She smoked cannabis and enjoyed it , none of the normal I had it, didn’t inhale or it made me sick guff !
I thought she gave a good interview on Newsnight .
I think the Lib Dems are coming over very well. If it wasn't for their undemocratic Revoke stance I would definitely be voting for them. I may well do anyway.
The billions should always be put in numbers not letters. More impact.
Not sure that's true.
I was shocked recently when someone I know who is very clever, graduate, professional career etc. asked me how many million there are in a billion. I think many people see £million, £billion, £trillion as all the same - a lot.
1,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 - 1,000,000.000,000 - it's my point.
"How accessible are our new Azuma trains? Our new Azuma trains are as accessible as our current fleet" Great!
That does sound rather daft. I wasn't paying particular attention because I wasn't travelling with someone who needed them, but I'm sure that the new train I used last time I travelled between Cambridge and Norwich had its own ramps which extended automatically across the little gap between the train and the platform. One would've thought that, in 2019, this would neither be an avant garde concept nor one that was particularly challenging to engineer, but apparently so...
Paging Sunil - he'll probably know!
I have never come across a train with automatic ramps but I do hope they exist somewhere. I find it genuinely surprising given the progess mad in other areas (e.g. buses) that they haven't arrived on trains (maybe the presence of guards is a disincentive?).
On the continent they have step-free access to trains on some trains in France and the Netherlands.
I haven't been on the Cambridge to Norwich since 2016, so not seen the new trains yet!
Here in London, the S stock on the District/Circle/Hammersmith & City/Metropolitan lines have doors that line up perfectly with most platforms.
I think it's probably the irregular platforms that make it problematic.
Do Labour realise that council houses are not aspirational ?
And that few home owners want more council houses being built anywhere near where they live.
Fact Check:
Each year 1964-70 more than 150k council houses were built.
Council housing had a very different connotation in the 60s. Back then it was genuinely aspirational.
I was calling out the inaccuracy in the tweet.
I know of people in private rent who aspire to a council house for the security of tenure. But yes, I suspect that on the whole the same people aspire to own their own home. Castle and all that.
It’s a fact not appreciated by the London centric political class that there are areas of the country where social rents are actually higher than market rents.
Then they ain't social rents, are they?
Yes they are. “Social rent” has a specific meaning - basically based on a formula rigidly linked to house prices and other localised factors in 1999, uplifted subsequently by inflation. Similarly “affordable rent” has a meaning (based around 80% of the market rate). In London the situation is clearly SR < AR < MR. It’s not the same everywhere.
You've now capitalised it
It’s the start of a sentence!
Missed the full stop, but without the capital it cannot have a specific meaning (should really have two but I was trying to be easy on you).
@alb1on You mentioned Finchley and Hampstead. The arithmetic says Tory hold in Finchley and Lab hold in Hampstead. But these are both good examples of local factors that the model doesn't know. You need to apply your own local knowledge to the base case.
@Andy_JS Thanks for pointing out the Yeovil "anomoly". This is an example were the multiplicative model is too fiercely supportive of a high previous share. I've brought the multiplicative weight back to 25% which I'm more comfortable with for reasons that I can explain (but a bit technical) and Yeovil is a Tory retain.
I appreciate the effort that goes into constituency modelling but I am afraid to say that looking at some extreme results in your model I think the methodology must be badly flawed.
For example, regarding North Norfolk, a 58% leave voting seat, what proportion of Leave and Remain supporters respectively do you think will vote LD? If we said, say, 10% of Leave and 75% of Remain you would end up with a LD vote share of 37%. Yet your model has the LDs on 60% and Con on 34%. (Mine has Con and LD neck and neck.)
Another set of implausible extreme contrasts is that you have the LDs on 1% in both Barnsley seats yet on 64% in Bath.
2017 Lib Dems Barnsley Central 549 votes 1.4%
Indeed. But according to YouGov, nationally 24% of 2017 Con Remain and 22% of 2017 Lab Remain voters now intend to switch to vote LD. But not in Barnsley where they are satisfied with Johnson and Corbyn, apparently.
Solid start for England, for those like me who are that way inclined. Sibley's stance at the wicket reminds me (and I'm sure some other old timers) of Peter Willey, possibly the 'hardest' man ever to play cricket.
Do Labour realise that council houses are not aspirational ?
And that few home owners want more council houses being built anywhere near where they live.
Fact Check:
Each year 1964-70 more than 150k council houses were built.
Council housing had a very different connotation in the 60s. Back then it was genuinely aspirational. It was also often seen as a privilege, and once achieved not something you threw away lightly. It is ironic that recent debates have often centred around taking away secure tenancies for life - what few realise is that these are relatively recent - introduced by Thatcher of all people! (I think it was necessary to justify RTB policies - easier to justify selling a property to somebody who has a right to live there for life anyway)
You're obviously a council house boy (absolutely nothing wrong with that). These kind of things are coloured by experience. Way back then I had a cousin who wouldn't buy his council house because he didn't want the responsibility of maintaining it.
@alb1on You mentioned Finchley and Hampstead. The arithmetic says Tory hold in Finchley and Lab hold in Hampstead. But these are both good examples of local factors that the model doesn't know. You need to apply your own local knowledge to the base case.
@Andy_JS Thanks for pointing out the Yeovil "anomoly". This is an example were the multiplicative model is too fiercely supportive of a high previous share. I've brought the multiplicative weight back to 25% which I'm more comfortable with for reasons that I can explain (but a bit technical) and Yeovil is a Tory retain.
I appreciate the effort that goes into constituency modelling but I am afraid to say that looking at some extreme results in your model I think the methodology must be badly flawed.
For example, regarding North Norfolk, a 58% leave voting seat, what proportion of Leave and Remain supporters respectively do you think will vote LD? If we said, say, 10% of Leave and 75% of Remain you would end up with a LD vote share of 37%. Yet your model has the LDs on 60% and Con on 34%. (Mine has Con and LD neck and neck.)
Another set of implausible extreme contrasts is that you have the LDs on 1% in both Barnsley seats yet on 64% in Bath.
2017 Lib Dems Barnsley Central 549 votes 1.4%
Indeed. But according to YouGov, nationally 24% of 2017 Con Remain and 22% of 2017 Lab Remain voters now intend to switch to vote LD. But not in Barnsley where they are satisfied with Johnson and Corbyn, apparently.
The LibDems seems to be in decline in Barnsley. 2015 they managed 770 votes and in 2011 they managed 1012.
The billions should always be put in numbers not letters. More impact.
Not sure that's true.
I was shocked recently when someone I know who is very clever, graduate, professional career etc. asked me how many million there are in a billion. I think many people see £million, £billion, £trillion as all the same - a lot.
1,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 - 1,000,000.000,000 - it's my point.
It's in your link and is the last one of my numbers - 1,000,000.000,000
I have always been comfortable with millions, billions and trillions. You have to be in the oil and gas industry. Tcf or trillion cubic feet of gas is a standard measure of reserves. When it comes to the North Dome between Qatar and Iran, you are talking 1.8 quadrillion cubic feet.
The billions should always be put in numbers not letters. More impact.
Not sure that's true.
I was shocked recently when someone I know who is very clever, graduate, professional career etc. asked me how many million there are in a billion. I think many people see £million, £billion, £trillion as all the same - a lot.
1,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 - 1,000,000.000,000 - it's my point.
It's in your link and is the last one of my numbers - 1,000,000.000,000
I have always been comfortable with millions, billions and trillions. You have to be in the oil and gas industry. Tcf or trillion cubic feet of gas is a standard measure of reserves. When it comes to the North Dome between Qatar and Iran, you are talking 1.8 quadrillion cubic feet.
Do Labour realise that council houses are not aspirational ?
And that few home owners want more council houses being built anywhere near where they live.
Corbyn Labour does not do aspiration, in Corbyn and McDonnell's dream UK everyone would live in a council house, work for the public sector, be a member of a trade union and send their kids to the local comp
Labour will promise free social care like in Scotland.
They need to narrow the tories advantage with the grey vote somewhat.
It might work.
On the other hand, pensioners are old enough to remember when Old Labour was last in power. All power cuts, piles of rotting rubbish in the streets, unburied corpses, rampant inflation and going cap-in-hand to the Gnomes of Zurich.
If, as we are consistently told, a great reservoir of Scottish voters will never forgive the Tories for Maggie, it follows that there probably exists another great reservoir of older voters who have neither forgiven nor forgotten the Winter of Discontent.
Bribery may not be enough.
Quite I’m “only” 55 but the 70’s are seared into my brain. I have zero desire to go back. None. It was crap.
The billions should always be put in numbers not letters. More impact.
Not sure that's true.
I was shocked recently when someone I know who is very clever, graduate, professional career etc. asked me how many million there are in a billion. I think many people see £million, £billion, £trillion as all the same - a lot.
1,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 - 1,000,000.000,000 - it's my point.
It's in your link and is the last one of my numbers - 1,000,000.000,000
I have always been comfortable with millions, billions and trillions. You have to be in the oil and gas industry. Tcf or trillion cubic feet of gas is a standard measure of reserves. When it comes to the North Dome between Qatar and Iran, you are talking 1.8 quadrillion cubic feet.
That's getting complicated.
A simpler measure. £1 trillion = 10 HS2s this year
If you want complication, it's 9 next year, 8 the year after...
The billions should always be put in numbers not letters. More impact.
Not sure that's true.
I was shocked recently when someone I know who is very clever, graduate, professional career etc. asked me how many million there are in a billion. I think many people see £million, £billion, £trillion as all the same - a lot.
1,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 - 1,000,000.000,000 - it's my point.
It's in your link and is the last one of my numbers - 1,000,000.000,000
I have always been comfortable with millions, billions and trillions. You have to be in the oil and gas industry. Tcf or trillion cubic feet of gas is a standard measure of reserves. When it comes to the North Dome between Qatar and Iran, you are talking 1.8 quadrillion cubic feet.
So how many double-decker buses is that? You with your fancy-dan "cubic feet"
@alb1on You mentioned Finchley and Hampstead. The arithmetic says Tory hold in Finchley and Lab hold in Hampstead. But these are both good examples of local factors that the model doesn't know. You need to apply your own local knowledge to the base case.
@Andy_JS Thanks for pointing out the Yeovil "anomoly". This is an example were the multiplicative model is too fiercely supportive of a high previous share. I've brought the multiplicative weight back to 25% which I'm more comfortable with for reasons that I can explain (but a bit technical) and Yeovil is a Tory retain.
I appreciate the effort that goes into constituency modelling but I am afraid to say that looking at some extreme results in your model I think the methodology must be badly flawed.
For example, regarding North Norfolk, a 58% leave voting seat, what proportion of Leave and Remain supporters respectively do you think will vote LD? If we said, say, 10% of Leave and 75% of Remain you would end up with a LD vote share of 37%. Yet your model has the LDs on 60% and Con on 34%. (Mine has Con and LD neck and neck.)
Another set of implausible extreme contrasts is that you have the LDs on 1% in both Barnsley seats yet on 64% in Bath.
2017 Lib Dems Barnsley Central 549 votes 1.4%
Indeed. But according to YouGov, nationally 24% of 2017 Con Remain and 22% of 2017 Lab Remain voters now intend to switch to vote LD. But not in Barnsley where they are satisfied with Johnson and Corbyn, apparently.
The LibDems seems to be in decline in Barnsley. 2015 they managed 770 votes and in 2011 they managed 1012.
'Winning Here!'
I live in Barnsley East and based on canvassing activity or leaflets, I wouldn’t know that there was an election on.
The Lib Dem’s have not been strong here all the while I’ve lived here. Years ago there was a very strong independent representation on Barnsley council, which I think took from their potential support base.
They were slightly more active in the part of Barnsley which is in Penistone & Stocksbridge around the 2010 election, when there was some debate over who would emerge as the main challenger to Labour there, but their strength in that constituency came from the Sheffield wards where they had councillors. That has also fallen away now, and they were in 4th place in the last two elections there.
I don’t see any reason why they should improve any this time. Around 1% in both Barnsley wards and maybe squeezed a bit more in P&S with most of that vote coming from Sheffield.
The billions should always be put in numbers not letters. More impact.
Not sure that's true.
I was shocked recently when someone I know who is very clever, graduate, professional career etc. asked me how many million there are in a billion. I think many people see £million, £billion, £trillion as all the same - a lot.
1,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 - 1,000,000.000,000 - it's my point.
It's in your link and is the last one of my numbers - 1,000,000.000,000
I have always been comfortable with millions, billions and trillions. You have to be in the oil and gas industry. Tcf or trillion cubic feet of gas is a standard measure of reserves. When it comes to the North Dome between Qatar and Iran, you are talking 1.8 quadrillion cubic feet.
So how many double-decker buses is that? You with your fancy-dan "cubic feet"
It's how many Olympic swimming pools you can fit into Wales.
The billions should always be put in numbers not letters. More impact.
Not sure that's true.
I was shocked recently when someone I know who is very clever, graduate, professional career etc. asked me how many million there are in a billion. I think many people see £million, £billion, £trillion as all the same - a lot.
1,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 - 1,000,000.000,000 - it's my point.
It's in your link and is the last one of my numbers - 1,000,000.000,000
I have always been comfortable with millions, billions and trillions. You have to be in the oil and gas industry. Tcf or trillion cubic feet of gas is a standard measure of reserves. When it comes to the North Dome between Qatar and Iran, you are talking 1.8 quadrillion cubic feet.
So how many double-decker buses is that? You with your fancy-dan "cubic feet"
It's how many Olympic swimming pools you can fit into Wales...
@alb1on You mentioned Finchley and Hampstead. The arithmetic says Tory hold in Finchley and Lab hold in Hampstead. But these are both good examples of local factors that the model doesn't know. You need to apply your own local knowledge to the base case.
@Andy_JS Thanks for pointing out the Yeovil "anomoly". This is an example were the multiplicative model is too fiercely supportive of a high previous share. I've brought the multiplicative weight back to 25% which I'm more comfortable with for reasons that I can explain (but a bit technical) and Yeovil is a Tory retain.
I appreciate the effort that goes into constituency modelling but I am afraid to say that looking at some extreme results in your model I think the methodology must be badly flawed.
For example, regarding North Norfolk, a 58% leave voting seat, what proportion of Leave and Remain supporters respectively do you think will vote LD? If we said, say, 10% of Leave and 75% of Remain you would end up with a LD vote share of 37%. Yet your model has the LDs on 60% and Con on 34%. (Mine has Con and LD neck and neck.)
Another set of implausible extreme contrasts is that you have the LDs on 1% in both Barnsley seats yet on 64% in Bath.
2017 Lib Dems Barnsley Central 549 votes 1.4%
Indeed. But according to YouGov, nationally 24% of 2017 Con Remain and 22% of 2017 Lab Remain voters now intend to switch to vote LD. But not in Barnsley where they are satisfied with Johnson and Corbyn, apparently.
The LibDems seems to be in decline in Barnsley. 2015 they managed 770 votes and in 2011 they managed 1012.
'Winning Here!'
They were slightly more active in the part of Barnsley which is in Penistone & Stocksbridge around the 2010 election, when there was some debate over who would emerge as the main challenger to Labour there, but their strength in that constituency came from the Sheffield wards where they had councillors. That has also fallen away now, and they were in 4th place in the last two elections there.
I don’t see any reason why they should improve any this time. Around 1% in both Barnsley wards and maybe squeezed a bit more in P&S with most of that vote coming from Sheffield.
Barnsley East is one of the 5 best Brexit Party constituencies according to the analysis that came out a couple of weeks ago. I think it had them on about 27% with Labour on 33%.
@alb1on You mentioned Finchley and Hampstead. The arithmetic says Tory hold in Finchley and Lab hold in Hampstead. But these are both good examples of local factors that the model doesn't know. You need to apply your own local knowledge to the base case.
@Andy_JS Thanks for pointing out the Yeovil "anomoly". This is an example were the multiplicative model is too fiercely supportive of a high previous share. I've brought the multiplicative weight back to 25% which I'm more comfortable with for reasons that I can explain (but a bit technical) and Yeovil is a Tory retain.
I appreciate the effort that goes into constituency modelling but I am afraid to say that looking at some extreme results in your model I think the methodology must be badly flawed.
For example, regarding North Norfolk, a 58% leave voting seat, what proportion of Leave and Remain supporters respectively do you think will vote LD? If we said, say, 10% of Leave and 75% of Remain you would end up with a LD vote share of 37%. Yet your model has the LDs on 60% and Con on 34%. (Mine has Con and LD neck and neck.)
Another set of implausible extreme contrasts is that you have the LDs on 1% in both Barnsley seats yet on 64% in Bath.
2017 Lib Dems Barnsley Central 549 votes 1.4%
Indeed. But according to YouGov, nationally 24% of 2017 Con Remain and 22% of 2017 Lab Remain voters now intend to switch to vote LD. But not in Barnsley where they are satisfied with Johnson and Corbyn, apparently.
The LibDems seems to be in decline in Barnsley. 2015 they managed 770 votes and in 2011 they managed 1012.
'Winning Here!'
I've done a spreadsheet and calculated at level votes in 2010,15, 17 where the "trend" would be in each seat.
Barnsley Central like almost every labour leave seat trended Tory in 2017. If it trends Tory again it might get back to 2010 levels of attainability for the blue team
The billions should always be put in numbers not letters. More impact.
Not sure that's true.
I was shocked recently when someone I know who is very clever, graduate, professional career etc. asked me how many million there are in a billion. I think many people see £million, £billion, £trillion as all the same - a lot.
1,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 - 1,000,000.000,000 - it's my point.
It's in your link and is the last one of my numbers - 1,000,000.000,000
I have always been comfortable with millions, billions and trillions. You have to be in the oil and gas industry. Tcf or trillion cubic feet of gas is a standard measure of reserves. When it comes to the North Dome between Qatar and Iran, you are talking 1.8 quadrillion cubic feet.
So how many double-decker buses is that? You with your fancy-dan "cubic feet"
It's how many Olympic swimming pools you can fit into Wales.
Those who believe there is anti-Semitism in the Labour party may consider looking in another direction. Roger Hallam, a leader of Extinction Rebellion, claims that his comments on the mass murder of Jews during WW2 were taken out of context, and to help people understand where he is actually coming from he helpfully explains, "I want to fully acknowledge the unimaginable suffering caused by the Nazi Holocaust that led to all of Europe saying 'never again'. But it is happening again, on a far greater scale and in plain sight. The global north is pumping lethal levels of CO2 into the atmosphere (..)" (Well, er, no: driving cars powered by fossil fuels is not an iteration of Auschwitz, and only a complete loony would think so.) Extinction Rebellion UK then declared that "Internal conversations have begun with the XR Conflict team about how to manage the conflict process that will address this issue. We stand by restorative outcomes as preferable (...)" ("Restorative" in this usage is a Steinerite cult term.) Here be real loonies.
"The Tes poll shows that 45 per cent of teachers plan to vote Labour next month, with the Lib Dems and Tories attracting 22 per cent and 14 per cent of the teacher vote respectively."
45% is pretty low I'd have thought. It's only 4% above what Labour got overall last time.
The ridiculous levels of Labour support amongst teachers are the best reason for not letting those under the age of 18 vote (and perhaps raising the voting age a little higher!). If the boot were on the other foot, would Labour be happy for new voters to be released into the wild after more than a decade of compulsory indoctrination in a closed community of Conservative diehards?
The biggest influence is family, not school. In any case, more teachers voted Conservative in 2010. Obviously that was before Michael Gove declared war on The Blob.
"The Tes poll shows that 45 per cent of teachers plan to vote Labour next month, with the Lib Dems and Tories attracting 22 per cent and 14 per cent of the teacher vote respectively."
45% is pretty low I'd have thought. It's only 4% above what Labour got overall last time.
The ridiculous levels of Labour support amongst teachers are the best reason for not letting those under the age of 18 vote (and perhaps raising the voting age a little higher!). If the boot were on the other foot, would Labour be happy for new voters to be released into the wild after more than a decade of compulsory indoctrination in a closed community of Conservative diehards?
"The Tes poll shows that 45 per cent of teachers plan to vote Labour next month, with the Lib Dems and Tories attracting 22 per cent and 14 per cent of the teacher vote respectively."
45% is pretty low I'd have thought. It's only 4% above what Labour got overall last time.
The ridiculous levels of Labour support amongst teachers are the best reason for not letting those under the age of 18 vote (and perhaps raising the voting age a little higher!). If the boot were on the other foot, would Labour be happy for new voters to be released into the wild after more than a decade of compulsory indoctrination in a closed community of Conservative diehards?
The biggest influence is family, not school.
This is true. But family influences school choice. And then the largely caste-based segregation of the school system influences how political attitudes are distributed among schoolteachers on each side of the wall. I doubt the predominance of Labour voters among teachers at state schools is much more pronounced than the predominance of Tory voters among teachers in the private sector.
Do Labour realise that council houses are not aspirational ?
And that few home owners want more council houses being built anywhere near where they live.
Corbyn Labour does not do aspiration, in Corbyn and McDonnell's dream UK everyone would live in a council house, work for the public sector, be a member of a trade union and send their kids to the local comp
For about the last 90 years, living in a council house HAS represented a step up the housing ladder for most tenants in the privately rented sector.
Do Labour realise that council houses are not aspirational ?
And that few home owners want more council houses being built anywhere near where they live.
Corbyn Labour does not do aspiration, in Corbyn and McDonnell's dream UK everyone would live in a council house, work for the public sector, be a member of a trade union and send their kids to the local comp
Unfortunately, the new Conservative definition of aspiration is "wait for your parents to die then spend the inheritance whilst bitching about immigrants and poor people."
Gabbard has very flat intonation. It doesn't do her any favours.
I think she's coming across fairly well, she's got a clear policy difference from everyone else.
Harris is utterly bland.
Re Harris: she's just "you know... you know..."
These guys all have campaign staff and debate camp. Yet Harris seems incapable of performing really well under pressure. I think that maker her a no-go for the nomination and the Presidency.
Gabbard has very flat intonation. It doesn't do her any favours.
I think she's coming across fairly well, she's got a clear policy difference from everyone else.
Harris is utterly bland.
Re Harris: she's just "you know... you know..."
These guys all have campaign staff and debate camp. Yet Harris seems incapable of performing really well under pressure. I think that maker her a no-go for the nomination and the Presidency.
Frankly, I don't see any of them that can beat Trump
Gabbard has very flat intonation. It doesn't do her any favours.
I think she's coming across fairly well, she's got a clear policy difference from everyone else.
Harris is utterly bland.
Re Harris: she's just "you know... you know..."
These guys all have campaign staff and debate camp. Yet Harris seems incapable of performing really well under pressure. I think that maker her a no-go for the nomination and the Presidency.
Frankly, I don't see any of them that can beat Trump
I think we overestimate the importance of candidates. The US chose Carter for goodness sake. Ultimately, if Americans feel the last four years have been good to them, and feel optimistic about the next four, then Trump will be re-elected. And if they do not, then in all probability a Democrat will be the next President.
Good to see Labour’s housing plan out in the open. Nothing for those who aspire to own their own home, only the prospect of a less-sh!tty landlord but with the added inconvenience of being almost impossible to move to a new location for work. Thanks Corbyn.
Pretty astonishing effort from Prince Andrew. Not many people can say they’ve held most of the front pages for five days in the middle of a general election campaign.
Good to see Labour’s housing plan out in the open. Nothing for those who aspire to own their own home, only the prospect of a less-sh!tty landlord but with the added inconvenience of being almost impossible to move to a new location for work. Thanks Corbyn.
To be absolutely fair, there is still a big need for social housing. Not everyone is going to be able to earn the necessary income to take on a mortgage, and having young families and the elderly in particular being bounced around an endless series of short-term lets is not at all desirable.
When Labour's manifesto drops, one of the major problems isn't going to be the nature of many of these spending pledges so much as the gargantuan scale. At the end of the day, the state can hardly make people's lives better if it has no money to spend (or, for that matter, if it has an inexhaustible supply of freshly-printed cash which has been rendered worthless by hyperinflation, which is what rather tends to happen under tinpot revolutionary socialist regimes.)
I had a conversation about Labour and the economy with a work colleague the other day, who had read the propaganda about the Tories selling off the NHS to the Americans and was fretting about it. My response was that I thought they wouldn't dare, but such is the nature of the Opposition that it would hardly matter anyway. Put the Revolutionary Friends of Venezuela in charge for a few years and the blessed NHS would be thrown on the bonfire, along with most other public services, because economic collapse would mean that the Government would no longer be able to afford the colossal cost of keeping it going.
Pretty astonishing effort from Prince Andrew. Not many people can say they’ve held most of the front pages for five days in the middle of a general election campaign.
Good to see Labour’s housing plan out in the open. Nothing for those who aspire to own their own home, only the prospect of a less-sh!tty landlord but with the added inconvenience of being almost impossible to move to a new location for work. Thanks Corbyn.
Owning one's own home can be a disincentive to moving to a new location for work. There used to be quite a 'market' in the small ads in local newspapers for 'Council House Swaps' And as Black Rook rightly says there's still a need for social housing, and being bounced around a series of short-term lets isn't a good thing.
As far as the NHS is concerned, there's a great deal of misunderstanding of who does actually 'own' what. GP's, for example, aren't normally employed by the NHS; they are independent contractors, although the contract under which they work often seems like employment! Making zero hours and similar contracts illegal would have to include exceptions for the four NHS contractor professions; GP's, dentists, opticians and pharmacists, although the economics of the market place has pretty well handed over pharmaceutical services to the Americans anyway.
Good to see Labour’s housing plan out in the open. Nothing for those who aspire to own their own home, only the prospect of a less-sh!tty landlord but with the added inconvenience of being almost impossible to move to a new location for work. Thanks Corbyn.
To be absolutely fair, there is still a big need for social housing. Not everyone is going to be able to earn the necessary income to take on a mortgage, and having young families and the elderly in particular being bounced around an endless series of short-term lets is not at all desirable.
When Labour's manifesto drops, one of the major problems isn't going to be the nature of many of these spending pledges so much as the gargantuan scale. At the end of the day, the state can hardly make people's lives better if it has no money to spend (or, for that matter, if it has an inexhaustible supply of freshly-printed cash which has been rendered worthless by hyperinflation, which is what rather tends to happen under tinpot revolutionary socialist regimes.)
I had a conversation about Labour and the economy with a work colleague the other day, who had read the propaganda about the Tories selling off the NHS to the Americans and was fretting about it. My response was that I thought they wouldn't dare, but such is the nature of the Opposition that it would hardly matter anyway. Put the Revolutionary Friends of Venezuela in charge for a few years and the blessed NHS would be thrown on the bonfire, along with most other public services, because economic collapse would mean that the Government would no longer be able to afford the colossal cost of keeping it going.
Labour will not run out of money building these houses. What it might run out of is builders. In terms of financial risk, I'd worry more about the blue team, especially as Boris has not removed the risk of leaving the EU without a deal, but merely punted it into the long grass.
To be absolutely fair, there is still a big need for social housing. Not everyone is going to be able to earn the necessary income to take on a mortgage, and having young families and the elderly in particular being bounced around an endless series of short-term lets is not at all desirable.
When Labour's manifesto drops, one of the major problems isn't going to be the nature of many of these spending pledges so much as the gargantuan scale. At the end of the day, the state can hardly make people's lives better if it has no money to spend (or, for that matter, if it has an inexhaustible supply of freshly-printed cash which has been rendered worthless by hyperinflation, which is what rather tends to happen under tinpot revolutionary socialist regimes.)
I had a conversation about Labour and the economy with a work colleague the other day, who had read the propaganda about the Tories selling off the NHS to the Americans and was fretting about it. My response was that I thought they wouldn't dare, but such is the nature of the Opposition that it would hardly matter anyway. Put the Revolutionary Friends of Venezuela in charge for a few years and the blessed NHS would be thrown on the bonfire, along with most other public services, because economic collapse would mean that the Government would no longer be able to afford the colossal cost of keeping it going.
The housing market is indeed very complicated, there's lots of moving parts to social housing, private renting, part ownership and full ownership, tied into migration patterns (internal and external to the country), family/household composition and the separate market for mortgage finance.
Just a hunch, but I'm not too sure that the aspiration of the young students supporting Corbyn is to be able to have a council house, rather they wish to own a home when and where they settle down - for which Labour is offering them nothing.
It's a major failing of all parties to fail to get a grip on housing - the population has gone up much faster than the housing supply in recent years.
I imagine that people are going to quickly start adding up all these pledges, it must be close to a trillion already, or sixteen thousand pounds in tax rises for every man, woman and child. He can go on about only taxing billionaires, but there won't be any left if he gets in - at least not until the hyperinflation really kicks in.
Can someone explain where this idea of "Boris Selling the NHS to Trump" came from? Has anyone actually proposed anything, or is this Labour trying to pretend what Conservatives will do in office? On a completely unrelated note, does anyone see the link between the very sad story coming out of Shrewsbury and Telford, and the NHS being totally and utterly unift for purpose?
I am not seeing any sign that Swinson is cutting through in this election campaign at all. The "girly swot" thing was juvenile and the continuous surplus except for capital spending really ties their hands and their legs behind their back in the "who can produce the most credible spending splurge" game that the others are playing.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I actually like that policy and thought Ed Davey sounded very like Conservative Chancellors of old with his pitch but it is more puritanical than even Hammond ever was with deeply uncomfortable short term implications.
I also agree with their legalisation policy for pot although it is very much a work in progress.
But they are not so much struggling to get a hearing as failing to persuade. Their position on Brexit has a very definite ceiling and it is turning out that ceiling is somewhat lower than many might have thought. Getting squeezed by something as dysfunctional and, frankly, repellent as Corbyn's Labour party is just embarrassing. It is a frustration to me that the appetite for a sane alternative seems so limited.
Do Labour realise that council houses are not aspirational ?
And that few home owners want more council houses being built anywhere near where they live.
Corbyn Labour does not do aspiration, in Corbyn and McDonnell's dream UK everyone would live in a council house, work for the public sector, be a member of a trade union and send their kids to the local comp
I am proud to send my kids to local schools - the eldest is at the local comp. I would happily join a trade union if my employer recognised them. I have worked for the public sector in the past and would do so again - it's full of hard working people. And I would be glad to see more council houses - better that than mass homelessness or Rachmanism in the private rental market - although I am lucky enough to own my own home thanks to the hard work of me and my wife. Since I grew up without much money, went to the local comp, and now have three degrees and a very well paid job I guess I am an example of aspiration. But unlike you I don't want to shit all over people who are less fortunate than me.
Good to see Labour’s housing plan out in the open. Nothing for those who aspire to own their own home, only the prospect of a less-sh!tty landlord but with the added inconvenience of being almost impossible to move to a new location for work. Thanks Corbyn.
I would hope that if there was not so much of a shortage of council housing, as there is now, that the restrictive rules on moving between areas could be relaxed/abolished.
Actually that's not 100% correct. Cutting taxes does actually benefit those not currently paying the tax by encouraging them to earn more. Taxes put off people from earning more, especially when this combines with other taxes and/or the removal of benefits.
The minimum wage for over 25s (living wage) is £8.21 per hour. 30 hours per week at £8.21 per hour takes you to £12.8k per annum. 20 hours per week at £8.21 takes you to £8.5k per annum.
If someone is currently working at 20 hours per week and is worried about the impact on taxes and the withdrawal of benefits and this change encourages them to increase to working 30 hour per week then theoretically they would have been classed as not gaining from this change previously but the reality is they gain more than anyone else.
That is why some tax stats never add up, because they forget that changing tax rates and thresholds changes behaviour.
If you are working 20 hours a week and qualify for working tax credits - chances are they a single parent with children in school or nursery and cannot work more hours due to child care reasons.
Maybe, maybe not. I have known a lot of people working 20 hours who don't want to work more because they think its not worth it due to taxes/benefits.
I've also known a smaller number of people who legitimately work 20 hours then work cash in hand more hours so they don't lose their benefits or pay taxes.
Not everyone is the same. The fraud cases are a small proportion but the people who are put off working more they could work as it is "not worth it" are much, much higher.
That is why IMO merging Income Tax and NICs is a good start but not enough IMO. Income Tax, NICs and Universal Credit should all be merged and nobody should be taxed at a high percentage. If you're losing 65% of every pound you earn due to lost Universal Credit and 12p in every pound you earn due to NICs then your effective income tax is 77%.
We wouldn't tax higher earners at 77% so why do we tax the poor at that rate? No wonder people think working 20 hours is enough and no point working more! This NIC change is a step in the right direction.
It’s crude but as a rule of thumb I don’t think anyone’s marginal tax rate (benefits + income tax + NI + student debt deductions) should be >50%
If you work more you have to be getting the majority of the rewards.
I am not seeing any sign that Swinson is cutting through in this election campaign at all. The "girly swot" thing was juvenile and the continuous surplus except for capital spending really ties their hands and their legs behind their back in the "who can produce the most credible spending splurge" game that the others are playing.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I actually like that policy and thought Ed Davey sounded very like Conservative Chancellors of old with his pitch but it is more puritanical than even Hammond ever was with deeply uncomfortable short term implications.
I also agree with their legalisation policy for pot although it is very much a work in progress.
But they are not so much struggling to get a hearing as failing to persuade. Their position on Brexit has a very definite ceiling and it is turning out that ceiling is somewhat lower than many might have thought. Getting squeezed by something as dysfunctional and, frankly, repellent as Corbyn's Labour party is just embarrassing. It is a frustration to me that the appetite for a sane alternative seems so limited.
They've completely tied their hands behind their backs with the Brexit policy IMO.
I'd happily vote for a libertarian book-balancing party, but not one that doesn't believe in democracy when the people vote the 'wrong' way.
Good to see Labour’s housing plan out in the open. Nothing for those who aspire to own their own home, only the prospect of a less-sh!tty landlord but with the added inconvenience of being almost impossible to move to a new location for work. Thanks Corbyn.
To be absolutely fair, there is still a big need for social housing. Not everyone is going to be able to earn the necessary income to take on a mortgage, and having young families and the elderly in particular being bounced around an endless series of short-term lets is not at all desirable.
When Labour's manifesto drops, one of the major problems isn't going to be the nature of many of these spending pledges so much as the gargantuan scale. At the end of the day, the state can hardly make people's lives better if it has no money to spend (or, for that matter, if it has an inexhaustible supply of freshly-printed cash which has been rendered worthless by hyperinflation, which is what rather tends to happen under tinpot revolutionary socialist regimes.)
I had a conversation about Labour and the economy with a work colleague the other day, who had read the propaganda about the Tories selling off the NHS to the Americans and was fretting about it. My response was that I thought they wouldn't dare, but such is the nature of the Opposition that it would hardly matter anyway. Put the Revolutionary Friends of Venezuela in charge for a few years and the blessed NHS would be thrown on the bonfire, along with most other public services, because economic collapse would mean that the Government would no longer be able to afford the colossal cost of keeping it going.
Labour will not run out of money building these houses. What it might run out of is builders. In terms of financial risk, I'd worry more about the blue team, especially as Boris has not removed the risk of leaving the EU without a deal, but merely punted it into the long grass.
Conservatives: "getting Brexit done" Labour: "there is no money left"; "fermenting the overthrow of capitalism"
The risks of leaving the EU are small, almost negligible, relative to those of putting the UK branch of the Hugo Chavez Appreciation Society in charge of everything.
The housing market is indeed very complicated, there's lots of moving parts to social housing, private renting, part ownership and full ownership, tied into migration patterns (internal and external to the country), family/household composition and the separate market for mortgage finance.
Just a hunch, but I'm not too sure that the aspiration of the young students supporting Corbyn is to be able to have a council house, rather they wish to own a home when and where they settle down - for which Labour is offering them nothing.
It's a major failing of all parties to fail to get a grip on housing - the population has gone up much faster than the housing supply in recent years.
I imagine that people are going to quickly start adding up all these pledges, it must be close to a trillion already, or sixteen thousand pounds in tax rises for every man, woman and child. He can go on about only taxing billionaires, but there won't be any left if he gets in - at least not until the hyperinflation really kicks in.
Can someone explain where this idea of "Boris Selling the NHS to Trump" came from? Has anyone actually proposed anything, or is this Labour trying to pretend what Conservatives will do in office? On a completely unrelated note, does anyone see the link between the very sad story coming out of Shrewsbury and Telford, and the NHS being totally and utterly unift for purpose?
I think that the NHS being up for sale is (very loosely) based on the Tories being keen on a trade deal with the US and the price being that US based health businesses being allowed to enter our health market and compete. This, in some slightly unclear way, is going to require us to have the NHS broken up into business units who would in turn compete for government funds and thus, apparently, be up for sale. A bit like the railways, I suppose.
If you are working 20 hours a week and qualify for working tax credits - chances are they a single parent with children in school or nursery and cannot work more hours due to child care reasons.
Maybe, maybe not. I have known a lot of people working 20 hours who don't want to work more because they think its not worth it due to taxes/benefits.
I've also known a smaller number of people who legitimately work 20 hours then work cash in hand more hours so they don't lose their benefits or pay taxes.
Not everyone is the same. The fraud cases are a small proportion but the people who are put off working more they could work as it is "not worth it" are much, much higher.
That is why IMO merging Income Tax and NICs is a good start but not enough IMO. Income Tax, NICs and Universal Credit should all be merged and nobody should be taxed at a high percentage. If you're losing 65% of every pound you earn due to lost Universal Credit and 12p in every pound you earn due to NICs then your effective income tax is 77%.
We wouldn't tax higher earners at 77% so why do we tax the poor at that rate? No wonder people think working 20 hours is enough and no point working more! This NIC change is a step in the right direction.
It’s crude but as a rule of thumb I don’t think anyone’s marginal tax rate (benefits + income tax + NI + student debt deductions) should be >50%
If you work more you have to be getting the majority of the rewards.
If someone were able to put together a graph that combined universal credit, housing/council tax benefit, income tax, NI, child benefit withdrawal, the pensions taper, and withdrawal of the personal allowance (Edit: and student debt repayments) into one chart then it would show the absolute horlicks that has been made of the system as a whole.
I think every Chancellor since at least Brown has contributed to making this worse.
If you are working 20 hours a week and qualify for working tax credits - chances are they a single parent with children in school or nursery and cannot work more hours due to child care reasons.
Maybe, maybe not. I have known a lot of people working 20 hours who don't want to work more because they think its not worth it due to taxes/benefits.
I've also known a smaller number of people who legitimately work 20 hours then work cash in hand more hours so they don't lose their benefits or pay taxes.
Not everyone is the same. The fraud cases are a small proportion but the people who are put off working more they could work as it is "not worth it" are much, much higher.
That is why IMO merging Income Tax and NICs is a good start but not enough IMO. Income Tax, NICs and Universal Credit should all be merged and nobody should be taxed at a high percentage. If you're losing 65% of every pound you earn due to lost Universal Credit and 12p in every pound you earn due to NICs then your effective income tax is 77%.
We wouldn't tax higher earners at 77% so why do we tax the poor at that rate? No wonder people think working 20 hours is enough and no point working more! This NIC change is a step in the right direction.
It’s crude but as a rule of thumb I don’t think anyone’s marginal tax rate (benefits + income tax + NI + student debt deductions) should be >50%
If you work more you have to be getting the majority of the rewards.
Tax credits, the single most pernicious government policy of the 21st century.
Quite literally bribing people with their own money, while imposing usurious tax rates on those who wish to do more work.
Taking taxes from people, then making almost all of them fill out forms to get some of it back is the most ridiculous system. As @Philip_Thompson says, merge it into payroll taxes, and use child benefit if we wish to incentivise or compensate for children. A much simpler system that worked for decades before Gordon Brown's meddling came along.
I am not seeing any sign that Swinson is cutting through in this election campaign at all. The "girly swot" thing was juvenile and the continuous surplus except for capital spending really ties their hands and their legs behind their back in the "who can produce the most credible spending splurge" game that the others are playing.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I actually like that policy and thought Ed Davey sounded very like Conservative Chancellors of old with his pitch but it is more puritanical than even Hammond ever was with deeply uncomfortable short term implications.
I also agree with their legalisation policy for pot although it is very much a work in progress.
But they are not so much struggling to get a hearing as failing to persuade. Their position on Brexit has a very definite ceiling and it is turning out that ceiling is somewhat lower than many might have thought. Getting squeezed by something as dysfunctional and, frankly, repellent as Corbyn's Labour party is just embarrassing. It is a frustration to me that the appetite for a sane alternative seems so limited.
They've completely tied their hands behind their backs with the Brexit policy IMO.
I'd happily vote for a libertarian book-balancing party, but not one that doesn't believe in democracy when the people vote the 'wrong' way.
Another example of remainer overshoot. All those petitions, marches, court cases, economic models etc etc. They persuaded themselves people were screaming out for an end to Brexit. Turns out most people are actually democrats after all.
Good to see Labour’s housing plan out in the open. Nothing for those who aspire to own their own home, only the prospect of a less-sh!tty landlord but with the added inconvenience of being almost impossible to move to a new location for work. Thanks Corbyn.
To be absolutely fair, there is still a big need for social housing. Not everyone is going to be able to earn the necessary income to take on a mortgage, and having young families and the elderly in particular being bounced around an endless series of short-term lets is not at all desirable.
When Labour's manifesto drops, one of the major problems isn't going to be the nature of many of these spending pledges so much as the gargantuan scale. At the end of the day, the state can hardly make people's lives better if it has no money to spend (or, for that matter, if it has an inexhaustible supply of freshly-printed cash which has been rendered worthless by hyperinflation, which is what rather tends to happen under tinpot revolutionary socialist regimes.)
I had a conversation about Labour and the economy with a work colleague the other day, who had read the propaganda about the Tories selling off the NHS to the Americans and was fretting about it. My response was that I thought they wouldn't dare, but such is the nature of the Opposition that it would hardly matter anyway. Put the Revolutionary Friends of Venezuela in charge for a few years and the blessed NHS would be thrown on the bonfire, along with most other public services, because economic collapse would mean that the Government would no longer be able to afford the colossal cost of keeping it going.
Labour will not run out of money building these houses. What it might run out of is builders. In terms of financial risk, I'd worry more about the blue team, especially as Boris has not removed the risk of leaving the EU without a deal, but merely punted it into the long grass.
Conservatives: "getting Brexit done" Labour: "there is no money left"; "fermenting the overthrow of capitalism"
The risks of leaving the EU are small, almost negligible, relative to those of putting the UK branch of the Hugo Chavez Appreciation Society in charge of everything.
How much will leaving the EU cost? Or save? The LibDems think it will cost £50 billion. Jacob Rees-Mogg said we'd be trillions better off outside. But never mind totting up the Tories' income and expenditure, not when we've got Venezuela.
On DOO, scrapping it is a truly dumb idea. In fact, it should be extended.
DOO is part of automatic train operation and moving to a future digital railway. It’s why Thameslink, London Overground and C2C can operate trains so precisely at such a high frequency rate as software can pump trains through a section at very high intervals using moving block technology. It also lowers costs to both the farepayer and the taxpayer by lowering the costs of operating the franchise, and increasing its reliability.
The issue the Unions have isn’t that all operators want to scrap a *staffing presence* on their services, most still want a ‘customer services’ agent on their trains and at busy times you’ll also see staff on platforms, it’s that this individual won’t be a union member (“a railway person”) as their safety critical duties to open and close the doors are no longer necessary.
There’s a couple of reasons why this is an issue for Unions. Firstly, they lose the membership subscriptions and fees. And secondly, it makes it harder for them to control train services and strike for their members in future as a driver can be more easily substituted.
On the Operator side they want to be able to retain the option to dispatch a DOO train *without* a customer services agent in the event of a severely degraded or perturbed service. Every been frustrated by a stranded train where you’re told you’re waiting for a guard (train crew) because they’re in the wrong place, so you have to sit there delayed? This is why. Operators having this option will increase the overall PPM reliability of the franchise and aid service recovery times when that happens. Which it does.
It’s a classic 70s example of Unions defending a restricted working practice in order to protect their control over an industry. It will cost us more money, lead to a less reliable service and a lower capacity of train services and it’s remarkable they’re pulling the wool over so many people’s eyes with their “safety” argument.
We have one of the toughest and most pedantic regulators in the world, the ORR. They don’t touch DOO unless it’s totally and completely safe and it has to go through several independent bodies before it even gets to them too.
The housing market is indeed very complicated, there's lots of moving parts to social housing, private renting, part ownership and full ownership, tied into migration patterns (internal and external to the country), family/household composition and the separate market for mortgage finance.
Just a hunch, but I'm not too sure that the aspiration of the young students supporting Corbyn is to be able to have a council house, rather they wish to own a home when and where they settle down - for which Labour is offering them nothing.
It's a major failing of all parties to fail to get a grip on housing - the population has gone up much faster than the housing supply in recent years.
I imagine that people are going to quickly start adding up all these pledges, it must be close to a trillion already, or sixteen thousand pounds in tax rises for every man, woman and child. He can go on about only taxing billionaires, but there won't be any left if he gets in - at least not until the hyperinflation really kicks in.
Can someone explain where this idea of "Boris Selling the NHS to Trump" came from? Has anyone actually proposed anything, or is this Labour trying to pretend what Conservatives will do in office? On a completely unrelated note, does anyone see the link between the very sad story coming out of Shrewsbury and Telford, and the NHS being totally and utterly unift for purpose?
I think that the NHS being up for sale is (very loosely) based on the Tories being keen on a trade deal with the US and the price being that US based health businesses being allowed to enter our health market and compete. This, in some slightly unclear way, is going to require us to have the NHS broken up into business units who would in turn compete for government funds and thus, apparently, be up for sale. A bit like the railways, I suppose.
The NHS is already broken up into all sorts of units, which could, with a bit of jiggery-pokery, be sold off.
Interesting article, but I'd say Clegg had a good choice and took it. There were some mistakes, not least positioning the Lib Dems as having stopped the evil Tories from doing more evil things (opening up the obvious loss of credit for good things and the question of why the Coalition was worth forming if the partner party was so Satanic), but the decision itself was correct.
The housing market is indeed very complicated, there's lots of moving parts to social housing, private renting, part ownership and full ownership, tied into migration patterns (internal and external to the country), family/household composition and the separate market for mortgage finance.
Just a hunch, but I'm not too sure that the aspiration of the young students supporting Corbyn is to be able to have a council house, rather they wish to own a home when and where they settle down - for which Labour is offering them nothing.
It's a major failing of all parties to fail to get a grip on housing - the population has gone up much faster than the housing supply in recent years.
I imagine that people are going to quickly start adding up all these pledges, it must be close to a trillion already, or sixteen thousand pounds in tax rises for every man, woman and child. He can go on about only taxing billionaires, but there won't be any left if he gets in - at least not until the hyperinflation really kicks in.
Can someone explain where this idea of "Boris Selling the NHS to Trump" came from? Has anyone actually proposed anything, or is this Labour trying to pretend what Conservatives will do in office? On a completely unrelated note, does anyone see the link between the very sad story coming out of Shrewsbury and Telford, and the NHS being totally and utterly unift for purpose?
I think that the NHS being up for sale is (very loosely) based on the Tories being keen on a trade deal with the US and the price being that US based health businesses being allowed to enter our health market and compete. This, in some slightly unclear way, is going to require us to have the NHS broken up into business units who would in turn compete for government funds and thus, apparently, be up for sale. A bit like the railways, I suppose.
So, based on nothing at all then! Why on earth would US health companies have any interest in what they call a 'single payer' system? There would be very little profit to be earned, and it's hardly as if US healthcare is renowned for its ability to operate efficiently. Have the critics also not noticed that the current NHS is broken up into business units called Trusts, competing for government funds?
As anyone who's ever lived abroad will know, the UK and USA have the two most broken healthcare systems in the Western World - just for opposite reasons. Absolutely every other system is better.
Hastings and Rye was a Labour gain until a couple of days ago.
Milton Keynes North trended massively toward Labour in 2010 so could be an outside chance of a gain if the currents continue that way.
I think it’s one of those places that a lot of young first time buyers move to from places like London.
It’s still basically a New Town (under English Partnerships these days, or whatever their successor brand is) and still planning and building a lot of new housing long-term.
If you are working 20 hours a week and qualify for working tax credits - chances are they a single parent with children in school or nursery and cannot work more hours due to child care reasons.
Maybe, maybe not. I have known a lot of people working 20 hours who don't want to work more because they think its not worth it due to taxes/benefits.
I've also known a smaller number of people who legitimately work 20 hours then work cash in hand more hours so they don't lose their benefits or pay taxes.
Not everyone is the same. The fraud cases are a small proportion but the people who are put off working more they could work as it is "not worth it" are much, much higher.
That is why IMO merging Income Tax and NICs is a good start but not enough IMO. Income Tax, NICs and Universal Credit should all be merged and nobody should be taxed at a high percentage. If you're losing 65% of every pound you earn due to lost Universal Credit and 12p in every pound you earn due to NICs then your effective income tax is 77%.
We wouldn't tax higher earners at 77% so why do we tax the poor at that rate? No wonder people think working 20 hours is enough and no point working more! This NIC change is a step in the right direction.
It’s crude but as a rule of thumb I don’t think anyone’s marginal tax rate (benefits + income tax + NI + student debt deductions) should be >50%
If you work more you have to be getting the majority of the rewards.
If someone were able to put together a graph that combined universal credit, housing/council tax benefit, income tax, NI, child benefit withdrawal, the pensions taper, and withdrawal of the personal allowance (Edit: and student debt repayments) into one chart then it would show the absolute horlicks that has been made of the system as a whole.
I think every Chancellor since at least Brown has contributed to making this worse.
Indeed. But it would leave politicians with nowhere to go for political tinkering in budgets.
The housing market is indeed very complicated, there's lots of moving parts to social housing, private renting, part ownership and full ownership, tied into migration patterns (internal and external to the country), family/household composition and the separate market for mortgage finance.
Just a hunch, but I'm not too sure that the aspiration of the young students supporting Corbyn is to be able to have a council house, rather they wish to own a home when and where they settle down - for which Labour is offering them nothing.
It's a major failing of all parties to fail to get a grip on housing - the population has gone up much faster than the housing supply in recent years.
I imagine that people are going to quickly start adding up all these pledges, it must be close to a trillion already, or sixteen thousand pounds in tax rises for every man, woman and child. He can go on about only taxing billionaires, but there won't be any left if he gets in - at least not until the hyperinflation really kicks in.
Can someone explain where this idea of "Boris Selling the NHS to Trump" came from? Has anyone actually proposed anything, or is this Labour trying to pretend what Conservatives will do in office? On a completely unrelated note, does anyone see the link between the very sad story coming out of Shrewsbury and Telford, and the NHS being totally and utterly unift for purpose?
I think that the NHS being up for sale is (very loosely) based on the Tories being keen on a trade deal with the US and the price being that US based health businesses being allowed to enter our health market and compete. This, in some slightly unclear way, is going to require us to have the NHS broken up into business units who would in turn compete for government funds and thus, apparently, be up for sale. A bit like the railways, I suppose.
The NHS is already broken up into all sorts of units, which could, with a bit of jiggery-pokery, be sold off.
They're not exactly profit centres are they? A business built on dealing with open ended demand with no opportunity to charge needs a bit of work. If you go on a pay as you go model the government loses all control of what is spent in one of their largest areas of expenditure. It's a pretty ludicrous idea all round.
I think that the NHS being up for sale is (very loosely) based on the Tories being keen on a trade deal with the US and the price being that US based health businesses being allowed to enter our health market and compete. This, in some slightly unclear way, is going to require us to have the NHS broken up into business units who would in turn compete for government funds and thus, apparently, be up for sale. A bit like the railways, I suppose.
I think it comes from an unconscious acknowledgment by the Left that the NHS is in crisis, a crisis to which they have no answer except the fairy tale belief that they can tax a vast army of billionaires who will do nothing but stay put and be taxed into oblivion. But if that doesn't work - well, it requires a level of surgery that only the Right could ever sanction. So just believe in the fairy tale.
The NHS has grown too complex, too expensive, too all-encompassing to be sustained in its current form by taxation of the private sector by the State. Yet it is a national religion, so it is easier to burn heretics who point this out than consider a Reformation.
But despite the Spanish Inquisition of the Left, the Conservatives themselves aren't heretics. They still keep insisting that it can be saved in its current form. It is a thinking that has led to promoting the Bus of Brexit as the major answer to a funding gap. A gap that cannot be bridged.
Failure to be honest on the NHS is a facet of the failure of politics and of politicians in this country.
The only answer? A cross-party supported Royal Commission of the brightest in the land, with a remit to think the unthinkable on the NHS. But whatever that is, wherever that goes, it needs to have a plan to keep health and social care functioning for the next 40 years. And it needs a pledge by politicians to implement their findings, however toxic they might seem today.
I am not seeing any sign that Swinson is cutting through in this election campaign at all. The "girly swot" thing was juvenile and the continuous surplus except for capital spending really ties their hands and their legs behind their back in the "who can produce the most credible spending splurge" game that the others are playing.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I actually like that policy and thought Ed Davey sounded very like Conservative Chancellors of old with his pitch but it is more puritanical than even Hammond ever was with deeply uncomfortable short term implications.
I also agree with their legalisation policy for pot although it is very much a work in progress.
But they are not so much struggling to get a hearing as failing to persuade. Their position on Brexit has a very definite ceiling and it is turning out that ceiling is somewhat lower than many might have thought. Getting squeezed by something as dysfunctional and, frankly, repellent as Corbyn's Labour party is just embarrassing. It is a frustration to me that the appetite for a sane alternative seems so limited.
They've completely tied their hands behind their backs with the Brexit policy IMO.
I'd happily vote for a libertarian book-balancing party, but not one that doesn't believe in democracy when the people vote the 'wrong' way.
Another example of remainer overshoot. All those petitions, marches, court cases, economic models etc etc. They persuaded themselves people were screaming out for an end to Brexit. Turns out most people are actually democrats after all.
Hindsight is always difficult, as there's been such a pace of political movement that led up to this election, but I think the Revoke policy puts a ceiling of about 15% on LD support. They're a group that are well-represented in politics and the media, and in London, but there's not as many of them as perhaps their profile suggests.
The LDs might look back and think that, facing Corbyn, they had the best shot in a generation to advance towards being the official opposition, but their policy on the main issue of the day held them back from achieving that aim.
Interesting article, but I'd say Clegg had a good choice and took it. There were some mistakes, not least positioning the Lib Dems as having stopped the evil Tories from doing more evil things (opening up the obvious loss of credit for good things and the question of why the Coalition was worth forming if the partner party was so Satanic), but the decision itself was correct.
I agree with this. However, the "some mistakes" turned out to be very big mistakes.
The housing market is indeed very complicated, there's lots of moving parts to social housing, private renting, part ownership and full ownership, tied into migration patterns (internal and external to the country), family/household composition and the separate market for mortgage finance.
Just a hunch, but I'm not too sure that the aspiration of the young students supporting Corbyn is to be able to have a council house, rather they wish to own a home when and where they settle down - for which Labour is offering them nothing.
It's a major failing of all parties to fail to get a grip on housing - the population has gone up much faster than the housing supply in recent years.
I imagine that people are going to quickly start adding up all these pledges, it must be close to a trillion already, or sixteen thousand pounds in tax rises for every man, woman and child. He can go on about only taxing billionaires, but there won't be any left if he gets in - at least not until the hyperinflation really kicks in.
Can someone explain where this idea of "Boris Selling the NHS to Trump" came from? Has anyone actually proposed anything, or is this Labour trying to pretend what Conservatives will do in office? On a completely unrelated note, does anyone see the link between the very sad story coming out of Shrewsbury and Telford, and the NHS being totally and utterly unift for purpose?
I think that the NHS being up for sale is (very loosely) based on the Tories being keen on a trade deal with the US and the price being that US based health businesses being allowed to enter our health market and compete. This, in some slightly unclear way, is going to require us to have the NHS broken up into business units who would in turn compete for government funds and thus, apparently, be up for sale. A bit like the railways, I suppose.
So, based on nothing at all then! Why on earth would US health companies have any interest in what they call a 'single payer' system? There would be very little profit to be earned, and it's hardly as if US healthcare is renowned for its ability to operate efficiently. Have the critics also not noticed that the current NHS is broken up into business units called Trusts, competing for government funds?
As anyone who's ever lived abroad will know, the UK and USA have the two most broken healthcare systems in the Western World - just for opposite reasons. Absolutely every other system is better.
You need to go back to denying the existence of God. Way less sacrilegious.
Pretty astonishing effort from Prince Andrew. Not many people can say they’ve held most of the front pages for five days in the middle of a general election campaign.
The Queen has been very good, throughout her reign, at moving quickly to shut down threats to the monarchy.
This wasn’t serious but it did threaten to escalate and drag others in if she hadn’t acted due to Andrew’s crass stupidity and pomposity.
It’s also made (and I surprise myself in saying this) Charles look good by comparison. He’s been more statesmanlike and decisive behind the scenes (without at all making it about him) than I’ve seen before which bodes well for the future.
I am not seeing any sign that Swinson is cutting through in this election campaign at all. The "girly swot" thing was juvenile and the continuous surplus except for capital spending really ties their hands and their legs behind their back in the "who can produce the most credible spending splurge" game that the others are playing.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I actually like that policy and thought Ed Davey sounded very like Conservative Chancellors of old with his pitch but it is more puritanical than even Hammond ever was with deeply uncomfortable short term implications.
I also agree with their legalisation policy for pot although it is very much a work in progress.
But they are not so much struggling to get a hearing as failing to persuade. Their position on Brexit has a very definite ceiling and it is turning out that ceiling is somewhat lower than many might have thought. Getting squeezed by something as dysfunctional and, frankly, repellent as Corbyn's Labour party is just embarrassing. It is a frustration to me that the appetite for a sane alternative seems so limited.
They could - should - have mirrored Labour on Brexit. By two parties suggesting it might in itself have made the renegotiate -> revote seem less muddled. But it would have done what Labour did to the Tories in 2017: left not a fag paper between the two parties on Brexit, so highlighting the differences on all other policies. And those differences would have been that Labour is Loony Marxit Left, the LibDems are sensible Left, with a sensible Budget being proposed by a sensible Chancellor in waiting - our price for a Coalition, Labour.
I think that the NHS being up for sale is (very loosely) based on the Tories being keen on a trade deal with the US and the price being that US based health businesses being allowed to enter our health market and compete. This, in some slightly unclear way, is going to require us to have the NHS broken up into business units who would in turn compete for government funds and thus, apparently, be up for sale. A bit like the railways, I suppose.
So, based on nothing at all then! Why on earth would US health companies have any interest in what they call a 'single payer' system? There would be very little profit to be earned, and it's hardly as if US healthcare is renowned for its ability to operate efficiently. Have the critics also not noticed that the current NHS is broken up into business units called Trusts, competing for government funds?
As anyone who's ever lived abroad will know, the UK and USA have the two most broken healthcare systems in the Western World - just for opposite reasons. Absolutely every other system is better.
You need to go back to denying the existence of God. Way less sacrilegious.
Healthcare Housing Planning Social Care Higher Education Transport infrastructure Pensions Tax Code reform Devolution and local government
All put on the 'too-difficult' list by successive governments, because any proper solutions (as opposed to minor tinkering dressed up as significant change) will be politically almost impossible to sell to the public.
Time to kick off non-partisan Royal Commissions on all of the above, have them look at what systems work and come up with workable proposals. If the next government can do that, I will be surprisingly shocked and happy to have voted for them.
I think that the NHS being up for sale is (very loosely) based on the Tories being keen on a trade deal with the US and the price being that US based health businesses being allowed to enter our health market and compete. This, in some slightly unclear way, is going to require us to have the NHS broken up into business units who would in turn compete for government funds and thus, apparently, be up for sale. A bit like the railways, I suppose.
So, based on nothing at all then! Why on earth would US health companies have any interest in what they call a 'single payer' system? There would be very little profit to be earned, and it's hardly as if US healthcare is renowned for its ability to operate efficiently. Have the critics also not noticed that the current NHS is broken up into business units called Trusts, competing for government funds?
As anyone who's ever lived abroad will know, the UK and USA have the two most broken healthcare systems in the Western World - just for opposite reasons. Absolutely every other system is better.
You need to go back to denying the existence of God. Way less sacrilegious.
Healthcare Housing Planning Social Care Higher Education Transport infrastructure Pensions Tax Code reform Devolution and local government
All put on the 'too-difficult' list by successive governments, because any proper solutions (as opposed to minor tinkering dressed up as significant change) will be politically almost impossible to sell to the public.
Time to kick off non-partisan Royal Commissions on all of the above, have them look at what systems work and come up with workable proposals. If the next government can do that, I will be surprisingly shocked and happy to have voted for them.
Royal Commissions tend to come back with the answer those setting them up wanted to get and provide a cover to do what those setting them up wanted to do anyway.
Why would a Royal Commission come up with a better "proper solution" than anything else?
The housing market is indeed very complicated, there's lots of moving parts to social housing, private renting, part ownership and full ownership, tied into migration patterns (internal and external to the country), family/household composition and the separate market for mortgage finance.
Just a hunch, but I'm not too sure that the aspiration of the young students supporting Corbyn is to be able to have a council house, rather they wish to own a home when and where they settle down - for which Labour is offering them nothing.
It's a major failing of all parties to fail to get a grip on housing - the population has gone up much faster than the housing supply in recent years.
I imagine that people are going to quickly start adding up all these pledges, it must be close to a trillion already, or sixteen thousand pounds in tax rises for every man, woman and child. He can go on about only taxing billionaires, but there won't be any left if he gets in - at least not until the hyperinflation really kicks in.
Can someone explain where this idea of "Boris Selling the NHS to Trump" came from? Has anyone actually proposed anything, or is this Labour trying to pretend what Conservatives will do in office? On a completely unrelated note, does anyone see the link between the very sad story coming out of Shrewsbury and Telford, and the NHS being totally and utterly unift for purpose?
I think that the NHS being up for sale is (very loosely) based on the Tories being keen on a trade deal with the US and the price being that US based health businesses being allowed to enter our health market and compete. This, in some slightly unclear way, is going to require us to have the NHS broken up into business units who would in turn compete for government funds and thus, apparently, be up for sale. A bit like the railways, I suppose.
The NHS is already broken up into all sorts of units, which could, with a bit of jiggery-pokery, be sold off.
They're not exactly profit centres are they? A business built on dealing with open ended demand with no opportunity to charge needs a bit of work. If you go on a pay as you go model the government loses all control of what is spent in one of their largest areas of expenditure. It's a pretty ludicrous idea all round.
The contractor services are, plus locally we have a contractor for what were once described as out-patient services.
I don't know too much about what's happened in Portugal in the past few years, but I do know there's not hundreds of murders and attempted murders in Lisbon every year by rival gangs of youths trying to control their drug trade.
I note with some interest that Flavible has the Tories increasing their vote and their majority in Totnes, with both Labour and the Wollaston LibDems on 22% and us Blues adding a few thousand to the majority Wollaston last had.
Which would be a most perfect result. Here's hoping.
I think building more council houses is a great idea, personally I'd cut out right to rip off councils and look to cut out landlord benefit too. No chance on God's green earth Labour will reduce HB though.
They could - should - have mirrored Labour on Brexit. By two parties suggesting it might in itself have made the renegotiate -> revote seem less muddled. But it would have done what Labour did to the Tories in 2017: left not a fag paper between the two parties on Brexit, so highlighting the differences on all other policies. And those differences would have been that Labour is Loony Marxit Left, the LibDems are sensible Left, with a sensible Budget being proposed by a sensible Chancellor in waiting - our price for a Coalition, Labour.
Instead, Swinson has fucked it up.
That assumes that the Labour Brexit position makes sense to anyone other than Richard "IQ" Burgon. Out in the campaign the Labour position is *derided*. In opposition the LibDems would put The Deal - whatever it is - in a referendum vs remain. And have proposed that repeatedly only for Labour repeatedly not to support such a referendum.
Where perhaps she went wrong was the suggestion that "I can be Prime Minister". She can*, in a scenario where its an absurdly hung parliament and her 100 seats provides stability against a collapsing Labour partner or something. A LibDem Majority government? Don't be silly Jo.
However, there is a democratic deficit at play. Every poll shows a now decent and consistent majority for remain. We have a hard leave party, two soft leave parties. Are we really saying there shouldn't be a party speaking for remain? Despite said consistent majority support for it?
I don't know too much about what's happened in Portugal in the past few years, but I do know there's not hundreds of murders and attempted murders in Lisbon every year by rival gangs of youths trying to control their drug trade.
I hope Swinson thought long and hard on the drug gang-related knife deaths when she was enjoying puffing her weed.
Comments
Nothing we do will make the slightest fraction of a dent compared to China.
I know of people in private rent who aspire to a council house for the security of tenure. But yes, I suspect that on the whole the same people aspire to own their own home. Castle and all that.
http://vote-2012.proboards.com/post/869314
'Winning Here!'
A simpler measure. £1 trillion = 10 HS2s this year
If you want complication, it's 9 next year, 8 the year after...
The Lib Dem’s have not been strong here all the while I’ve lived here. Years ago there was a very strong independent representation on Barnsley council, which I think took from their potential support base.
They were slightly more active in the part of Barnsley which is in Penistone & Stocksbridge around the 2010 election, when there was some debate over who would emerge as the main challenger to Labour there, but their strength in that constituency came from the Sheffield wards where they had councillors. That has also fallen away now, and they were in 4th place in the last two elections there.
I don’t see any reason why they should improve any this time. Around 1% in both Barnsley wards and maybe squeezed a bit more in P&S with most of that vote coming from Sheffield.
Barnsley Central like almost every labour leave seat trended Tory in 2017. If it trends Tory again it might get back to 2010 levels of attainability for the blue team
The LibDem manifesto is a first draft of the sort of document that will be needed to face down fascism in 5 or 10 years.
Jenni Russell
Algorithms and smartphones make the world more efficient but the price is a terrible loneliness"
(£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/our-addiction-to-tech-is-tearing-us-apart-9x750kz07
Also, I got Stadia today.
Harris is utterly bland.
These guys all have campaign staff and debate camp. Yet Harris seems incapable of performing really well under pressure. I think that maker her a no-go for the nomination and the Presidency.
No capitalisation of first letter.
When Labour's manifesto drops, one of the major problems isn't going to be the nature of many of these spending pledges so much as the gargantuan scale. At the end of the day, the state can hardly make people's lives better if it has no money to spend (or, for that matter, if it has an inexhaustible supply of freshly-printed cash which has been rendered worthless by hyperinflation, which is what rather tends to happen under tinpot revolutionary socialist regimes.)
I had a conversation about Labour and the economy with a work colleague the other day, who had read the propaganda about the Tories selling off the NHS to the Americans and was fretting about it. My response was that I thought they wouldn't dare, but such is the nature of the Opposition that it would hardly matter anyway. Put the Revolutionary Friends of Venezuela in charge for a few years and the blessed NHS would be thrown on the bonfire, along with most other public services, because economic collapse would mean that the Government would no longer be able to afford the colossal cost of keeping it going.
And as Black Rook rightly says there's still a need for social housing, and being bounced around a series of short-term lets isn't a good thing.
As far as the NHS is concerned, there's a great deal of misunderstanding of who does actually 'own' what. GP's, for example, aren't normally employed by the NHS; they are independent contractors, although the contract under which they work often seems like employment! Making zero hours and similar contracts illegal would have to include exceptions for the four NHS contractor professions; GP's, dentists, opticians and pharmacists, although the economics of the market place has pretty well handed over pharmaceutical services to the Americans anyway.
Just a hunch, but I'm not too sure that the aspiration of the young students supporting Corbyn is to be able to have a council house, rather they wish to own a home when and where they settle down - for which Labour is offering them nothing.
It's a major failing of all parties to fail to get a grip on housing - the population has gone up much faster than the housing supply in recent years.
I imagine that people are going to quickly start adding up all these pledges, it must be close to a trillion already, or sixteen thousand pounds in tax rises for every man, woman and child. He can go on about only taxing billionaires, but there won't be any left if he gets in - at least not until the hyperinflation really kicks in.
Can someone explain where this idea of "Boris Selling the NHS to Trump" came from? Has anyone actually proposed anything, or is this Labour trying to pretend what Conservatives will do in office? On a completely unrelated note, does anyone see the link between the very sad story coming out of Shrewsbury and Telford, and the NHS being totally and utterly unift for purpose?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I actually like that policy and thought Ed Davey sounded very like Conservative Chancellors of old with his pitch but it is more puritanical than even Hammond ever was with deeply uncomfortable short term implications.
I also agree with their legalisation policy for pot although it is very much a work in progress.
But they are not so much struggling to get a hearing as failing to persuade. Their position on Brexit has a very definite ceiling and it is turning out that ceiling is somewhat lower than many might have thought. Getting squeezed by something as dysfunctional and, frankly, repellent as Corbyn's Labour party is just embarrassing. It is a frustration to me that the appetite for a sane alternative seems so limited.
Since I grew up without much money, went to the local comp, and now have three degrees and a very well paid job I guess I am an example of aspiration. But unlike you I don't want to shit all over people who are less fortunate than me.
If you work more you have to be getting the majority of the rewards.
I'd happily vote for a libertarian book-balancing party, but not one that doesn't believe in democracy when the people vote the 'wrong' way.
Labour: "there is no money left"; "fermenting the overthrow of capitalism"
The risks of leaving the EU are small, almost negligible, relative to those of putting the UK branch of the Hugo Chavez Appreciation Society in charge of everything.
I doubt there are many who’d be delighted to live in one.
I think every Chancellor since at least Brown has contributed to making this worse.
Quite literally bribing people with their own money, while imposing usurious tax rates on those who wish to do more work.
Taking taxes from people, then making almost all of them fill out forms to get some of it back is the most ridiculous system. As @Philip_Thompson says, merge it into payroll taxes, and use child benefit if we wish to incentivise or compensate for children. A much simpler system that worked for decades before Gordon Brown's meddling came along.
Meanwhile, I see Diane Abbott Boris has got his sums muddled up over National Insurance.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50496609
DOO is part of automatic train operation and moving to a future digital railway. It’s why Thameslink, London Overground and C2C can operate trains so precisely at such a high frequency rate as software can pump trains through a section at very high intervals using moving block technology. It also lowers costs to both the farepayer and the taxpayer by lowering the costs of operating the franchise, and increasing its reliability.
The issue the Unions have isn’t that all operators want to scrap a *staffing presence* on their services, most still want a ‘customer services’ agent on their trains and at busy times you’ll also see staff on platforms, it’s that this individual won’t be a union member (“a railway person”) as their safety critical duties to open and close the doors are no longer necessary.
There’s a couple of reasons why this is an issue for Unions. Firstly, they lose the membership subscriptions and fees. And secondly, it makes it harder for them to control train services and strike for their members in future as a driver can be more easily substituted.
On the Operator side they want to be able to retain the option to dispatch a DOO train *without* a customer services agent in the event of a severely degraded or perturbed service. Every been frustrated by a stranded train where you’re told you’re waiting for a guard (train crew) because they’re in the wrong place, so you have to sit there delayed? This is why. Operators having this option will increase the overall PPM reliability of the franchise and aid service recovery times when that happens. Which it does.
It’s a classic 70s example of Unions defending a restricted working practice in order to protect their control over an industry. It will cost us more money, lead to a less reliable service and a lower capacity of train services and it’s remarkable they’re pulling the wool over so many people’s eyes with their “safety” argument.
We have one of the toughest and most pedantic regulators in the world, the ORR. They don’t touch DOO unless it’s totally and completely safe and it has to go through several independent bodies before it even gets to them too.
It’s a totally bogus argument.
Interesting article, but I'd say Clegg had a good choice and took it. There were some mistakes, not least positioning the Lib Dems as having stopped the evil Tories from doing more evil things (opening up the obvious loss of credit for good things and the question of why the Coalition was worth forming if the partner party was so Satanic), but the decision itself was correct.
As anyone who's ever lived abroad will know, the UK and USA have the two most broken healthcare systems in the Western World - just for opposite reasons. Absolutely every other system is better.
It’s still basically a New Town (under English Partnerships these days, or whatever their successor brand is) and still planning and building a lot of new housing long-term.
The NHS has grown too complex, too expensive, too all-encompassing to be sustained in its current form by taxation of the private sector by the State. Yet it is a national religion, so it is easier to burn heretics who point this out than consider a Reformation.
But despite the Spanish Inquisition of the Left, the Conservatives themselves aren't heretics. They still keep insisting that it can be saved in its current form. It is a thinking that has led to promoting the Bus of Brexit as the major answer to a funding gap. A gap that cannot be bridged.
Failure to be honest on the NHS is a facet of the failure of politics and of politicians in this country.
The only answer? A cross-party supported Royal Commission of the brightest in the land, with a remit to think the unthinkable on the NHS. But whatever that is, wherever that goes, it needs to have a plan to keep health and social care functioning for the next 40 years. And it needs a pledge by politicians to implement their findings, however toxic they might seem today.
The LDs might look back and think that, facing Corbyn, they had the best shot in a generation to advance towards being the official opposition, but their policy on the main issue of the day held them back from achieving that aim.
This wasn’t serious but it did threaten to escalate and drag others in if she hadn’t acted due to Andrew’s crass stupidity and pomposity.
It’s also made (and I surprise myself in saying this) Charles look good by comparison. He’s been more statesmanlike and decisive behind the scenes (without at all making it about him) than I’ve seen before which bodes well for the future.
Instead, Swinson has fucked it up.
Housing
Planning
Social Care
Higher Education
Transport infrastructure
Pensions
Tax Code reform
Devolution and local government
All put on the 'too-difficult' list by successive governments, because any proper solutions (as opposed to minor tinkering dressed up as significant change) will be politically almost impossible to sell to the public.
Time to kick off non-partisan Royal Commissions on all of the above, have them look at what systems work and come up with workable proposals. If the next government can do that, I will be surprisingly shocked and happy to have voted for them.
Why would a Royal Commission come up with a better "proper solution" than anything else?
I don't know too much about what's happened in Portugal in the past few years, but I do know there's not hundreds of murders and attempted murders in Lisbon every year by rival gangs of youths trying to control their drug trade.
Which would be a most perfect result. Here's hoping.
Where perhaps she went wrong was the suggestion that "I can be Prime Minister". She can*, in a scenario where its an absurdly hung parliament and her 100 seats provides stability against a collapsing Labour partner or something. A LibDem Majority government? Don't be silly Jo.
However, there is a democratic deficit at play. Every poll shows a now decent and consistent majority for remain. We have a hard leave party, two soft leave parties. Are we really saying there shouldn't be a party speaking for remain? Despite said consistent majority support for it?
Nah, thought not.