dynamism. That is why i suggest mandatory mental health checks and compulsary movement to the right benefits. At the moment the taxpayer is doing well as the type of individual i refer to is getting just £70 a week. What does this mean? No heating, no hot water and dependence on others for food. I mix with individuals who are being punished by the system for being mentally ill. It is not right, that is before we get into sanctioning and UC problems.
You ask how do they stay unemployed for 4 years? Mental health problems, inability to socialise/communicate or understand personal responsibility or aggresive or violent. Not the sort of person you want working for you!
One of the best ways to tackle mental health problems is to get a job, even a minimum wage one stacking shelves or washing dishes
Only a world-class imbecile would come out with a statement like that.
Why? Having a purpose in life is key to staying sane. Handouts are demeaning.
You miss the point.
Many people with a mental health crisis are working and not on handouts as you call them
Very true. And in many cases work is a direct or indirect cause of the problem. To say that it is "one of the best ways to tackle it" is white-hot ignorance.
70 years of the welfare state in education and NHS, and society still produces huge social problems of homelessness. It's almost as if the poor will always be with us, so why bother doing more than the bare minimum if some people will simply never ever help themselves?
Are there no workhouses?
Are there no prisons?
Are there no state schools, NHS, jobs programmes and benefits? Yes there are. For 70 years. And human nature still produces addiction and despair. Care yes - but there should be no pretence that it is anything other than charity nor that it will return people to their feet.
70 years of the welfare state in education and NHS, and society still produces huge social problems of homelessness. It's almost as if the poor will always be with us, so why bother doing more than the bare minimum if some people will simply never ever help themselves?
70 years of the welfare state in education and NHS, and society still produces huge social problems of homelessness. It's almost as if the poor will always be with us, so why bother doing more than the bare minimum if some people will simply never ever help themselves?
Not sure what the welfare state in education and NHS is expected to do about lack of housing.
Rough sleeping is noticeably worse in the past three years. Almost back to early 90s.
It's a Europe-wide phenomenon, though. France is worse. So the causes are not simply 'austerity', whatever that is.
I've been very resistant to the word ' austerity ' but I've started using it myself in the last six months. It's largely living in this part of Leaverstan where the ' public realm ' is simply collapse. Everything is dirty, broken, vandalised, closing and in disrepair. Public destitution and squalor is lapping at the shore. Meanwhile everyone is concreting their garden to park their brand new PCP funded tank-sized car.
Everything is dirty, broken, vandalised, closing and in disrepair.
Different places can have different situations and different people can have different experiences but I doubt many will say similar about their own locations.
Unless they're trying to make a political point.
How many Leavers on here live in majority Leave areas?
Comments
Okaaaay...the way I find logic in your position is to note he was utterly rubbish at both jobs, but even so.
As for your other comment, there is every reason to think Hitler didn't want a war in 1939, except a brief one against Poland. He miscalculated, but that is another story.
Obviously I will be disappointed that this is ultimately a hard Brexit (I wanted to stay in the single market) but perhaps that is not ruled out for the future.
I would still like to see a referendum on this though. It’s taken three years to get to this point and I believe the original mandate was flawed. I think Leave would win and I’d be fairly happy with that.
Liam Byrne wasn’t far away from the truth.
However there were a number of things done which no ‘Liberal’ should have, as well of course the way the tuition fees issue was handled.
And I remain firmly of the opinion that Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices.
However, that’s one for the historians (sorry, Ydoethr) and I suspect the modern LibDems would be a bit more chary of coalition. The DUP seem to have done better, to date, out of confidence and supply.
(Caveat - I live in the country. Big towns and cities are where most people live.)
I believe he made the right call going into coalition, but he spunked his credibility up the wall on tertiary education, electoral reform, and now Facebook.
The problem wasn’t coalition per se, it was that the Lib Dems didn’t have a strategy on how to survive a coalition.
Goering was certainly involved in the rearmament programme - and ,as you say , was not very effective in the role. Nevertheless , he was not a driving force behind Hitler's plans - even though he went along with them. Had he been head of state rather than Hitler , a war would have been much less likely. Ribbentrop - by contrast - was certainly egging Hitler on.
If your focus is increasing welfare benefits you will never vote anything but Labour anyway
But then, that is true of Blairism as well. Almost every problem we have today - the ongoing financial situation, the divided country, the devolved governments either not working or being suspended, the depth of feeling over Europe and the deep distrust of politicians - can legitimately be laid at New Labour's door through either errors, or omissions, or in the case of the EU, both.
So regretably while not the heroes we want or need they are the heroes we are left with. You can't beat something with nothing.
When they realise the logic of that is that Boris Johnson remains in power, they may of course change their minds.
As she injects chaos into the 2020 Democratic primary by accusing her own party of “rigging” the election, an array of alt-right internet stars, white nationalists and Russians have praised her.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard.html
Consequently, everyone could tell you the things that the Lib Dems had conceded to the Tories (tuition fees, austerity) but no-one could tell you what the Tories had conceded to the Lib Dems.
They had nothing to point to that would justify the sacrifices made. They were unable to say, "we forced the Tories to do x and if you vote for us we'll fight for y and z"
I watched the first 30 minutes of her Joe Rogan experience interview and felt a disturbance in the Force. She's incredibly talented but also obviously a sociopath.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-49971563
Inevitably the situation is rather more complicated than what was first reported.
In Bolivia, fires - some set deliberately - have destroyed more than four million hectares since May, but heavy rain may now be easing the situation. On Tuesday officials said wildfires in the east had been quelled, and footage showed firefighters in badly-hit Chiquitanía jumping for joy.
Bolivia's fires had triggered mass protests against President Evo Morales, who recently passed a decree allowing farmers to clear four times more land for agriculture - a process completed by burning.
So will all those people who were frothing about Bolsonaro do likewise about Morales ?
"Shelter supports the legislation because it extends entitlements to help, places a renewed focus on the prevention of homelessness and local joint working, and has the potential to provide more client-focussed, personalised statutory homelessness services.
But its laudable aims to reduce homelessness will be undermined without improvements to wider housing and welfare policy, to address both the causes of homelessness and to ensure that homeless households have access to settled, affordable and suitable housing in each local authority area.
Without these improvements, there could be unintended consequences, such as 'gate-keeping' of services, unlawful decisions, increased out-of-area moves and repeat homelessness, with damaging consequences for children and other vulnerable applicants, and little improvement in meaningful outcomes"
You used to be a Tory member, right? Surely you can see that someone being on the dole for four years isn't good for them or the taxpayer.
She might end up as Trump's VP though.
Americans were voting on a national basis for a President to govern the whole country.
Hillary Clinton got 65,853,514 votes
The Racist-in-Chief got only 62,984,828 votes
And its not a group which will get much sympathy from the working poor.
You ask how do they stay unemployed for 4 years?
Mental health problems, inability to socialise/communicate or understand personal responsibility or aggresive or violent. Not the sort of person you want working for you!
And there's more than one way to getting back into employment.
Years of unemployment wont look good on a CV in a job application but if someone works via an agency there's no telling who they are and what they've been doing.
Also you don't need to win "more states" in order to win in the electoral college.
Also everyone is aware that Trump won in the electoral college and is the US president
Apart from that a very useful comment.
Therefore it's incumbent on all of us who favour the preservation of the fundamentals of this economic system to look after those who are unemployed.
Obviously nobody should be allowed to take the piss completely, but I'd much prefer an innocent-til-proven-guilt attitude to benefits, along with a recognition that unemployment is partially a result of personal choices, partially systemic, and partially an issue of personal capability (both long-term, such as education and short-term such as acute mental illness).
I think universal basic income is a potential solution to my concerns, if it can be made to work.
Generally presidential election winners win most states e.g. Bush twice, Obama twice and Trump all won a majority of US states.
Apart from that a very useful comment
Different places can have different situations and different people can have different experiences but I doubt many will say similar about their own locations.
Unless they're trying to make a political point.
As someone who has a member of their family suffering a serious mental health crisis with a form of PTSD it is ignorance of that form which is hard to reconcile with an intelligent or thoughtful response to a crisis in so many peoples lives
Many people with a mental health crisis are working and not on handouts as you call them
Are there no prisons?
That's a world away from "One of the best ways to tackle mental health problems is to get a job".
It's like telling someone who's coughing up blood to drink more water. Yeah, you do actually need to drink water, but it's probably not the cure.
BTW, welcome back, hope you had a nice cruise!
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/donald-trump-not-well/597640/