I spoke to a sitting Labour councillor in Newcastle yesterday who wasn’t too confident about the County Durham ‘marginals’... She’s been canvassing in them.
Is Pidcock's a "marginal"?
I didn’t press her further on it for more details. I was in a rush. I’m hoping to speak to her again later in the week...
Ta. Useful insight into betting, if an insider thinks these seats really are in play.
I was chatting to someone who has been canvassing in Altringham and Sale, and they were saying they didn't think it felt like a safe Tory seat anymore, but I'm not sure I believe it will move anywhere else; the LD swing would have to be massive and/or Labour would have to hold it together and come up the middle...
Torsten Bell on R4 pointing out that the WASPI bung is more than twice the extra Labour are proposing for the NHS each year in this parliament.
Even the man behind the Edstone can tell that I guess. The worst policy of the entire campaign and yet it's either had positive effect or no negative effect.
The reporting on this is terrible. Life expectancy is increasing. Expectations of improvements in life expectancy are being trimmed back. This paper, actually linked to in the Guardian’s awful report, is clear:
Yes, there are some differences depending on whether one uses cohort life expectancy or life expectancy at birth, but there are interesting points. Overall life expectancy growth has slowed, or stalled in the UK and USA relative to other developed countries. The overall national life expectancy is an average of better performing regions and poorly performing ones. In many of the poorly performing regions (NI, Wales, Scotland, English rustbelt) reducing cohort life expectancy is occurring. Indeed it would be surprising otherwise, what with increasing rates of obesity, diabetes, drug deaths etc. Worth noting too that disease free life expectancy has a strong class divide too. Not only do wealthier people live longer, they are healthier in that old age.
Fourthly, there is the assumption that these businesses would in fact remain profitable in public hands when politicians face pressure if they try to increase water bills etc. or reduce unemployment by getting these businesses to employ more people. The whole policy is 1970s redux. It didn't work. It hasn't worked anywhere else. It won't work here. It's just stupid. Really, really stupid.
That was the claim made by Hugh Dalton in nationalising the railways in 1946. At the same time, he justified very low compensation to shareholders by saying the railways were badly neglected, unprofitable and needed huge sums spending on them. The same arguments particularly apply to water. Why is there valid reason to think water companies might benefit from being nationalised? Because the amount they will need to spend renewing a network that last had serious attention in the 1940s and was mostly - stupidly - laid under roads and even railways far exceeds any realistic sum they can raise on the private markets and from income. But if you put that forward, you admit nationalisation will be costly for the taxpayer as you have to bear these losses.
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
Tory candidate caught trying to pull one on Crick:
Afterwards, it was found Mr Anderson's microphone had picked him up phoning the householder ahead of the visit, telling him to "make out you know who I am, that you know I'm the candidate but not that you are a friend".
Tory candidate caught trying to pull one on Crick: Afterwards, it was found Mr Anderson's microphone had picked him up phoning the householder ahead of the visit, telling him to "make out you know who I am, that you know I'm the candidate but not that you are a friend". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50558306
What a twit. I think the is called ‘being a Brown Duffy.’
I spoke to a sitting Labour councillor in Newcastle yesterday who wasn’t too confident about the County Durham ‘marginals’... She’s been canvassing in them.
Is Pidcock's a "marginal"?
I didn’t press her further on it for more details. I was in a rush. I’m hoping to speak to her again later in the week...
Ta. Useful insight into betting, if an insider thinks these seats really are in play.
I was chatting to someone who has been canvassing in Altringham and Sale, and they were saying they didn't think it felt like a safe Tory seat anymore, but I'm not sure I believe it will move anywhere else; the LD swing would have to be massive and/or Labour would have to hold it together and come up the middle...
There is a lot of voter churn. There are lifelong Labour voters disenchanted with Corbyn for sure, but also lifelong Tory voters driven away by BoZo and Brexit. It really isn't surprising to me that such a phenomenon is happening in Altrincham. We may wind up with a marginally different parliament to the 2017 one in terms of numbers, but very different in geography.
Torsten Bell on R4 pointing out that the WASPI bung is more than twice the extra Labour are proposing for the NHS each year in this parliament.
Even the man behind the Edstone can tell that I guess. The worst policy of the entire campaign and yet it's either had positive effect or no negative effect.
It’s the worst type of policy, a voter bung.
Sadly they tend to resonate. The line the Tories have to go with is that it will be ridiculously expensive and the money will have to be found somewhere else - ie tax rises for everyone else. They haven’t really come out swinging on this which I find dispiriting.
It was interesting to note last night that Mr Corbyn’s knowledge of what Government Bonds are and how they operate is sparse to say the least. To learn from him that issuing Bonds is not the same as issuing debt was a revelation. I wonder if economists are taking note of Mr Corbyns radical new economic theory. I predict that they aren’t.
Its not implausible that Corbyn believes the government won’t owe bond holders anything. Which does not bode well for anyone who might end up holding these things.
Fourthly, there is the assumption that these businesses would in fact remain profitable in public hands when politicians face pressure if they try to increase water bills etc. or reduce unemployment by getting these businesses to employ more people. The whole policy is 1970s redux. It didn't work. It hasn't worked anywhere else. It won't work here. It's just stupid. Really, really stupid.
That was the claim made by Hugh Dalton in nationalising the railways in 1946. At the same time, he justified very low compensation to shareholders by saying the railways were badly neglected, unprofitable and needed huge sums spending on them. The same arguments particularly apply to water. Why is there valid reason to think water companies might benefit from being nationalised? Because the amount they will need to spend renewing a network that last had serious attention in the 1940s and was mostly - stupidly - laid under roads and even railways far exceeds any realistic sum they can raise on the private markets and from income. But if you put that forward, you admit nationalisation will be costly for the taxpayer as you have to bear these losses.
I thought England had been spending billions renewing the water network since privatisation. Is that not how they justify the increases? My understanding is that the permitted profit was based on a return on capital incentivising the companies to spend more money. Of course in Scotland we still have the dead hand of the State. It's not wildly popular.
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
Don't worry, we will be angsting about how Boris got torn apart soon enough.
Torsten Bell on R4 pointing out that the WASPI bung is more than twice the extra Labour are proposing for the NHS each year in this parliament.
Even the man behind the Edstone can tell that I guess. The worst policy of the entire campaign and yet it's either had positive effect or no negative effect.
It’s the worst type of policy, a voter bung.
Sadly they tend to resonate. The line the Tories have to go with is that it will be ridiculously expensive and the money will have to be found somewhere else - ie tax rises for everyone else. They haven’t really come out swinging on this which I find dispiriting.
And the clincher is that the Waspi women lost their court case.
Finally watched the Corbyn-Neil interview. Of course I think he cane across shiftily, but i suspect both sides will be able to mine for social media clips so probably a score draw.
However what interests me is this:
Neil asked is the phrase “Rothschild Zionists rule Israel and the world” anti Semitic or not?
Corbyn didn’t and wouldn’t give a straight answer.
A simple yes would have closed it down
The only reason why I can think he wouldn’t have done that is he was aware/afraid that Neil had evidence that a friend/ally of Corbyn’s had said that (it turned out to be someone called Liam Moore who I’ve never heard of)
Can anyone else explain why Corbyn wouldn’t answer this question? It looked terrible.
Torsten Bell on R4 pointing out that the WASPI bung is more than twice the extra Labour are proposing for the NHS each year in this parliament.
Even the man behind the Edstone can tell that I guess. The worst policy of the entire campaign and yet it's either had positive effect or no negative effect.
It’s the worst type of policy, a voter bung.
Sadly they tend to resonate. The line the Tories have to go with is that it will be ridiculously expensive and the money will have to be found somewhere else - ie tax rises for everyone else. They haven’t really come out swinging on this which I find dispiriting.
And the clincher is that the Waspi women lost their court case.
Maybe Labour's genius is that they can always rely on lawyers to stop them later from paying the money
Torsten Bell on R4 pointing out that the WASPI bung is more than twice the extra Labour are proposing for the NHS each year in this parliament.
Even the man behind the Edstone can tell that I guess. The worst policy of the entire campaign and yet it's either had positive effect or no negative effect.
It’s the worst type of policy, a voter bung.
Sadly they tend to resonate. The line the Tories have to go with is that it will be ridiculously expensive and the money will have to be found somewhere else - ie tax rises for everyone else. They haven’t really come out swinging on this which I find dispiriting.
They're right not to. It would just draw attention to what would appear to be a vote-winning policy.
What they need to do is their own voter bung, or bungs, smaller, more widely spread, hopefully more economically beneficial. Suck the oxygen of publicity away from Labour.
What I think he was trying to say was that the bonds issued for nationalisation would be largely self funding because the State would take the profits of the businesses that they have acquired which would allow them to pay the interest on the bonds. There are a series of assumptions built into this which could be usefully unpacked. Firstly, there is the assumption that the bond markets are willing to lend a Corbyn led government £0.5trn. Secondly, there is the assumption that they would do so at current rates. Thirdly, there is the assumption that despite a rapid deterioration in our creditworthiness it would be possible to roll over these bonds at similar rates in the future. Fourthly, there is the assumption that these businesses would in fact remain profitable in public hands when politicians face pressure if they try to increase water bills etc. or reduce unemployment by getting these businesses to employ more people. The whole policy is 1970s redux. It didn't work. It hasn't worked anywhere else. It won't work here. It's just stupid. Really, really stupid.
That's not how it works. Government don't go to the bond markets and ask if they'd mind lending them £x, as you or I might do. If they issue bonds in exchange for shares, they do so at the current market rate. If the bond markets don't like it, they may choose not to buy the bonds and their price will decline, but in general bond traders are simply interested in whether the interest rate is competitive and the lender will continue to pay it. As you'll know, interest rates are currently incredibly low - in fact negative for Government borrowing.
So the real issue is whether the return on the companies is higher or lower than the interest on the bonds. Your last point is relevant to that, though it's legitimate public policy to decide to reduce the profit take in a public industry in order to serve another public purpose - the point of nationalisation is not to treat them exactly in the same way as if they were private. Indeed, this is also done when companies are private - hence the long though diminishing share of subsidies to private rail companies because of the public interest in a viable rail network.
Obviously views will differ on that. But it's a mistake to mix up the transfer of shares into bonds with current expenditure (the "What will you cut to pay for your water industry grab, eh?" line) - they really are apples and pears, and the effect is likely to be broadly neutral on actual ongoing expenditure, neither leading to tax rises nor allowing tax cuts.
I finally worked it out last night. More than anything it is the sheer banality of Corbyn that hits you most. Beyond the slogans, the relentless anti-Semitism, the kneejerk anti-Westernism and the Bennite nostalgia there is simply nothing there. He is a profoundly incurious, unintelligent man.
Torsten Bell on R4 pointing out that the WASPI bung is more than twice the extra Labour are proposing for the NHS each year in this parliament.
Even the man behind the Edstone can tell that I guess. The worst policy of the entire campaign and yet it's either had positive effect or no negative effect.
It’s the worst type of policy, a voter bung.
Sadly they tend to resonate. The line the Tories have to go with is that it will be ridiculously expensive and the money will have to be found somewhere else - ie tax rises for everyone else. They haven’t really come out swinging on this which I find dispiriting.
They're right not to. It would just draw attention to what would appear to be a vote-winning policy.
What they need to do is their own voter bung, or bungs, smaller, more widely spread, hopefully more economically beneficial. Suck the oxygen of publicity away from Labour.
So the only way to counteract a bung is more effective bungs? We are truly doomed.
Finally watched the Corbyn-Neil interview. Of course I think he cane across shiftily, but i suspect both sides will be able to mine for social media clips so probably a score draw.
However what interests me is this:
Neil asked is the phrase “Rothschild Zionists rule Israel and the world” anti Semitic or not?
Corbyn didn’t and wouldn’t give a straight answer.
A simple yes would have closed it down
The only reason why I can think he wouldn’t have done that is he was aware/afraid that Neil had evidence that a friend/ally of Corbyn’s had said that (it turned out to be someone called Liam Moore who I’ve never heard of)
Can anyone else explain why Corbyn wouldn’t answer this question? It looked terrible.
I find the prevarication of this sort of thing puzzling from JC. He really doesn’t like commenting on specifics - on anti-semitism or otherwise (unless of course it’s rich people or Donald Trump).
Some of it is I think a clumsy way of trying to avoid a ‘gotchya’ moment but it doesn’t come across well at all. He should just say no, it’s unacceptable, I don’t want people who say that sort of thing in the Labour Party.”
The fact he doesn’t suggests underlying unease that there is more to come out of the woodwork, whether rightly or wrongly.
Finally watched the Corbyn-Neil interview. Of course I think he cane across shiftily, but i suspect both sides will be able to mine for social media clips so probably a score draw.
However what interests me is this:
Neil asked is the phrase “Rothschild Zionists rule Israel and the world” anti Semitic or not?
Corbyn didn’t and wouldn’t give a straight answer.
A simple yes would have closed it down
The only reason why I can think he wouldn’t have done that is he was aware/afraid that Neil had evidence that a friend/ally of Corbyn’s had said that (it turned out to be someone called Liam Moore who I’ve never heard of)
Can anyone else explain why Corbyn wouldn’t answer this question? It looked terrible.
Because Corbyn doesn`t think it is anti-semitic. Just a statement of fact in his (befuddled) mind.
I finally worked it out last night. More than anything it is the sheer banality of Corbyn that hits you most. Beyond the slogans, the relentless anti-Semitism, the kneejerk anti-Westernism and the Bennite nostalgia there is simply nothing there. He is a profoundly incurious, unintelligent man.
Finally watched the Corbyn-Neil interview. Of course I think he cane across shiftily, but i suspect both sides will be able to mine for social media clips so probably a score draw.
However what interests me is this:
Neil asked is the phrase “Rothschild Zionists rule Israel and the world” anti Semitic or not?
Corbyn didn’t and wouldn’t give a straight answer.
A simple yes would have closed it down
The only reason why I can think he wouldn’t have done that is he was aware/afraid that Neil had evidence that a friend/ally of Corbyn’s had said that (it turned out to be someone called Liam Moore who I’ve never heard of)
Can anyone else explain why Corbyn wouldn’t answer this question? It looked terrible.
There’s a link (which I think Alastair might have spotted) here between some older women’s dislike/distrust of Boris Johnson, and the policy to pledge the WASPI bung.
Labour is trying to exploit that by inserting a crowbar into that crack, and levering it open.
At the £58 billion expense of destroying their offering to everybody else. A late pledge by Boris to cut the 6% tax rate on student loans would more than counter it. Not just with the young going to uni, but with their parents too.
They should be cut to about £5,000 a year over the Parliament. That would mean a 4-year degree cost a max of £20k, which is reasonable. Weddings and honeymoons cost about that and are accepted. The Government should also pledge to part refund medical degree fees and dentistry, perhaps architects too. I’d also cut the interest rate to RPI or CPI.
That would be seen as fair. It would also cost about £9-£10bn extra a year but the NI cut costs even more than that and, as a new stable post Brexit settlement takes effect, should be affordable in the longer term
It would also show the Tories listen and are also on young people’s side.
Finally watched the Corbyn-Neil interview. Of course I think he cane across shiftily, but i suspect both sides will be able to mine for social media clips so probably a score draw.
However what interests me is this:
Neil asked is the phrase “Rothschild Zionists rule Israel and the world” anti Semitic or not?
Corbyn didn’t and wouldn’t give a straight answer.
A simple yes would have closed it down
The only reason why I can think he wouldn’t have done that is he was aware/afraid that Neil had evidence that a friend/ally of Corbyn’s had said that (it turned out to be someone called Liam Moore who I’ve never heard of)
Can anyone else explain why Corbyn wouldn’t answer this question? It looked terrible.
Because he believes that it is true. It really is that simple.
Torsten Bell on R4 pointing out that the WASPI bung is more than twice the extra Labour are proposing for the NHS each year in this parliament.
Even the man behind the Edstone can tell that I guess. The worst policy of the entire campaign and yet it's either had positive effect or no negative effect.
It’s the worst type of policy, a voter bung.
Sadly they tend to resonate. The line the Tories have to go with is that it will be ridiculously expensive and the money will have to be found somewhere else - ie tax rises for everyone else. They haven’t really come out swinging on this which I find dispiriting.
They're right not to. It would just draw attention to what would appear to be a vote-winning policy.
What they need to do is their own voter bung, or bungs, smaller, more widely spread, hopefully more economically beneficial. Suck the oxygen of publicity away from Labour.
So the only way to counteract a bung is more effective bungs? We are truly doomed.
Well, they could also just hold their nerve and let it pass, and it may disintegrate of its own accord. But what they shouldn't do it give it more airtime by attacking it. It's like the NHS bus for Remain all over again.
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
That, of course, is the tragedy of all this. Labour members’ insistence on being led by an anti-Semitic, anti-NATO, Bennite dinosaur is gifting power to a party that has run out of ideas and which itself is led by a lazy, lying, racist, oaf, interested only in himself.
There’s a link (which I think Alastair might have spotted) here between some older women’s dislike/distrust of Boris Johnson, and the policy to pledge the WASPI bung.
Labour is trying to exploit that by inserting a crowbar into that crack, and levering it open.
At the £58 billion expense of destroying their offering to everybody else. A late pledge by Boris to cut the 6% tax rate on student loans would more than counter it. Not just with the young going to uni, but with their parents too.
They should be cut to about £5,000 a year over the Parliament. That would mean a 4-year degree cost a max of £20k, which is reasonable. Weddings and honeymoons cost about that and are accepted. The Government should also pledge to part refund medical degree fees and dentistry, perhaps architects too. I’d also cut the interest rate to RPI or CPI.
That would be seen as fair. It would also cost about £9-£10bn extra a year but the NI cut costs even more than that and, as a new stable post Brexit settlement takes effect, should be affordable in the longer term
It would also show the Tories listen and are also on young people’s side.
The interest charged on student debt is pretty irrelevant to be honest. The system is a graduate tax not a loan. And the tax stops after 30 years. LibDems have been unfarily criticised over this in my view. It hasn`t been communicated well that this is a tax not a loan.
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
That, of course, is the tragedy of all this. Labour members’ insistence on being led by an anti-Semitic, anti-NATO, Bennite dinosaur is gifting power to a party that has run out of ideas and which itself is led by a lazy, lying, racist, oaf, interested only in himself.
The Tories are essentially running the Clinton 2016 campaign. I wonder if it will work this time.
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
, Yes, they are very excitable, but then Corbyn was lamentable under terrific scrutiny from Neil.
Johnson, on his day could be even worse, which is why No 10 would be wise to send someone sensible to be barbecued instead. It is at that point and on that criteria I can't think of a substitute.
There’s a link (which I think Alastair might have spotted) here between some older women’s dislike/distrust of Boris Johnson, and the policy to pledge the WASPI bung.
Labour is trying to exploit that by inserting a crowbar into that crack, and levering it open.
At the £58 billion expense of destroying their offering to everybody else. A late pledge by Boris to cut the 6% tax rate on student loans would more than counter it. Not just with the young going to uni, but with their parents too.
They should be cut to about £5,000 a year over the Parliament. That would mean a 4-year degree cost a max of £20k, which is reasonable. Weddings and honeymoons cost about that and are accepted. The Government should also pledge to part refund medical degree fees and dentistry, perhaps architects too. I’d also cut the interest rate to RPI or CPI.
That would be seen as fair. It would also cost about £9-£10bn extra a year but the NI cut costs even more than that and, as a new stable post Brexit settlement takes effect, should be affordable in the longer term
It would also show the Tories listen and are also on young people’s side.
And/or what about a financial bonus for early repayment? That's pro-attainment and would result in more money pouring in to the Government in the short term.
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
That, of course, is the tragedy of all this. Labour members’ insistence on being led by an anti-Semitic, anti-NATO, Bennite dinosaur is gifting power to a party that has run out of ideas and which itself is led by a lazy, lying, racist, oaf, interested only in himself.
I voted against him twice! He's dreadful, but even led by him Labour are still better than the Tories, with their own awful leader and another five years of widening inequality and Brexit.
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
, Yes, they are very excitable, but then Corbyn was lamentable under terrific scrutiny from Neil.
Johnson, on his day could be even worse, which is why No 10 would be wise to send someone sensible to be barbecued instead. It is at that point and on that criteria I can't think of a substitute.
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
, Yes, they are very excitable, but then Corbyn was lamentable under terrific scrutiny from Neil.
Johnson, on his day could be even worse, which is why No 10 would be wise to send someone sensible to be barbecued instead. It is at that point and on that criteria I can't think of a substitute.
There’s a link (which I think Alastair might have spotted) here between some older women’s dislike/distrust of Boris Johnson, and the policy to pledge the WASPI bung. Labour is trying to exploit that by inserting a crowbar into that crack, and levering it open.
At the £58 billion expense of destroying their offering to everybody else. A late pledge by Boris to cut the 6% tax rate on student loans would more than counter it. Not just with the young going to uni, but with their parents too.
They should be cut to about £5,000 a year over the Parliament. That would mean a 4-year degree cost a max of £20k, which is reasonable. Weddings and honeymoons cost about that and are accepted. The Government should also pledge to part refund medical degree fees and dentistry, perhaps architects too. I’d also cut the interest rate to RPI or CPI. That would be seen as fair. It would also cost about £9-£10bn extra a year but the NI cut costs even more than that and, as a new stable post Brexit settlement takes effect, should be affordable in the longer term It would also show the Tories listen and are also on young people’s side.
I think it was you and I at thelast election screaming at the Govt. to honour the £350m pledge to the NHS on the bus. It would have kept the majority, no doubt in my mind. But this Govt. has a peculiar tin ear during election campaigns, it would seem.
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
, Yes, they are very excitable, but then Corbyn was lamentable under terrific scrutiny from Neil.
Johnson, on his day could be even worse, which is why No 10 would be wise to send someone sensible to be barbecued instead. It is at that point and on that criteria I can't think of a substitute.
On the Vanilla changes, I find like most things one gets used to it pretty quickly, something those PBers flapping their gums about about a Corbo Coalition of Commie Chaos should remember. Put on yer big boys Tena pants and go with flow, as it were.
On the Vanilla changes, I find like most things one gets used to it pretty quickly, something those PBers flapping their gums about about a Corbo Coalition of Commie Chaos should remember. Put yer big boys Tena pants and go with flow, as it were.
I don`t think I`m going to get used to this "nesting". I`m at the point of chucking the computer out the window this morning.
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
That, of course, is the tragedy of all this. Labour members’ insistence on being led by an anti-Semitic, anti-NATO, Bennite dinosaur is gifting power to a party that has run out of ideas and which itself is led by a lazy, lying, racist, oaf, interested only in himself.
The Tories are essentially running the Clinton 2016 campaign. I wonder if it will work this time.
There is not a big enough demographic more appalled by the prospect of Johnson being PM than Corbyn. That is how bad Corbyn is.
Bloomberg is polling under 5% on every Democratic primary poll, he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination and if you do not perform well in Iowa, NH or South Carolina you will have no momentum to do well on Super Tuesday however much money you spend.
His fiscally conservative, socially liberal message is also better suited to the general election than winning the Democratic primaries where a populist left liberal like Warren or Sanders is more likely to win.
This is therefore just setting the stage for Bloomberg to run a Ross Perot style independent candidacy where he can appeal to the coasts and moderate centrist voters from both parties and independents
There’s a link (which I think Alastair might have spotted) here between some older women’s dislike/distrust of Boris Johnson, and the policy to pledge the WASPI bung.
Labour is trying to exploit that by inserting a crowbar into that crack, and levering it open.
At the £58 billion expense of destroying their offering to everybody else. A late pledge by Boris to cut the 6% tax rate on student loans would more than counter it. Not just with the young going to uni, but with their parents too.
They should be cut to about £5,000 a year over the Parliament. That would mean a 4-year degree cost a max of £20k, which is reasonable. Weddings and honeymoons cost about that and are accepted. The Government should also pledge to part refund medical degree fees and dentistry, perhaps architects too. I’d also cut the interest rate to RPI or CPI.
That would be seen as fair. It would also cost about £9-£10bn extra a year but the NI cut costs even more than that and, as a new stable post Brexit settlement takes effect, should be affordable in the longer term
It would also show the Tories listen and are also on young people’s side.
And/or what about a financial bonus for early repayment? That's pro-attainment and would result in more money pouring in to the Government in the short term.
Anyone doing early repayment is risking that there is no future write off of student loans. They risk paying twice. We know that most of the debt will be never repaid, so we might as well acknowledge that rather than build up phantom debts and phantom government assets. The system has the perverse effect of subsidising marginal degrees. Those low earning graduates will never repay, and that debt writedown will be at the expense of the few high earners, and those who never went through the scheme I see quite a bubble of student spending based on these never never loans. It accounts for a lot of the night time economy, and the blocks of flats like the one that burned down in Bolton.
Is the new Vanilla layout a fault to be rectified or someone's idea of an upgrade?
What I have found, if it is of any help, is that if you write with no spacings between your paragraphs then they come out looking relatively normal. If you give them the normal extra line they become absurdly spaced out elongating the contributions to the point they become hard to read.
Yeah, that seems to help but Vanilla is a real mess, with the comments not visible on the original site on chrome, the nested comments being visible as ghosts, and the extra line being inserted every paragraph. When I hear the word software upgrade, I reach for my gun.
I honestly struggle to recall any website that I use regularly for work or otherwise that has ever had improved functionality after an upgrade. It seems software designers cannot resist increasing complexity at the cost of utility, adding in default features that are a nuisance and making the main functions more difficult to find. Westlaw have just suffered this fate as did, a year or two ago now, Scotcourts. It's really irritating.
It’s driven by the perception that more = better.
It rarely is.
We run our family business on the principle that “small is beautiful”
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
That, of course, is the tragedy of all this. Labour members’ insistence on being led by an anti-Semitic, anti-NATO, Bennite dinosaur is gifting power to a party that has run out of ideas and which itself is led by a lazy, lying, racist, oaf, interested only in himself.
The Tories are essentially running the Clinton 2016 campaign. I wonder if it will work this time.
There is not a big enough demographic more appalled by the prospect of Johnson being PM than Corbyn. That is how bad Corbyn is.
The Tories ‘deplorables‘ attack strategy is not guaranteed to work for them.
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
That, of course, is the tragedy of all this. Labour members’ insistence on being led by an anti-Semitic, anti-NATO, Bennite dinosaur is gifting power to a party that has run out of ideas and which itself is led by a lazy, lying, racist, oaf, interested only in himself.
The Tories are essentially running the Clinton 2016 campaign. I wonder if it will work this time.
No that was 2017 under May, Boris is running closer to the Trump 2016 campaign
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
, Yes, they are very excitable, but then Corbyn was lamentable under terrific scrutiny from Neil.
Johnson, on his day could be even worse, which is why No 10 would be wise to send someone sensible to be barbecued instead. It is at that point and on that criteria I can't think of a substitute.
Just learned that Jo Swinson is not invited to the BBC's televised debate on 6th December. It will just be Johnson and Corbyn again. Anybody know how the Beeb justifies that decision? I should have thought a State broadcaster would be on dodgy ground there.
Well, the campaign to date has shown that despite the glossy literature, she ain't going to be PM. One of Corbyn or Boris is. I think the BBC can fairly say it is a heavyweight contest between our two future PMs. And I think there might be some implied irony in that term.
Bloomberg is polling under 5% on every Democratic primary poll, he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination and if you do not perform well in Iowa, NH or South Carolina you will have no momentum to do well on Super Tuesday however much money you spend. His fiscally conservative, socially liberal message is also better suited to the general election than winning the Democratic primaries where a populist left liberal like Warren or Sanders is more likely to win. This is therefore just setting the stage for Bloomberg to run a Ross Perot style independent candidacy where he can appeal to the coasts and moderate centrist voters from both parties and independents
I just don't see Bloomberg appealing to moderate Dems, because for them they just want to beat Trump, or moderate GOPers who may want to only beat Warren / Sanders. But I think he will appeal more to Never Trumpers, and that if he was on a stage with Trump and Warren / Sanders his presence benefits the Dems. If it was Trump, Biden, Bloomberg we may as well just nuke ourselves now...
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
That, of course, is the tragedy of all this. Labour members’ insistence on being led by an anti-Semitic, anti-NATO, Bennite dinosaur is gifting power to a party that has run out of ideas and which itself is led by a lazy, lying, racist, oaf, interested only in himself.
The Tories are essentially running the Clinton 2016 campaign. I wonder if it will work this time.
There is not a big enough demographic more appalled by the prospect of Johnson being PM than Corbyn. That is how bad Corbyn is.
The Tories ‘deplorables‘ attack strategy is not guaranteed to work for them.
As opposed to the Labour one which is loud and allowed
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
That, of course, is the tragedy of all this. Labour members’ insistence on being led by an anti-Semitic, anti-NATO, Bennite dinosaur is gifting power to a party that has run out of ideas and which itself is led by a lazy, lying, racist, oaf, interested only in himself.
The Tories are essentially running the Clinton 2016 campaign. I wonder if it will work this time.
No that was 2017 under May, Boris is running closer to the Trump 2016 campaign
The white working class population of the U.K is much bigger than the U.S.
Bloomberg is polling under 5% on every Democratic primary poll, he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination and if you do not perform well in Iowa, NH or South Carolina you will have no momentum to do well on Super Tuesday however much money you spend. His fiscally conservative, socially liberal message is also better suited to the general election than winning the Democratic primaries where a populist left liberal like Warren or Sanders is more likely to win. This is therefore just setting the stage for Bloomberg to run a Ross Perot style independent candidacy where he can appeal to the coasts and moderate centrist voters from both parties and independents
I just don't see Bloomberg appealing to moderate Dems, because for them they just want to beat Trump, or moderate GOPers who may want to only beat Warren / Sanders. But I think he will appeal more to Never Trumpers, and that if he was on a stage with Trump and Warren / Sanders his presence benefits the Dems. If it was Trump, Biden, Bloomberg we may as well just nuke ourselves now...
Bloomberg would appeal to a lot of centrists who voted for Hillary but would not vote for Warren or Sanders in wealthy suburban areas, not just Never Trumper Republicans. For example areas like Orange County California which voted for Romney in 2012 but Hillary in 2016
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
That, of course, is the tragedy of all this. Labour members’ insistence on being led by an anti-Semitic, anti-NATO, Bennite dinosaur is gifting power to a party that has run out of ideas and which itself is led by a lazy, lying, racist, oaf, interested only in himself.
The Tories are essentially running the Clinton 2016 campaign. I wonder if it will work this time.
No that was 2017 under May, Boris is running closer to the Trump 2016 campaign
The white working class population of the U.K is much bigger than the U.S.
True but they make up a higher percentage of voters in marginal seats too as they make up a higher percentage in US swing states than their popular vote total
The choir of PB Tories are in fine voice this morning, clearly enjoying their moment of Corbyn bashing fuelled by pages of similar copy in the press. The Tory machine in full pelt is a modern marvel.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
That, of course, is the tragedy of all this. Labour members’ insistence on being led by an anti-Semitic, anti-NATO, Bennite dinosaur is gifting power to a party that has run out of ideas and which itself is led by a lazy, lying, racist, oaf, interested only in himself.
The Tories are essentially running the Clinton 2016 campaign. I wonder if it will work this time.
No that was 2017 under May, Boris is running closer to the Trump 2016 campaign
You need to reflect on that. One Tory weakness is hubris. I think you stray close to not seeing why anyone would vote Corbyn or Swinson. Which of course doesn’t stop people voting for them, just your ability to reach them.
Some suggestions Johnson hasn’t confirmed whether he’ll do the AN interview .
because running away worked out so well last time?
I just wonder if AN / BBC would be willing to empty chair him. Coz AN asking the questions to an empty chair is different to just not turning up.
They could use video footage to answer the questions instead. Could be quite fun if done well. Johnson has this way of talking in response to difficult questions which uses up a lot of time and makes it sound as though it's terribly rude to expect him to give an answer.
My question was regarding the Euro. It is the intention of an independent SNP led Scotland to rejoin the EU, and it might be a condition of membership.
Surely that's just because boomers are the most hardworking and talented generation that has ever graced God's earth, and they totally deserve to own everything while also deciding everything. Personally, I think we should be grateful that our rent pays for their cruises.
Surely that's just because boomers are the most hardworking and talented generation that has ever graced God's earth, and they totally deserve to own everything while also deciding everything. Personally, I think we should be grateful that our rent pays for their cruises.
It’s simply the affect of the previous generation living longer than the generation before that. We’ll have more concurrent generations sharing the same resources.
That's really interesting. On the political implications I put together a graph of the age divide in general elections, where the most recent data point is from the recent ICM poll, and Leave is treated as Tory/Labour as Remain for the referendum. The growth of the age divide is incredible. https://www.datawrapper.de/_/UJvt4/
I finally worked it out last night. More than anything it is the sheer banality of Corbyn that hits you most. Beyond the slogans, the relentless anti-Semitism, the kneejerk anti-Westernism and the Bennite nostalgia there is simply nothing there. He is a profoundly incurious, unintelligent man.
If you know you’re right, what is there to be curious about?
"That's not how it works. Government don't go to the bond markets and ask if they'd mind lending them £x, as you or I might do. If they issue bonds in exchange for shares, they do so at the current market rate. If the bond markets don't like it, they may choose not to buy the bonds and their price will decline, but in general bond traders are simply interested in whether the interest rate is competitive and the lender will continue to pay it. As you'll know, interest rates are currently incredibly low - in fact negative for Government borrowing."
More rubbish from Nick Palmer UK government debt is positive across the curve - month bills yield 70bps - the curve then inverts out to 6years where yields are lowest at 41bps currently, before steepening out to the 30y area which yields 121bps (40-50y bonds yield less but this mainly due to the value of convexity).
As a government bond analyst I find his idea as to how "traders" operate is naive at best.
My question was regarding the Euro. It is the intention of an independent SNP led Scotland to rejoin the EU, and it might be a condition of membership.
Given that an independent Scotland will need a currency they are possibly better off picking the Euro from day zero rather than keeping Sterling.
The more interesting question (albeit one too complex for a modern day TV debate) is how does a high borrowing country implement the tight fiscal rules not having their own currency will force upon them. And that is true of an independent Scotland using either Sterling or the Euro.
Comments
I won't be splashing the cash though.
The worst policy of the entire campaign and yet it's either had positive effect or no negative effect.
Overall life expectancy growth has slowed, or stalled in the UK and USA relative to other developed countries. The overall national life expectancy is an average of better performing regions and poorly performing ones. In many of the poorly performing regions (NI, Wales, Scotland, English rustbelt) reducing cohort life expectancy is occurring.
Indeed it would be surprising otherwise, what with increasing rates of obesity, diabetes, drug deaths etc. Worth noting too that disease free life expectancy has a strong class divide too. Not only do wealthier people live longer, they are healthier in that old age.
At the same time, he justified very low compensation to shareholders by saying the railways were badly neglected, unprofitable and needed huge sums spending on them.
The same arguments particularly apply to water. Why is there valid reason to think water companies might benefit from being nationalised? Because the amount they will need to spend renewing a network that last had serious attention in the 1940s and was mostly - stupidly - laid under roads and even railways far exceeds any realistic sum they can raise on the private markets and from income. But if you put that forward, you admit nationalisation will be costly for the taxpayer as you have to bear these losses.
No idea whether it’s effective in 2019, feels a bit old school almost Clintonesque. But what has been clear is that whatever frenzy they whip up and whoever they’re calling a Marxist this week, if they get in they will still be rubbish.
Afterwards, it was found Mr Anderson's microphone had picked him up phoning the householder ahead of the visit, telling him to "make out you know who I am, that you know I'm the candidate but not that you are a friend".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50558306
It really isn't surprising to me that such a phenomenon is happening in Altrincham. We may wind up with a marginally different parliament to the 2017 one in terms of numbers, but very different in geography.
Sadly they tend to resonate. The line the Tories have to go with is that it will be ridiculously expensive and the money will have to be found somewhere else - ie tax rises for everyone else. They haven’t really come out swinging on this which I find dispiriting.
However what interests me is this:
Neil asked is the phrase “Rothschild Zionists rule Israel and the world” anti Semitic or not?
Corbyn didn’t and wouldn’t give a straight answer.
A simple yes would have closed it down
The only reason why I can think he wouldn’t have done that is he was aware/afraid that Neil had evidence that a friend/ally of Corbyn’s had said that (it turned out to be someone called Liam Moore who I’ve never heard of)
Can anyone else explain why Corbyn wouldn’t answer this question? It looked terrible.
*mind bleach*
What they need to do is their own voter bung, or bungs, smaller, more widely spread, hopefully more economically beneficial. Suck the oxygen of publicity away from Labour.
So the real issue is whether the return on the companies is higher or lower than the interest on the bonds. Your last point is relevant to that, though it's legitimate public policy to decide to reduce the profit take in a public industry in order to serve another public purpose - the point of nationalisation is not to treat them exactly in the same way as if they were private. Indeed, this is also done when companies are private - hence the long though diminishing share of subsidies to private rail companies because of the public interest in a viable rail network.
Obviously views will differ on that. But it's a mistake to mix up the transfer of shares into bonds with current expenditure (the "What will you cut to pay for your water industry grab, eh?" line) - they really are apples and pears, and the effect is likely to be broadly neutral on actual ongoing expenditure, neither leading to tax rises nor allowing tax cuts.
Some of it is I think a clumsy way of trying to avoid a ‘gotchya’ moment but it doesn’t come across well at all. He should just say no, it’s unacceptable, I don’t want people who say that sort of thing in the Labour Party.”
The fact he doesn’t suggests underlying unease that there is more to come out of the woodwork, whether rightly or wrongly.
That would be seen as fair. It would also cost about £9-£10bn extra a year but the NI cut costs even more than that and, as a new stable post Brexit settlement takes effect, should be affordable in the longer term
It would also show the Tories listen and are also on young people’s side.
From the clip the criticism seemed to be “he remains neutral on issues therefore he is not neutral”
Which seems almost Kafka-esque in its genius
Yes, they are very excitable, but then Corbyn was lamentable under terrific scrutiny from Neil.
Johnson, on his day could be even worse, which is why No 10 would be wise to send someone sensible to be barbecued instead. It is at that point and on that criteria I can't think of a substitute.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1199472538063118336?s=20
But this Govt. has a peculiar tin ear during election campaigns, it would seem.
Anybody know how the Beeb justifies that decision? I should have thought a State broadcaster would be on dodgy ground there.
His fiscally conservative, socially liberal message is also better suited to the general election than winning the Democratic primaries where a populist left liberal like Warren or Sanders is more likely to win.
This is therefore just setting the stage for Bloomberg to run a Ross Perot style independent candidacy where he can appeal to the coasts and moderate centrist voters from both parties and independents
We know that most of the debt will be never repaid, so we might as well acknowledge that rather than build up phantom debts and phantom government assets.
The system has the perverse effect of subsidising marginal degrees. Those low earning graduates will never repay, and that debt writedown will be at the expense of the few high earners, and those who never went through the scheme
I see quite a bubble of student spending based on these never never loans. It accounts for a lot of the night time economy, and the blocks of flats like the one that burned down in Bolton.
It rarely is.
We run our family business on the principle that “small is beautiful”
One of Corbyn or Boris is. I think the BBC can fairly say it is a heavyweight contest between our two future PMs. And I think there might be some implied irony in that term.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/472209-sanders-buttigieg-surge-in-new-hampshire-as-biden-warren-slip-poll
It will be very interesting to see if Buttigieg can get anywhere in the southern states should he win Iowa and NH.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1199600803486617601
https://twitter.com/KBAndersen/status/1198653456581562368
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48069470
Johnson has this way of talking in response to difficult questions which uses up a lot of time and makes it sound as though it's terribly rude to expect him to give an answer.
It is the intention of an independent SNP led Scotland to rejoin the EU, and it might be a condition of membership.
Sounds good. All he needs to do is issue bonds. Why have governments not thought of issuing bonds before? The mans a bloody genius I tell you. Genius.
https://www.datawrapper.de/_/UJvt4/
More rubbish from Nick Palmer UK government debt is positive across the curve - month bills yield 70bps - the curve then inverts out to 6years where yields are lowest at 41bps currently, before steepening out to the 30y area which yields 121bps (40-50y bonds yield less but this mainly due to the value of convexity).
As a government bond analyst I find his idea as to how "traders" operate is naive at best.
The more interesting question (albeit one too complex for a modern day TV debate) is how does a high borrowing country implement the tight fiscal rules not having their own currency will force upon them. And that is true of an independent Scotland using either Sterling or the Euro.
I expect cancellation of all student debt to feature before the campaign is out.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1199467564029620224?s=21
I wonder if Johnson can somehow be worse than Corbyn? Will he say “get Brexit done” to every answer?