I'd remind you that Boris represents the democratic outcome across the whole of the United Kingdom. If you want to rail at that, suggest you start with asking Tony Blair why he didn't change the system when he had a 177 seat majority. (Spoiler: because the system gave him a 177 seat majority....)
I'm not doubting that. You are missing the point in your arrogance. No one is doubting Boris's legitimacy. I'm merely reminding you that a bit of humility might not go amiss as a majority voted for people other than Boris. He represents a minority. It would serve you well to remember that.
Very sorry, Mr Gallowgate, but I for one doubt his legitimacy. The recent election was a shocking example of a thoroughly corrupt and discredited process. And the Conservatives are now working hard to make it even more unjust. I do not see Boris Johnson as a real prime minister at all, MODERATED
I don't see how nursing that kind of grievance helps you. He is a real prime minister and whinging won't make it not so. Railing against the system and how awful he is, sure, no problem there, but taking that forward to saying he is not a real prime minister crosses over from anger at our electoral system and Boris Johnson into a pettiness to make yourself feel better, which will undermine criticism that is deserved of our system and the PM we have.
He obviously is PM - but I think I can see where such comments are coming from.Johnson really does not look the part - he has no gravitas , and it is difficult to take him seriously as PM in the same way that many cannot take Trump seriously as US President. Essentially both debase the offices they hold.
Exactly one month ago, Labour wanted to impose an anti-British, Marxist, superannuated student protestor crank on the nation - you don't have a leg to stand on when speaking of 'being taken seriously as PM' or 'debasing the office'.
Arguably Corbynism without Corbyn did win the election. Compare Boris 2019 with Corbyn 2017. CCHQ went back to 2017, saw where Corbyn had the edge over May and lifted it wholesale. Police, NHS, austerity, even trains and buses. (ETA how JC became toxic is another story.)
Yes, the "won the argument" line is easily lampooned but there is some truth to it.
There's a difference between convincing your opponents to alter their strategy and winning the argument, especially when theentire GE campaign is spent saying how awful what the opponents are proposing is, arguing there's no common ground between the offers of the parties. The truth would be to say that Boris altered tack in response to Labour, but winning the argument is just too ridiculous a phrase to use, not least as it is used to imply great popularity that wasn't there.
This is just semantics. If the last Conservative government's policy was X and the new Conservative government's policy is the precise opposite, then is that due to pragmatism or persuasion and if the latter, were they persuaded by pragmatism or the Opposition? And does it matter? That applies across a number of issues.
Combining this with the headline piece, there is an important distinction, or at least there might be. If all these new Conservative but previously unConservative policies turn out to be massively wrong, then those MPs (and voters) who held their noses to support Boris may revolt and force Boris out (thus vindicating TSE's OP).
No Tory is going to force out the PM who just won a miracle landslide in the face of seemingly impossible odds and rescued the country from socialism. On the contrary, they'll march through fire for Boris - the job's his for as long as he wants it.
In the eyes of some Tories, far from rescuing the country from socialism , he is starting to carry out such policies - renationalising rail services, big increases in infrastructure spending being two examples.
I'd remind you that Boris represents the democratic outcome across the whole of the United Kingdom. If you want to rail at that, suggest you start with asking Tony Blair why he didn't change the system when he had a 177 seat majority. (Spoiler: because the system gave him a 177 seat majority....)
I'm not doubting that. You are missing the point in your arrogance. No one is doubting Boris's legitimacy. I'm merely reminding you that a bit of humility might not go amiss as a majority voted for people other than Boris. He represents a minority. It would serve you well to remember that.
Very sorry, Mr Gallowgate, but I for one doubt his legitimacy. The recent election was a shocking example of a thoroughly corrupt and discredited process. And the Conservatives are now working hard to make it even more unjust. I do not see Boris Johnson as a real prime minister at all, MODERATED
I don't see how nursing that kind of grievance helps you. He is a real prime minister and whinging won't make it not so. Railing against the system and how awful he is, sure, no problem there, but taking that forward to saying he is not a real prime minister crosses over from anger at our electoral system and Boris Johnson into a pettiness to make yourself feel better, which will undermine criticism that is deserved of our system and the PM we have.
He obviously is PM - but I think I can see where such comments are coming from.Johnson really does not look the part - he has no gravitas , and it is difficult to take him seriously as PM in the same way that many cannot take Trump seriously as US President. Essentially both debase the offices they hold.
Perhaps you could explain the ways in which Johnson debases the office. Preferably by reference to Gladstone or other ancient history which you consider valid and relevant today.
Cicero is ancient history, Gladstone is modern.
Although it was Gladstone who went out saving er, ladies of negotiable affection every night.
And Gladstone was never the compulsive liar that Johnson is widely perceived to be - and he clearly did have principles which extended well beyond promoting his own self interest.
I have to say I consider that an optimistic interpretation of Gladstone’s life and career.
Yes, I will admit he was more honest and principled than Johnson but that’s a bit like saying somebody is more monogamous than Genghis Khan.
I'd remind you that Boris represents the democratic outcome across the whole of the United Kingdom. If you want to rail at that, suggest you start with asking Tony Blair why he didn't change the system when he had a 177 seat majority. (Spoiler: because the system gave him a 177 seat majority....)
I'm not doubting that. You are missing the point in your arrogance. No one is doubting Boris's legitimacy. I'm merely reminding you that a bit of humility might not go amiss as a majority voted for people other than Boris. He represents a minority. It would serve you well to remember that.
Very sorry, Mr Gallowgate, but I for one doubt his legitimacy. The recent election was a shocking example of a thoroughly corrupt and discredited process. And the Conservatives are now working hard to make it even more unjust. I do not see Boris Johnson as a real prime minister at all, MODERATED
I don't see how nursing that kind of grievance helps you. He is a real prime minister and whinging won't make it not so. Railing against the system and how awful he is, sure, no problem there, but taking that forward to saying he is not a real prime minister crosses over from anger at our electoral system and Boris Johnson into a pettiness to make yourself feel better, which will undermine criticism that is deserved of our system and the PM we have.
He obviously is PM - but I think I can see where such comments are coming from.Johnson really does not look the part - he has no gravitas , and it is difficult to take him seriously as PM in the same way that many cannot take Trump seriously as US President. Essentially both debase the offices they hold.
Exactly one month ago, Labour wanted to impose an anti-British, Marxist, superannuated student protestor crank on the nation - you don't have a leg to stand on when speaking of 'being taken seriously as PM' or 'debasing the office'.
I did not vote Labour last month, but I fail to see how the party's manifesto was Marxist - or indeed as left wing as both 1974 manifestos.
Arguably Corbynism without Corbyn did win the election. Compare Boris 2019 with Corbyn 2017. CCHQ went back to 2017, saw where Corbyn had the edge over May and lifted it wholesale. Police, NHS, austerity, even trains and buses. (ETA how JC became toxic is another story.)
Yes, the "won the argument" line is easily lampooned but there is some truth to it.
There's a difference between convincing your opponents to alter their strategy and winning the argument, especially when theentire GE campaign is spent saying how awful what the opponents are proposing is, arguing there's no common ground between the offers of the parties. The truth would be to say that Boris altered tack in response to Labour, but winning the argument is just too ridiculous a phrase to use, not least as it is used to imply great popularity that wasn't there.
This is just semantics. If the last Conservative government's policy was X and the new Conservative government's policy is the precise opposite, then is that due to pragmatism or persuasion and if the latter, were they persuaded by pragmatism or the Opposition? And does it matter? That applies across a number of issues.
Combining this with the headline piece, there is an important distinction, or at least there might be. If all these new Conservative but previously unConservative policies turn out to be massively wrong, then those MPs (and voters) who held their noses to support Boris may revolt and force Boris out (thus vindicating TSE's OP).
No Tory is going to force out the PM who just won a miracle landslide in the face of seemingly impossible odds and rescued the country from socialism. On the contrary, they'll march through fire for Boris - the job's his for as long as he wants it.
In the eyes of some Tories, far from rescuing the country from socialism , he is starting to carry out such policies - renationalising rail services, big increases in infrastructure spending being two examples.
Which is about 5% of what Comrade Corbyn would have done. Like I said, Tories would have to be insane to criticise Boris for that, given the alternative, and given how many MPs owe their jobs directly to the success of Boris' strategy.
What are the general thoughts here on KS as Labour leader?
He's the only candidate with a chance of winning with an aura of competence, he'd be a decent performer in the media and in the commons.
His anti-Brexit views are unlikely to win back red wall seats but he is perfectly placed to say "I told you so" if anything goes wrong.
He seems like a policy over personality guy. But that kind of dull, managerial quality makes him harder to dislike than the foaming-at-the-mouth "all Tories are scum" brigade that will never win over a single blue vote.
I don't think he can beat Boris at the next GE, it doesn't feel like he has that kind of star quality. But he might be the man to bring Labour back from the abyss, kick out the far left entryists and the anti semites, and give us a functioning opposition again.
I suspect you have a much exaggerated view as to the salience of Brexit by 2023 or 2024. By that time, it is unlikely to have any greater prominence as an issue than did the Poll Tax at the 1992 election
Hmm. If Brexit is a smooth process leading to a successful outcome, I suspect Starmer will be known in 2024 as "that remainer wot was wrong about brexit, what else is he wrong about then?" which will make it hard for him to be taken seriously.
If on the other hand over the course of this Parliament, Brexit becomes an interminable process of cock ups and poor negotiations leading to repeated embarrassments for the government, Starmer is the perfect guy to capitalise on that.
I don't think Brexit will be the killer argument one way or the other in 2024, but whether people got it right or wrong in hindsight will tell the voters a great deal about their supposed competence.
I think TSE would love to return to the fold, and be a born again Boris supporter, but is waiting for Boris to do something to piss off the right wing so he can claim it's Boris who's seen the light.
Matthew Paris’s article in the times was a more elegant version of that
There's a difference between convincing your opponents to alter their strategy and winning the argument, especially when theentire GE campaign is spent saying how awful what the opponents are proposing is, arguing there's no common ground between the offers of the parties. The truth would be to say that Boris altered tack in response to Labour, but winning the argument is just too ridiculous a phrase to use, not least as it is used to imply great popularity that wasn't there.
They did not win THE argument - which was about who governs - but the Cons have stolen some Labour clothes. Let's see how they look in them when they put them on. Probably a little awkward at first.
Mrs Stodge is furious over the proposed IR35 tax changes which are going to make her working life as a Contractor much harder.
Good. It is working as intended. Too many people are getting away with tax dodging by being personal service "companies". The solution we've used is to bring the contractors on staff at a 38% gross pay cut or say goodbye. I have very little sympathy for tax dodgers.
So you want to deprive the economy of freelancers who are willing to work away from home for periods of a few months.? The country needs them to help deliver an agile economy. The answer is simple, put. a time limit on contracts to determine what is within IR35.
Where would you draw the arbitrary line? What about long-running contracts? Wouldn't contracts just be renewed?
It’s to do with the number of clients
A minimum of 3 per year was the rule of thumb our tax advisers used...
...which means you can't accept six-month contracts. So that's the industry dead, then...
Mrs Stodge is furious over the proposed IR35 tax changes which are going to make her working life as a Contractor much harder.
Good. It is working as intended. Too many people are getting away with tax dodging by being personal service "companies". The solution we've used is to bring the contractors on staff at a 38% gross pay cut or say goodbye. I have very little sympathy for tax dodgers.
So you want to deprive the economy of freelancers who are willing to work away from home for periods of a few months.? The country needs them to help deliver an agile economy. The answer is simple, put. a time limit on contracts to determine what is within IR35.
Where would you draw the arbitrary line? What about long-running contracts? Wouldn't contracts just be renewed?
It’s to do with the number of clients
A minimum of 3 per year was the rule of thumb our tax advisers used...
...which means you can't accept six-month contracts. So that's the industry dead, then...
Couldn’t you just be employed on PAYE for a 6 month contract?
What are the general thoughts here on KS as Labour leader?
He's the only candidate with a chance of winning with an aura of competence, he'd be a decent performer in the media and in the commons.
His anti-Brexit views are unlikely to win back red wall seats but he is perfectly placed to say "I told you so" if anything goes wrong.
He seems like a policy over personality guy. But that kind of dull, managerial quality makes him harder to dislike than the foaming-at-the-mouth "all Tories are scum" brigade that will never win over a single blue vote.
I don't think he can beat Boris at the next GE, it doesn't feel like he has that kind of star quality. But he might be the man to bring Labour back from the abyss, kick out the far left entryists and the anti semites, and give us a functioning opposition again.
I suspect you have a much exaggerated view as to the salience of Brexit by 2023 or 2024. By that time, it is unlikely to have any greater prominence as an issue than did the Poll Tax at the 1992 election
Hmm. If Brexit is a smooth process leading to a successful outcome, I suspect Starmer will be known in 2024 as "that remainer wot was wrong about brexit, what else is he wrong about then?" which will make it hard for him to be taken seriously.
If on the other hand over the course of this Parliament, Brexit becomes an interminable process of cock ups and poor negotiations leading to repeated embarrassments for the government, Starmer is the perfect guy to capitalise on that.
I don't think Brexit will be the killer argument one way or the other in 2024, but whether people got it right or wrong in hindsight will tell the voters a great deal about their supposed competence.
Mrs Stodge is furious over the proposed IR35 tax changes which are going to make her working life as a Contractor much harder.
Good. It is working as intended. Too many people are getting away with tax dodging by being personal service "companies". The solution we've used is to bring the contractors on staff at a 38% gross pay cut or say goodbye. I have very little sympathy for tax dodgers.
So you want to deprive the economy of freelancers who are willing to work away from home for periods of a few months.? The country needs them to help deliver an agile economy. The answer is simple, put. a time limit on contracts to determine what is within IR35.
Where would you draw the arbitrary line? What about long-running contracts? Wouldn't contracts just be renewed?
It’s to do with the number of clients
A minimum of 3 per year was the rule of thumb our tax advisers used...
...which means you can't accept six-month contracts. So that's the industry dead, then...
Couldn’t you just be employed on PAYE for a 6 month contract?
What are the general thoughts here on KS as Labour leader?
He's the only candidate with a chance of winning with an aura of competence, he'd be a decent performer in the media and in the commons.
His anti-Brexit views are unlikely to win back red wall seats but he is perfectly placed to say "I told you so" if anything goes wrong.
He seems like a policy over personality guy. But that kind of dull, managerial quality makes him harder to dislike than the foaming-at-the-mouth "all Tories are scum" brigade that will never win over a single blue vote.
I don't think he can beat Boris at the next GE, it doesn't feel like he has that kind of star quality. But he might be the man to bring Labour back from the abyss, kick out the far left entryists and the anti semites, and give us a functioning opposition again.
I suspect you have a much exaggerated view as to the salience of Brexit by 2023 or 2024. By that time, it is unlikely to have any greater prominence as an issue than did the Poll Tax at the 1992 election
Hmm. If Brexit is a smooth process leading to a successful outcome, I suspect Starmer will be known in 2024 as "that remainer wot was wrong about brexit, what else is he wrong about then?" which will make it hard for him to be taken seriously.
If on the other hand over the course of this Parliament, Brexit becomes an interminable process of cock ups and poor negotiations leading to repeated embarrassments for the government, Starmer is the perfect guy to capitalise on that.
I don't think Brexit will be the killer argument one way or the other in 2024, but whether people got it right or wrong in hindsight will tell the voters a great deal about their supposed competence.
I have to disagree here. Brexit will be 'done' - and any problems associated with it will be laid at the Tories' door. Many people voted Tory for the first time simply to 'move on' and there would be fierce resistance to attempts to carry on the conversation. In so far as it remains an issue at all , it will be to Tory disadvantage. Even Remainers feel some sense of relief - albeit mixed with resignation - that the extended period of paralysis has finally ended. In the short term that is helpful to Johnson, but it also creates the space for 'normal politics' to be resumed - and when that comes to pass , Johnson is likely to be vulnerable.
Arguably Corbynism without Corbyn did win the election. Compare Boris 2019 with Corbyn 2017. CCHQ went back to 2017, saw where Corbyn had the edge over May and lifted it wholesale. Police, NHS, austerity, even trains and buses. (ETA how JC became toxic is another story.)
Yes, the "won the argument" line is easily lampooned but there is some truth to it.
There's a difference between convincing your opponents to alter their strategy and winning the argument, especially when theentire GE campaign is spent saying how awful what the opponents are proposing is, arguing there's no common ground between the offers of the parties. The truth would be to say that Boris altered tack in response to Labour, but winning the argument is just too ridiculous a phrase to use, not least as it is used to imply great popularity that wasn't there.
This is just semantics. If the last Conservative government's policy was X and the new Conservative government's policy is the precise opposite, then is that due to pragmatism or persuasion and if the latter, were they persuaded by pragmatism or the Opposition? And does it matter? That applies across a number of issues.
Combining this with the headline piece, there is an important distinction, or at least there might be. If all these new Conservative but previously unConservative policies turn out to be massively wrong, then those MPs (and voters) who held their noses to support Boris may revolt and force Boris out (thus vindicating TSE's OP).
No Tory is going to force out the PM who just won a miracle landslide in the face of seemingly impossible odds and rescued the country from socialism. On the contrary, they'll march through fire for Boris - the job's his for as long as he wants it.
In the eyes of some Tories, far from rescuing the country from socialism , he is starting to carry out such policies - renationalising rail services, big increases in infrastructure spending being two examples.
Mrs Stodge is furious over the proposed IR35 tax changes which are going to make her working life as a Contractor much harder.
Good. It is working as intended. Too many people are getting away with tax dodging by being personal service "companies". The solution we've used is to bring the contractors on staff at a 38% gross pay cut or say goodbye. I have very little sympathy for tax dodgers.
So you want to deprive the economy of freelancers who are willing to work away from home for periods of a few months.? The country needs them to help deliver an agile economy. The answer is simple, put. a time limit on contracts to determine what is within IR35.
Where would you draw the arbitrary line? What about long-running contracts? Wouldn't contracts just be renewed?
It’s to do with the number of clients
A minimum of 3 per year was the rule of thumb our tax advisers used...
...which means you can't accept six-month contracts. So that's the industry dead, then...
Couldn’t you just be employed on PAYE for a 6 month contract?
Mrs Stodge is furious over the proposed IR35 tax changes which are going to make her working life as a Contractor much harder.
Good. It is working as intended. Too many people are getting away with tax dodging by being personal service "companies". The solution we've used is to bring the contractors on staff at a 38% gross pay cut or say goodbye. I have very little sympathy for tax dodgers.
So you want to deprive the economy of freelancers who are willing to work away from home for periods of a few months.? The country needs them to help deliver an agile economy. The answer is simple, put. a time limit on contracts to determine what is within IR35.
Where would you draw the arbitrary line? What about long-running contracts? Wouldn't contracts just be renewed?
It’s to do with the number of clients
A minimum of 3 per year was the rule of thumb our tax advisers used...
...which means you can't accept six-month contracts. So that's the industry dead, then...
Er...?
If you have one six month contract and six one month contracts, that's greater than 3?
Arguably Corbynism without Corbyn did win the election. Compare Boris 2019 with Corbyn 2017. CCHQ went back to 2017, saw where Corbyn had the edge over May and lifted it wholesale. Police, NHS, austerity, even trains and buses. (ETA how JC became toxic is another story.)
Yes, the "won the argument" line is easily lampooned but there is some truth to it.
There's a difference between convincing your opponents to alter their strategy and winning the argument, especially when theentire GE campaign is spent saying how awful what the opponents are proposing is, arguing there's no common ground between the offers of the parties. The truth would be to say that Boris altered tack in response to Labour, but winning the argument is just too ridiculous a phrase to use, not least as it is used to imply great popularity that wasn't there.
This is just semantics. If the last Conservative government's policy was X and the new Conservative government's policy is the precise opposite, then is that due to pragmatism or persuasion and if the latter, were they persuaded by pragmatism or the Opposition? And does it matter? That applies across a number of issues.
Combining this with the headline piece, there is an important distinction, or at least there might be. If all these new Conservative but previously unConservative policies turn out to be massively wrong, then those MPs (and voters) who held their noses to support Boris may revolt and force Boris out (thus vindicating TSE's OP).
No Tory is going to force out the PM who just won a miracle landslide in the face of seemingly impossible odds and rescued the country from socialism. On the contrary, they'll march through fire for Boris - the job's his for as long as he wants it.
In the eyes of some Tories, far from rescuing the country from socialism , he is starting to carry out such policies - renationalising rail services, big increases in infrastructure spending being two examples.
Perhaps you could name those Tories.
I don't think it requires much imagination to arrive at a list of Thatcherite Tories who would be strongly opposed to renationalising 'anything' and to significant increases in public spending which clearly contradict the post 2010 Austerity policies. Have a word with the likes of John Redwood!
Arguably Corbynism without Corbyn did win the election. Compare Boris 2019 with Corbyn 2017. CCHQ went back to 2017, saw where Corbyn had the edge over May and lifted it wholesale. Police, NHS, austerity, even trains and buses. (ETA how JC became toxic is another story.)
Yes, the "won the argument" line is easily lampooned but there is some truth to it.
There's a difference between convincing your opponents to alter their strategy and winning the argument, especially when theentire GE campaign is spent saying how awful what the opponents are proposing is, arguing there's no common ground between the offers of the parties. The truth would be to say that Boris altered tack in response to Labour, but winning the argument is just too ridiculous a phrase to use, not least as it is used to imply great popularity that wasn't there.
This is just semantics. If the last Conservative government's policy was X and the new Conservative government's policy is the precise opposite, then is that due to pragmatism or persuasion and if the latter, were they persuaded by pragmatism or the Opposition? And does it matter? That applies across a number of issues.
Combining this with the headline piece, there is an important distinction, or at least there might be. If all these new Conservative but previously unConservative policies turn out to be massively wrong, then those MPs (and voters) who held their noses to support Boris may revolt and force Boris out (thus vindicating TSE's OP).
No Tory is going to force out the PM who just won a miracle landslide in the face of seemingly impossible odds and rescued the country from socialism. On the contrary, they'll march through fire for Boris - the job's his for as long as he wants it.
In the eyes of some Tories, far from rescuing the country from socialism , he is starting to carry out such policies - renationalising rail services, big increases in infrastructure spending being two examples.
Perhaps you could name those Tories.
I don't think it requires much imagination to arrive at a list of Thatcherite Tories who would be strongly opposed to renationalising 'anything' and to significant increases in public spending which clearly contradict the post 2010 Austerity policies. Have a word with the likes of John Redwood!
So do don’t have any names, you have your own opinion. Which is fair enough but there’s a degree of, charitably, misrepresentation going on.
...arguments that start "Couldn't you just..." or "Why don't you..."
(sorry. Triggered. I shall stop punching the wall now.)
Please. I’m curious. Obviously there’s tax advantages (for both employee and employer) of going down the ‘contractor’ route but is that it?
An employer may require a person for a short-term to cover unanticipated demand for work or demand that goes noticeably up and down.
An employee may require work that is short-term to fill in gaps caused by the need to retrain or by previous work collapsing due to industrial change.
In such cases the full-time employment contract does not fit either party and more short-term solutions are needed.
You are assuming that a person's skillset is constant and the employer's requirement for those skills are constant. They aren't, and even worse they are not always in sync; they will need new skills that are rare and you have old skills that are uncommon. Short-term contracts are a good way to bridge the frequent gaps.
Just like parachutes they are not always required and a quite scary when you do, but when you need them you really need them and removing them messes things up quite a bit.
...arguments that start "Couldn't you just..." or "Why don't you..."
(sorry. Triggered. I shall stop punching the wall now.)
Please. I’m curious. Obviously there’s tax advantages (for both employee and employer) of going down the ‘contractor’ route but is that it?
In fact such contracts already exist - time limited PAYE jobs, that is. They are relatively rare. You get all the downsides of a temp job with the lower level of pay.
The tax advantages of contracting are mostly for the employee. The employer gets employment flexibility - bin at a moments notice etc, and the alleged advantage of lower headcount.
Interestingly, Boris Johnson got to be mayor of London, by laying an elegant trap for his enemies on this - he paid full tax on his earnings from journalism for a very considerable while before he ran for that office. Before the MPs expense scandal, IIRC. Ken Livingstone fell into the HaHa - he tried to claim that Johnson was a tax cheat, used a limited company etc. The funny part was that Livingstone himself was using the personal limited company setup......
As is often the case, the underlying problem is the abuse of a structure which was supposed to be used in certain circumstances.
Bizarrely, local government didn't ban leaving your permi job on Friday and coming back on Monday as a contractor until quite recently. There has been a massive growth in "tenured" public sector contracts - they just go on and on at astonishing rates of pay.
The actual number of truly mobile contractors who are not just employees by another name is quite small.
Arguably Corbynism without Corbyn did win the election. Compare Boris 2019 with Corbyn 2017. CCHQ went back to 2017, saw where Corbyn had the edge over May and lifted it wholesale. Police, NHS, austerity, even trains and buses. (ETA how JC became toxic is another story.)
Yes, the "won the argument" line is easily lampooned but there is some truth to it.
There's a difference between convincing your opponents to alter their strategy and winning the argument, especially when theentire GE campaign is spent saying how awful what the opponents are proposing is, arguing there's no common ground between the offers of the parties. The truth would be to say that Boris altered tack in response to Labour, but winning the argument is just too ridiculous a phrase to use, not least as it is used to imply great popularity that wasn't there.
This is just semantics. If the last Conservative government's policy was X and the new Conservative government's policy is the precise opposite, then is that due to pragmatism or persuasion and if the latter, were they persuaded by pragmatism or the Opposition? And does it matter? That applies across a number of issues.
Combining this with the headline piece, there is an important distinction, or at least there might be. If all these new Conservative but previously unConservative policies turn out to be massively wrong, then those MPs (and voters) who held their noses to support Boris may revolt and force Boris out (thus vindicating TSE's OP).
No Tory is going to force out the PM who just won a miracle landslide in the face of seemingly impossible odds and rescued the country from socialism. On the contrary, they'll march through fire for Boris - the job's his for as long as he wants it.
In the eyes of some Tories, far from rescuing the country from socialism , he is starting to carry out such policies - renationalising rail services, big increases in infrastructure spending being two examples.
Perhaps you could name those Tories.
I don't think it requires much imagination to arrive at a list of Thatcherite Tories who would be strongly opposed to renationalising 'anything' and to significant increases in public spending which clearly contradict the post 2010 Austerity policies. Have a word with the likes of John Redwood!
As usual, the left tends to be relatively weak at understanding the beliefs of its political opponents.
When it comes to politics, it's not the people wearing blue who are currently a bit glum about the direction of travel.
Mrs Stodge is furious over the proposed IR35 tax changes which are going to make her working life as a Contractor much harder.
Good. It is working as intended. Too many people are getting away with tax dodging by being personal service "companies". The solution we've used is to bring the contractors on staff at a 38% gross pay cut or say goodbye. I have very little sympathy for tax dodgers.
So you want to deprive the economy of freelancers who are willing to work away from home for periods of a few months.? The country needs them to help deliver an agile economy. The answer is simple, put. a time limit on contracts to determine what is within IR35.
Where would you draw the arbitrary line? What about long-running contracts? Wouldn't contracts just be renewed?
It’s to do with the number of clients
A minimum of 3 per year was the rule of thumb our tax advisers used...
...which means you can't accept six-month contracts. So that's the industry dead, then...
Couldn’t you just be employed on PAYE for a 6 month contract?
I note the Keir Starmer, working class lad done good story is starting to unravel
How so?
Father owned the company he worked for, grew up in leafy Surrey with an aga. He went to a comprehensive school (like most people including the middle classes) but it's not quite Billy Elliott the sequel.
I note the Keir Starmer, working class lad done good story is starting to unravel
How so?
Father owned the company he worked for, grew up in leafy Surrey with an aga. He went to a comprehensive school (like most people including the middle classes) but it's not quite Billy Elliott the sequel.
He didn't go to a comprehensive, he went to Reigate, a grammar school that went private when he was 14
I note the Keir Starmer, working class lad done good story is starting to unravel
How so?
Father owned the company he worked for, grew up in leafy Surrey with an aga. He went to a comprehensive school (like most people including the middle classes) but it's not quite Billy Elliott the sequel.
He didn't go to a comprehensive, he went to Reigate, a grammar school that went private when he was 14
Ha, fair enough - what an absolute sham in that case. Utterly shameless really.
I'd remind you that Boris represents the democratic outcome across the whole of the United Kingdom. If you want to rail at that, suggest you start with asking Tony Blair why he didn't change the system when he had a 177 seat majority. (Spoiler: because the system gave him a 177 seat majority....)
I'm not doubting that. You are missing the point in your arrogance. No one is doubting Boris's legitimacy. I'm merely reminding you that a bit of humility might not go amiss as a majority voted for people other than Boris. He represents a minority. It would serve you well to remember that.
Very sorry, Mr Gallowgate, but I for one doubt his legitimacy. The recent election was a shocking example of a thoroughly corrupt and discredited process. And the Conservatives are now working hard to make it even more unjust. I do not see Boris Johnson as a real prime minister at all, MODERATED
I don't see how nursing that kind of grievance helps you. He is a real prime minister and whinging won't make it not so. Railing against the system and how awful he is, sure, no problem there, but taking that forward to saying he is not a real prime minister crosses over from anger at our electoral system and Boris Johnson into a pettiness to make yourself feel better, which will undermine criticism that is deserved of our system and the PM we have.
He obviously is PM - but I think I can see where such comments are coming from.Johnson really does not look the part - he has no gravitas , and it is difficult to take him seriously as PM in the same way that many cannot take Trump seriously as US President. Essentially both debase the offices they hold.
I would agree to an extent, although Trump is far worse as Boris is at least capable of seriousness on occasion, but I think people should be wary of that judgement escalating into what look like fits of pique at his victory and claims of lack of legitimacy.
I note the Keir Starmer, working class lad done good story is starting to unravel
How so?
Father owned the company he worked for, grew up in leafy Surrey with an aga. He went to a comprehensive school (like most people including the middle classes) but it's not quite Billy Elliott the sequel.
I have no idea whether it’s true (and am indifferent to it). I struggle with why the Labour leadership contest seems to be focused on who is prolier than thou, as if virtue is only found through a Stakhanovite background. In any event, they are all MPs, professionals now. It’s not where they’ve come from, it’s how they behave now and will behave in the future which counts, surely?
"I think if you look at Angela Rayner’s politics and mine, there’s probably a cigarette paper between us on most of the value-driven stuff,” he says.
“I think the difference is – and I don’t think it’s unkind to say this – I was outside the tent, trying to reflect what people were saying to me, and she was inside the tent trying to reflect what was inside the tent to the public"
Mrs Stodge is furious over the proposed IR35 tax changes which are going to make her working life as a Contractor much harder.
Good. It is working as intended. Too many people are getting away with tax dodging by being personal service "companies". The solution we've used is to bring the contractors on staff at a 38% gross pay cut or say goodbye. I have very little sympathy for tax dodgers.
So you want to deprive the economy of freelancers who are willing to work away from home for periods of a few months.? The country needs them to help deliver an agile economy. The answer is simple, put. a time limit on contracts to determine what is within IR35.
Where would you draw the arbitrary line? What about long-running contracts? Wouldn't contracts just be renewed?
It’s to do with the number of clients
A minimum of 3 per year was the rule of thumb our tax advisers used...
...which means you can't accept six-month contracts. So that's the industry dead, then...
Er...?
If you have one six month contract and six one month contracts, that's greater than 3?
One-month contracts are (or were?) very rare. Three months happen, but mostly it was six. Bear in mind you don't go straight from one contract to another unless you're very lucky. You don't sit back waiting for contracts to come to you, you have to chase them and they won't be in the same place.
Also makes it more notable that despite an expensive and selective education, the candidate who gets most excitement from people implying he's a vast intellect only managed to convert that privilege in to a pretty middle of the road University place.
Obviously has plenty of drive to achieve what he has since, but i'm unconvinced he's quite the towering king of detail some like to suggest.
Arguably Corbynism without Corbyn did win the election. Compare Boris 2019 with Corbyn 2017. CCHQ went back to 2017, saw where Corbyn had the edge over May and lifted it wholesale. Police, NHS, austerity, even trains and buses. (ETA how JC became toxic is another story.)
Yes, the "won the argument" line is easily lampooned but there is some truth to it.
There's a difference between convincing your opponents to alter their strategy and winning the argument, especially when theentire GE campaign is spent saying how awful what the opponents are proposing is, arguing there's no common ground between the offers of the parties. The truth would be to say that Boris altered tack in response to Labour, but winning the argument is just too ridiculous a phrase to use, not least as it is used to imply great popularity that wasn't there.
r noses to support Boris may revolt and force Boris out (thus vindicating TSE's OP).
No Tory is going to force out the PM who just won a miracle landslide in the face of seemingly impossible odds and rescued the country from socialism. On the contrary, they'll march through fire for Boris - the job's his for as long as he wants it.
In the eyes of some Tories, far from rescuing the country from socialism , he is starting to carry out such policies - renationalising rail services, big increases in infrastructure spending being two examples.
Perhaps you could name those Tories.
I don't think it requires much imagination to arrive at a list of Thatcherite Tories who would be strongly opposed to renationalising 'anything' and to significant increases in public spending which clearly contradict the post 2010 Austerity policies. Have a word with the likes of John Redwood!
So do don’t have any names, you have your own opinion. Which is fair enough but there’s a degree of, charitably, misrepresentation going on.
I doubt that Dominic Raab is overjoyed - judging by the stall he laid out during his leadership campaign. Were they still with us , Thatcher and Keith Joseph would not be best pleased.
I note the Keir Starmer, working class lad done good story is starting to unravel
How so?
Father owned the company he worked for, grew up in leafy Surrey with an aga. He went to a comprehensive school (like most people including the middle classes) but it's not quite Billy Elliott the sequel.
I have no idea whether it’s true (and am indifferent to it). I struggle with why the Labour leadership contest seems to be focused on who is prolier than thou, as if virtue is only found through a Stakhanovite background. In any event, they are all MPs, professionals now. It’s not where they’ve come from, it’s how they behave now and will behave in the future which counts, surely?
Unfortunately how they behave now seems to be lying and misleading about their backgrounds. I've no problem whatsoever with people coming from comfortable backgrounds, but when they try to have their cake and eat it by then pretending to have dragged themselves up by the bootstraps it does rather rankle.
I note the Keir Starmer, working class lad done good story is starting to unravel
How so?
Father owned the company he worked for, grew up in leafy Surrey with an aga. He went to a comprehensive school (like most people including the middle classes) but it's not quite Billy Elliott the sequel.
I have no idea whether it’s true (and am indifferent to it). I struggle with why the Labour leadership contest seems to be focused on who is prolier than thou, as if virtue is only found through a Stakhanovite background. In any event, they are all MPs, professionals now. It’s not where they’ve come from, it’s how they behave now and will behave in the future which counts, surely?
I would say so, yes. It is the desperation to be seen as working class which is annoying. It seems beyond doubt that Starmer had a typical middle class upbringing, and as a Human Rights Lawyer, DPP and Knight of the Realm, is now a part of the elite, but what does it matter as long as he is good at his job?
Mrs Stodge is furious over the proposed IR35 tax changes which are going to make her working life as a Contractor much harder.
Good. It is working as intended. Too many people are getting away with tax dodging by being personal service "companies". The solution we've used is to bring the contractors on staff at a 38% gross pay cut or say goodbye. I have very little sympathy for tax dodgers.
So you want to deprive the economy of freelancers who are willing to work away from home for periods of a few months.? The country needs them to help deliver an agile economy. The answer is simple, put. a time limit on contracts to determine what is within IR35.
Where would you draw the arbitrary line? What about long-running contracts? Wouldn't contracts just be renewed?
It’s to do with the number of clients
A minimum of 3 per year was the rule of thumb our tax advisers used...
...which means you can't accept six-month contracts. So that's the industry dead, then...
Couldn’t you just be employed on PAYE for a 6 month contract?
...arguments that start "Couldn't you just..." or "Why don't you..."
(sorry. Triggered. I shall stop punching the wall now.)
Why?
It places the burden on person 2 to justify why they are not doing what person 1 wants. But the burden should be on person 1 to justify it. It's better known as "passive-aggressive".
Arguably Corbynism without Corbyn did win the election. Compare Boris 2019 with Corbyn 2017. CCHQ went back to 2017, saw where Corbyn had the edge over May and lifted it wholesale. Police, NHS, austerity, even trains and buses. (ETA how JC became toxic is another story.)
Yes, the "won the argument" line is easily lampooned but there is some truth to it.
There's a difference between convincing your opponents to alter their strategy and winning the argument, especially when theentire GE campaign is spent saying how awful what the opponents are proposing is, arguing there's no common ground between the offers of the parties. The truth would be to say that Boris altered tack in response to Labour, but winning the argument is just too ridiculous a phrase to use, not least as it is used to imply great popularity that wasn't there.
r noses to support Boris may revolt and force Boris out (thus vindicating TSE's OP).
No Tory is going to force out the PM who just won a miracle landslide in the face of seemingly impossible odds and rescued the country from socialism. On the contrary, they'll march through fire for Boris - the job's his for as long as he wants it.
In the eyes of some Tories, far from rescuing the country from socialism , he is starting to carry out such policies - renationalising rail services, big increases in infrastructure spending being two examples.
Perhaps you could name those Tories.
I don't think it requires much imagination to arrive at a list of Thatcherite Tories who would be strongly opposed to renationalising 'anything' and to significant increases in public spending which clearly contradict the post 2010 Austerity policies. Have a word with the likes of John Redwood!
So do don’t have any names, you have your own opinion. Which is fair enough but there’s a degree of, charitably, misrepresentation going on.
I doubt that Dominic Raab is overjoyed - judging by the stall he laid out during his leadership campaign. Were they still with us , Thatcher and Keith Joseph would not be best pleased.
So you don’t have a clue. Why pretend you do? Does it make you feel important?
...arguments that start "Couldn't you just..." or "Why don't you..."
(sorry. Triggered. I shall stop punching the wall now.)
Please. I’m curious. Obviously there’s tax advantages (for both employee and employer) of going down the ‘contractor’ route but is that it?
An employer may require a person for a short-term to cover unanticipated demand for work or demand that goes noticeably up and down.
An employee may require work that is short-term to fill in gaps caused by the need to retrain or by previous work collapsing due to industrial change.
In such cases the full-time employment contract does not fit either party and more short-term solutions are needed.
You are assuming that a person's skillset is constant and the employer's requirement for those skills are constant. They aren't, and even worse they are not always in sync; they will need new skills that are rare and you have old skills that are uncommon. Short-term contracts are a good way to bridge the frequent gaps.
Just like parachutes they are not always required and a quite scary when you do, but when you need them you really need them and removing them messes things up quite a bit.
...arguments that start "Couldn't you just..." or "Why don't you..."
(sorry. Triggered. I shall stop punching the wall now.)
Please. I’m curious. Obviously there’s tax advantages (for both employee and employer) of going down the ‘contractor’ route but is that it?
An employer may require a person for a short-term to cover unanticipated demand for work or demand that goes noticeably up and down.
An employee may require work that is short-term to fill in gaps caused by the need to retrain or by previous work collapsing due to industrial change.
In such cases the full-time employment contract does not fit either party and more short-term solutions are needed.
You are assuming that a person's skillset is constant and the employer's requirement for those skills are constant. They aren't, and even worse they are not always in sync; they will need new skills that are rare and you have old skills that are uncommon. Short-term contracts are a good way to bridge the frequent gaps.
Just like parachutes they are not always required and a quite scary when you do, but when you need them you really need them and removing them messes things up quite a bit.
You can have short term contracts under PAYE no?
Consider the sentence "In such cases the full-time employment contract does not fit either party"
modified to "In such cases the full-time employment contract does not fit well either party"
An excellent example of how Corbyn should have acted. Rock hard on dealing with racism, even in her own camp, and committed to rejoining the EU. I am now fully on Team Jess.
I haven't heard much from the right on Starmer which to me suggests they're worried if he becomes the leader. On the contrary they can't stop going on about RLB.
I haven't heard much from the right on Starmer which to me suggests they're worried if he becomes the leader. On the contrary they can't stop going on about RLB.
I think the right want Starmer but don't want to doom him with their support. To be honest I suspect they just want anyone that isn't RLB.
I know the exaggerated "Yorkshire-man" tales by the Labour leadership candidates are mostly for internal consumption, but I think Labour are misunderstanding it isn't that they have to be working class salt of the earth types in order to win back the red wall voters (I mean they just voted for Posho McPosho in droves), it is that they listen to their concerns, propose realistic proposals to address them and not call them stupid racist gammon.
Blair wasn't exactly man of the people, given his elite education etc, but his platform was a sensible centre left one that people thought addressed many of their concerns on education, health etc.
At the moment if it isn't "when I were a lad, we could only afford one shoe stuff", we have other candidates wanting referendums on the monarchy and abolishing the house of lords. That isn't going to get Stoke man thinking you are listening to their issues.
Arguably Corbynism without Corbyn did win the election. Compare Boris 2019 with Corbyn 2017. CCHQ went back to 2017, saw where Corbyn had the edge over May and lifted it wholesale. Police, NHS, austerity, even trains and buses. (ETA how JC became toxic is another story.)
Yes, the "won the argument" line is easily lampooned but there is some truth to it.
.
r noses to support Boris may revolt and force Boris out (thus vindicating TSE's OP).
No Tory is going to force out the PM who just won a miracle landslide in the face of seemingly impossible odds and rescued the country from socialism. On the contrary, they'll march through fire for Boris - the job's his for as long as he wants it.
In the eyes of some Tories, far from rescuing the country from socialism , he is starting to carry out such policies - renationalising rail services, big increases in infrastructure spending being two examples.
Perhaps you could name those Tories.
I don't think it requires much imagination to arrive at a list of Thatcherite Tories who would be strongly opposed to renationalising 'anything' and to significant increases in public spending which clearly contradict the post 2010 Austerity policies. Have a word with the likes of John Redwood!
So do don’t have any names, you have your own opinion. Which is fair enough but there’s a degree of, charitably, misrepresentation going on.
I doubt that Dominic Raab is overjoyed - judging by the stall he laid out during his leadership campaign. Were they still with us , Thatcher and Keith Joseph would not be best pleased.
So you don’t have a clue. Why pretend you do? Does it make you feel important?
I rather think you are exposing your own ignorance here.Are you really totally unfamiliar with Thatcher's views and policies re-public finance? Keith Joseph anf the Institute of Economic Affairs? Geoffrey Howe's Medium Term Financial Strategy ? The 1981 Budget? Then of course we had the Coalition years of Austerity driven by Osborne.
I know the exaggerated "Yorkshire-man" tales by the Labour leadership candidates are mostly for internal consumption, but I think Labour are misunderstanding it isn't that they have to be working class salt of the earth types in order to win back the red wall voters (I mean they just voted for Posho McPosho in droves), it is that they listen to their concerns, propose realistic proposals to address them and not call them stupid racist gammon.
Blair wasn't exactly man of the people, given his elite education etc, but his platform was a sensible centre left one that people thought addressed many of their concerns on education, health etc.
The "gammon" insult was one of the most damaging things the Left did to their own electoral chances. Using racist slang towards their own core vote for being angry about something was typical of the monumental stupidity of Corbynites.
David Cameron, didn't serve a full term after winning a majority but had served a full term as PM John Major, served a full term after winning a majority* Thatcher, served multiple full terms after winning majorities. Was deposed mid-term after a decade, whereas Johnson is newly PM.
I don't think the article is technically accurate, apologies if I'm missing something. I also think it is simply misleading to suggest past Tory PMs with majorities have often had short lifespans. The last PM of any party to win their *first* majority but not fight the next election was Macmillan (and Eden immediately before him, two in a row curiously).
In any case, not all majorities are equal. The last Tory PM to win a majority on this scale was Thatcher and she governed for over a decade.
*(And the 'In office but not in power' point is interesting but I don't see how it is relevant for this bet, which is on exit date not 'Effective loss of control date')
An excellent example of how Corbyn should have acted. Rock hard on dealing with racism, even in her own camp, and committed to rejoining the EU. I am now fully on Team Jess.
Correct on semitism but she has since rowed back on re-joining the EU
David Cameron, didn't serve a full term after winning a majority but had served a full term as PM John Major, served a full term after winning a majority* Thatcher, served multiple full terms after winning majorities
I don't think the article is accurate, apologies if I'm missing something.
In any case, not all majorities are equal. The last Tory PM to win a majority on this scale was Thatcher and she governed for over a decade.
*(And the 'In office but not in power' point is interesting but I don't see how it is relevant for this bet, which is on exit date not 'Effective loss of control date')
I was talking the about the last three instances of the Tories winning a majority
David Cameron 2015 - Gone in 2016
John Major 1992 - Gone in 1995*
Margaret Thatcher 1987 - Gone in 1990
*This market is when Boris Johnson ceases to be Tory leader, I spoke to Shadsy and Betfair CS last year about John Major's resignation in 1995 to trigger a Tory leadership contest, both said they would have probably paid out John Major exiting as Tory leader in June 1995. Though doing a John Major is not an option available to Boris Johnson as the rules have changed.
Arguably Corbynism without Corbyn did win the election. Compare Boris 2019 with Corbyn 2017. CCHQ went back to 2017, saw where Corbyn had the edge over May and lifted it wholesale. Police, NHS, austerity, even trains and buses. (ETA how JC became toxic is another story.)
Yes, the "won the argument" line is easily lampooned but there is some truth to it.
.
r noses to support Boris may revolt and force Boris out (thus vindicating TSE's OP).
No Tory is going to force out the PM who just won a miracle landslide in the face of seemingly impossible odds and rescued the country from socialism. On the contrary, they'll march through fire for Boris - the job's his for as long as he wants it.
In the eyes of some Tories, far from rescuing the country from socialism , he is starting to carry out such policies - renationalising rail services, big increases in infrastructure spending being two examples.
Perhaps you could name those Tories.
I don't think it requires much imagination to arrive at a list of Thatcherite Tories who would be strongly opposed to renationalising 'anything' and to significant increases in public spending which clearly contradict the post 2010 Austerity policies. Have a word with the likes of John Redwood!
So do don’t have any names, you have your own opinion. Which is fair enough but there’s a degree of, charitably, misrepresentation going on.
I doubt that Dominic Raab is overjoyed - judging by the stall he laid out during his leadership campaign. Were they still with us , Thatcher and Keith Joseph would not be best pleased.
So you don’t have a clue. Why pretend you do? Does it make you feel important?
I rather think you are exposing your own ignorance here.Are you really totally unfamiliar with Thatcher's views and policies re-public finance? Keith Joseph anf the Institute of Economic Affairs? Geoffrey Howe's Medium Term Financial Strategy ? The 1981 Budget? Then of course we had the Coalition years of Austerity driven by Osborne.
I’m not the blowhard who writes, “ In the eyes of some Tories, far from rescuing the country from socialism , he is starting to carry out such policies..” then gives examples of people who *might* object (but haven’t said anything). Or are dead.
Mrs Stodge is furious over the proposed IR35 tax changes which are going to make her working life as a Contractor much harder.
:
:
Where would you draw the arbitrary line? What about long-running contracts? Wouldn't contracts just be renewed?
It’s to do with the number of clients
A minimum of 3 per year was the rule of thumb our tax advisers used...
...which means you can't accept six-month contracts. So that's the industry dead, then...
Please. I’m curious. Obviously there’s tax advantages (for both employee and employer) of going down the ‘contractor’ route but is that it?
In fact such contracts already exist - time limited PAYE jobs, that is. They are relatively rare. You get all the downsides of a temp job with the lower level of pay.
The tax advantages of contracting are mostly for the employee. The employer gets employment flexibility - bin at a moments notice etc, and the alleged advantage of lower headcount.
Interestingly, Boris Johnson got to be mayor of London, by laying an elegant trap for his enemies on this - he paid full tax on his earnings from journalism for a very considerable while before he ran for that office. Before the MPs expense scandal, IIRC. Ken Livingstone fell into the HaHa - he tried to claim that Johnson was a tax cheat, used a limited company etc. The funny part was that Livingstone himself was using the personal limited company setup......
As is often the case, the underlying problem is the abuse of a structure which was supposed to be used in certain circumstances.
Bizarrely, local government didn't ban leaving your permi job on Friday and coming back on Monday as a contractor until quite recently. There has been a massive growth in "tenured" public sector contracts - they just go on and on at astonishing rates of pay.
The actual number of truly mobile contractors who are not just employees by another name is quite small.
Indeed. I am one of them. A genuine freelancer. Though I am taking some time out for the next few months for health and personal reasons. A lot of contractors I know have had to adjust significantly to IR35, as well as those firms placing people in short-term positions.
David Cameron, didn't serve a full term after winning a majority but had served a full term as PM John Major, served a full term after winning a majority* Thatcher, served multiple full terms after winning majorities
I don't think the article is accurate, apologies if I'm missing something.
In any case, not all majorities are equal. The last Tory PM to win a majority on this scale was Thatcher and she governed for over a decade.
*(And the 'In office but not in power' point is interesting but I don't see how it is relevant for this bet, which is on exit date not 'Effective loss of control date')
I was talking the about the last three instances of the Tories winning a majority
David Cameron 2015 - Gone in 2016
John Major 1992 - Gone in 1995*
Margaret Thatcher 1987 - Gone in 1990
*This market is when Boris Johnson ceases to be Tory leader, I spoke to Shadsy and Betfair CS about John Major's resignation in 1995 to trigger a Tory leadership contest, both said they would have probably paid out John Major exiting as Tory leader in June 1995. Though doing a John Major is not an option available to Boris Johnson as the rules have changed.
I've edited my original comment to be more expansive, even if this is technically true (and I'd dispute that, Mayor especially) it is a misleading comparison because Cameron and Thatcher were winning second/third elections.
I'd remind you that Boris represents the democratic outcome across the whole of the United Kingdom. If you want to rail at that, suggest you start with asking Tony Blair why he didn't change the system when he had a 177 seat majority. (Spoiler: because the system gave him a 177 seat majority....)
I'm not doubting that. You are missing the point in your arrogance. No one is doubting Boris's legitimacy. I'm merely reminding you that a bit of humility might not go amiss as a majority voted for people other than Boris. He represents a minority. It would serve you well to remember that.
Very sorry, Mr Gallowgate, but I for one doubt his legitimacy. The recent election was a shocking example of a thoroughly corrupt and discredited process. And the Conservatives are now working hard to make it even more unjust. I do not see Boris Johnson as a real prime minister at all, MODERATED
I don't see how nursing that kind of grievance helps you. He is a real prime minister and whinging won't make it not so. Railing against the system and how awful he is, sure, no problem there, but taking that forward to saying he is not a real prime minister crosses over from anger at our electoral system and Boris Johnson into a pettiness to make yourself feel better, which will undermine criticism that is deserved of our system and the PM we have.
He obviously is PM - but I think I can see where such comments are coming from.Johnson really does not look the part - he has no gravitas , and it is difficult to take him seriously as PM in the same way that many cannot take Trump seriously as US President. Essentially both debase the offices they hold.
I would agree to an extent, although Trump is far worse as Boris is at least capable of seriousness on occasion, but I think people should be wary of that judgement escalating into what look like fits of pique at his victory and claims of lack of legitimacy.
No one can accuse Johnson of parliamentary illigitimacy. Gordon Brown or Jim Callaghan he is not.
His problem now is selling the BINO he wants and the voters (although they don't know it yet) want as a hard Brexit to members of the Conservative Party. A tall order but is Boris beguiling enough to pull it off? Quite possibly.
I know the exaggerated "Yorkshire-man" tales by the Labour leadership candidates are mostly for internal consumption, but I think Labour are misunderstanding it isn't that they have to be working class salt of the earth types in order to win back the red wall voters (I mean they just voted for Posho McPosho in droves), it is that they listen to their concerns, propose realistic proposals to address them and not call them stupid racist gammon.
Blair wasn't exactly man of the people, given his elite education etc, but his platform was a sensible centre left one that people thought addressed many of their concerns on education, health etc.
The "gammon" insult was one of the most damaging things the Left did to their own electoral chances. Using racist slang towards their own core vote for being angry about something was typical of the monumental stupidity of Corbynites.
Wow! Completely agree with you! But don't you think it's something that Phillips would excuse as "speaking truth to power"? I think it's more her sort of politics than that of Long-Bailey, for example.
I don't know about you but manufactured outrage is my favourite kind of outrage. Next to pre-outrage, confected outrage, faux-outrage, hyperbolic outrage...
No one can accuse Johnson of parliamentary illigitimacy. Gordon Brown or Jim Callaghan he is not.
His problem now is selling the BINO he wants and the voters (although they don't know it yet) want as a hard Brexit to members of the Conservative Party. A tall order but is Boris beguiling enough to pull it off? Quite possibly.
Why would he bother? He can avoid a difficult thing by just pivoting to a basic trade deal and throwing red meat to his base.
The point that most persuaded me was that he is talking a good game on Anti-Semitism now, but where was he when Jews needed him? Loyally serving under Corbyn and not speaking out. Unlike Jess Phillips.
I know the exaggerated "Yorkshire-man" tales by the Labour leadership candidates are mostly for internal consumption, but I think Labour are misunderstanding it isn't that they have to be working class salt of the earth types in order to win back the red wall voters (I mean they just voted for Posho McPosho in droves), it is that they listen to their concerns, propose realistic proposals to address them and not call them stupid racist gammon.
Blair wasn't exactly man of the people, given his elite education etc, but his platform was a sensible centre left one that people thought addressed many of their concerns on education, health etc.
The "gammon" insult was one of the most damaging things the Left did to their own electoral chances. Using racist slang towards their own core vote for being angry about something was typical of the monumental stupidity of Corbynites.
Wow! Completely agree with you! But don't you think it's something that Phillips would excuse as "speaking truth to power"? I think it's more her sort of politics than that of Long-Bailey, for example.
I have never heard Jess use the term, nor any other racist terminology.
I don't know about you but manufactured outrage is my favourite kind of outrage. Next to pre-outrage, confected outrage, faux-outrage, hyperbolic outrage...
I'm an old skool genuine outrage man masel', I fear they've stopped making it though.
No one can accuse Johnson of parliamentary illigitimacy. Gordon Brown or Jim Callaghan he is not.
His problem now is selling the BINO he wants and the voters (although they don't know it yet) want as a hard Brexit to members of the Conservative Party. A tall order but is Boris beguiling enough to pull it off? Quite possibly.
I don't think Johnson has a BINO to sell. Kudos to Liam Fox for being straighter on the Brexit trade off than anyone in government
No one can accuse Johnson of parliamentary illigitimacy. Gordon Brown or Jim Callaghan he is not.
His problem now is selling the BINO he wants and the voters (although they don't know it yet) want as a hard Brexit to members of the Conservative Party. A tall order but is Boris beguiling enough to pull it off? Quite possibly.
Why would he bother? He can avoid a difficult thing by just pivoting to a basic trade deal and throwing red meat to his base.
That has electoral ramifications. Queues at airports. Expensive medicines. The list goes on and on. Brexit could become a liability that Johnson owns.
Better that we leave and life trundles on regardless.
Back tonight for Sandringham tomorrow.....Also good show of respect to Oman.
DId you know that the letter naming his successor was lodged by the old Sultan with the British Ambassador? With a spare copy (according to rumour) lodged with Brenda herself.
No one can accuse Johnson of parliamentary illigitimacy. Gordon Brown or Jim Callaghan he is not.
His problem now is selling the BINO he wants and the voters (although they don't know it yet) want as a hard Brexit to members of the Conservative Party. A tall order but is Boris beguiling enough to pull it off? Quite possibly.
I don't think Johnson has a BINO to sell. Kudos to Liam Fox for being straighter on the Brexit trade off than anyone in government
I know the exaggerated "Yorkshire-man" tales by the Labour leadership candidates are mostly for internal consumption, but I think Labour are misunderstanding it isn't that they have to be working class salt of the earth types in order to win back the red wall voters (I mean they just voted for Posho McPosho in droves), it is that they listen to their concerns, propose realistic proposals to address them and not call them stupid racist gammon.
Blair wasn't exactly man of the people, given his elite education etc, but his platform was a sensible centre left one that people thought addressed many of their concerns on education, health etc.
The "gammon" insult was one of the most damaging things the Left did to their own electoral chances. Using racist slang towards their own core vote for being angry about something was typical of the monumental stupidity of Corbynites.
Wow! Completely agree with you! But don't you think it's something that Phillips would excuse as "speaking truth to power"? I think it's more her sort of politics than that of Long-Bailey, for example.
Long-Bailey certainly spoke (her version of) truth to the power that will determine the 2024 general election when she awarded Corbyn 10 out of 10 in the full knowledge that Corbyn himself was cited by people who switched away from Labour in 2019 as the primary reason for their doing so.
That may well be her view, notwithstanding the imperative of appealing to party members in order to be the next Labour leader and preserve the far left's grip on the party, as opposed to ever winning a general election as party leader.
Shokking all those flegs. I see Agent P is a 3 flegger himself. Only a matter of time before he adds the Star of David and the Stars and Stripes I feel.
Arguably Corbynism without Corbyn did win the election. Compare Boris 2019 with Corbyn 2017. CCHQ went back to 2017, saw where Corbyn had the edge over May and lifted it wholesale. Police, NHS, austerity, even trains and buses. (ETA how JC became toxic is another story.)
Yes, the "won the argument" line is easily lampooned but there is some truth to it.
There's a difference between convincing your opponents to alter their strategy and winning the argument, iculous a phrase to use, not least as it is used to imply great popularity that wasn't there.
This is just semantics. If the last Conservative government's policy was X and the new Conservative government's policy is the precise opposite, then is that due to pragmatism or persuasion and if the latter, were they persuaded by pragmatism or the Opposition? And does it matter? That applies across a number of issues.
Combining this with the headline piece, there is an important distinction, or at least there might be. If all these new Conservative but previously unConservative policies turn out to be massively wrong, then those MPs (and voters) who held their noses to support Boris may revolt and force Boris out (thus vindicating TSE's OP).
No Tory is going to force out the PM who just won a miracle landslide in the face of seemingly impossible odds and rescued the country from socialism. On the contrary, they'll march through fire for Boris - the job's his for as long as he wants it.
In the eyes of some Tories, far from rescuing the country from socialism , he is starting to carry out such policies - renationalising rail services, big increases in infrastructure spending being two examples.
Perhaps you could name those Tories.
I don't think it requires much imagination to arrive at a list of Thatcherite Tories who would be strongly opposed to renationalising 'anything' and to significant increases in public spending which clearly contradict the post 2010 Austerity policies. Have a word with the likes of John Redwood!
As usual, the left tends to be relatively weak at understanding the beliefs of its political opponents.
When it comes to politics, it's not the people wearing blue who are currently a bit glum about the direction of travel.
A more perceptive observation might be that the direction of travel is upsetting the left culturally and the right economically.
No one can accuse Johnson of parliamentary illigitimacy. Gordon Brown or Jim Callaghan he is not.
His problem now is selling the BINO he wants and the voters (although they don't know it yet) want as a hard Brexit to members of the Conservative Party. A tall order but is Boris beguiling enough to pull it off? Quite possibly.
I don't think Johnson has a BINO to sell. Kudos to Liam Fox for being straighter on the Brexit trade off than anyone in government
What to do with an unexpected night stop in Bangkok?
(Was supposed to be in Manila, but their airport is closed after a nearby volcano did its stuff).
i) Arrive in Bangkok. ii) Ask @SeanT for advice. iii) For the sake of your immortal soul, do the exact opposite. iv) In fact, just stay in hotel room and read a book. Simpler.
The reality is that anyone with two braincells knows that unless we're in the EU trading with them is going to be more difficult.
What people argue is that increased difficulty is worth it for other advantages.
Of course, nobody ever proposed what those advantages were, so...
I've accepted we're leaving but my honest assessment of Brexit is that at best it will have been a complete waste of time.
Being able to make your own decisions was a big one, if you look at those various word clouds.
But we could make our own decisions before, that's not an actual tangible advantage of leaving.
I accept that's what people want and if by Brexiting we end up giving people more control (even though we could do that before), then that's great, I won't argue against that.
But my problem is that to be cynical about it, I honestly think in five years very little is going to change, hence my comment about at best this being a complete waste of time.
But to be honest I think fighting this battle is pointless, I've lost, uncovering old ground isn't going to help anyone.
I know the exaggerated "Yorkshire-man" tales by the Labour leadership candidates are mostly for internal consumption, but I think Labour are misunderstanding it isn't that they have to be working class salt of the earth types in order to win back the red wall voters (I mean they just voted for Posho McPosho in droves), it is that they listen to their concerns, propose realistic proposals to address them and not call them stupid racist gammon.
Blair wasn't exactly man of the people, given his elite education etc, but his platform was a sensible centre left one that people thought addressed many of their concerns on education, health etc.
At the moment if it isn't "when I were a lad, we could only afford one shoe stuff", we have other candidates wanting referendums on the monarchy and abolishing the house of lords.
Labour and Remain lost working class votes to privately educated cityboy Nigel Farage, who dresses like Toad of Toad Hall, and Eton Bullingdon Boy and toff extraordinaire Al "Boris" Johnson... there is no need to pretend to be "one of them" in order to win that vote, I don't see why they bother
I haven't heard much from the right on Starmer which to me suggests they're worried if he becomes the leader. On the contrary they can't stop going on about RLB.
I think the right want Starmer but don't want to doom him with their support. To be honest I suspect they just want anyone that isn't RLB.
I suggest that you use "non-Corbynite left" or something similar as opposed to "right". The "right" as we understand it here are the Tories. Only the Momentum far left use the term "right" to describe any other members of the Labour Party who are not in their camp and they do so as a calculated petty insult.
On the substance of your point, it is worth noting that many of those who I would deem most hostile to Corbyn have nominated Jess Phillips, presumably because she has been the most outspoken of the candidates in their hostility to him. As such they are not going to come out in favour of Starmer in any case, as least whilst Phillips has a chance of being on the ballot paper.
No one can accuse Johnson of parliamentary illigitimacy. Gordon Brown or Jim Callaghan he is not.
His problem now is selling the BINO he wants and the voters (although they don't know it yet) want as a hard Brexit to members of the Conservative Party. A tall order but is Boris beguiling enough to pull it off? Quite possibly.
I don't think Johnson has a BINO to sell. Kudos to Liam Fox for being straighter on the Brexit trade off than anyone in government
That is my interpretation too. It is not what Boris has sold us.
So Johnson pretends it's a BINO, when it isn't really?
That would be silly. He needs to pretend it is a clean break but without the economic ramifications that come with misalignment. From what Fox is telling us, and this was always how I saw it, we will be economically poorer. Johnson has been categorical that this will not be the case. Surely he is telling the truth.
I know the exaggerated "Yorkshire-man" tales by the Labour leadership candidates are mostly for internal consumption, but I think Labour are misunderstanding it isn't that they have to be working class salt of the earth types in order to win back the red wall voters (I mean they just voted for Posho McPosho in droves), it is that they listen to their concerns, propose realistic proposals to address them and not call them stupid racist gammon.
Blair wasn't exactly man of the people, given his elite education etc, but his platform was a sensible centre left one that people thought addressed many of their concerns on education, health etc.
The "gammon" insult was one of the most damaging things the Left did to their own electoral chances. Using racist slang towards their own core vote for being angry about something was typical of the monumental stupidity of Corbynites.
Wow! Completely agree with you! But don't you think it's something that Phillips would excuse as "speaking truth to power"? I think it's more her sort of politics than that of Long-Bailey, for example.
Long-Bailey certainly spoke (her version of) truth to the power that will determine the 2024 general election when she awarded Corbyn 10 out of 10 in the full knowledge that Corbyn himself was cited by people who switched away from Labour in 2019 as the primary reason for their doing so.
That may well be her view, notwithstanding the imperative of appealing to party members in order to be the next Labour leader and preserve the far left's grip on the party, as opposed to ever winning a general election as party leader.
If you think I'm supporting Long-Bailey in the leadership contest, you are mistaken.
My point was that this dismissive attitude towards individuals, on the basis that their demographic group is privileged, comes at least as much modernising centrists as it does from socialists. Phillips' behaviour around issues such as male suicide is one example. The use of the word "gammon" is another (I am not implying that Phillips has used or endorsed that word, but plenty of liberal centrists do.)
Labour has the right values both economically and on social issues. We just have to learn to stop hating people who disagree with us. That applies to centrists as much as socialists.
While in general I find Corbyn's equivocations about conflicts in the middle-east as repulsive as the next man, I wonder which bit of 'It is right that Iran has accepted responsibility for this appalling act' is causing you a problem here?
His framing of the narrative
If people call it the “Ukrainian planet crash” over time they will forget it was shot down
my ex Husband left me and my two kids and also how i needed to get a job in a very big company.He only said to me that i have come to the right place were i will be getting my heart desire without any delay. He told me what i need to do, After it was done, 24 hours later, My Ex Husband called me on the phone and was saying sorry for living me and the kids and one week after I was called for interview in a very big company here in IRELAND were i needed to work as the managing director..I am so happy and overwhelmed that i have to tell this to the entire world to Write this name Robinsonbuckler <@> yahoo. com on Google and get all your problem solve..No problem is too big for him to solve.🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Comments
Yes, I will admit he was more honest and principled than Johnson but that’s a bit like saying somebody is more monogamous than Genghis Khan.
If on the other hand over the course of this Parliament, Brexit becomes an interminable process of cock ups and poor negotiations leading to repeated embarrassments for the government, Starmer is the perfect guy to capitalise on that.
I don't think Brexit will be the killer argument one way or the other in 2024, but whether people got it right or wrong in hindsight will tell the voters a great deal about their supposed competence.
...arguments that start "Couldn't you just..." or "Why don't you..."
(sorry. Triggered. I shall stop punching the wall now.)
If you have one six month contract and six one month contracts, that's greater than 3?
An employee may require work that is short-term to fill in gaps caused by the need to retrain or by previous work collapsing due to industrial change.
In such cases the full-time employment contract does not fit either party and more short-term solutions are needed.
You are assuming that a person's skillset is constant and the employer's requirement for those skills are constant. They aren't, and even worse they are not always in sync; they will need new skills that are rare and you have old skills that are uncommon. Short-term contracts are a good way to bridge the frequent gaps.
Just like parachutes they are not always required and a quite scary when you do, but when you need them you really need them and removing them messes things up quite a bit.
The tax advantages of contracting are mostly for the employee. The employer gets employment flexibility - bin at a moments notice etc, and the alleged advantage of lower headcount.
Interestingly, Boris Johnson got to be mayor of London, by laying an elegant trap for his enemies on this - he paid full tax on his earnings from journalism for a very considerable while before he ran for that office. Before the MPs expense scandal, IIRC. Ken Livingstone fell into the HaHa - he tried to claim that Johnson was a tax cheat, used a limited company etc. The funny part was that Livingstone himself was using the personal limited company setup......
As is often the case, the underlying problem is the abuse of a structure which was supposed to be used in certain circumstances.
Bizarrely, local government didn't ban leaving your permi job on Friday and coming back on Monday as a contractor until quite recently. There has been a massive growth in "tenured" public sector contracts - they just go on and on at astonishing rates of pay.
The actual number of truly mobile contractors who are not just employees by another name is quite small.
When it comes to politics, it's not the people wearing blue who are currently a bit glum about the direction of travel.
Bet he paid for those private school fees
https://www.reigategrammar.org/admissions/fees/
"I think if you look at Angela Rayner’s politics and mine, there’s probably a cigarette paper between us on most of the value-driven stuff,” he says.
“I think the difference is – and I don’t think it’s unkind to say this – I was outside the tent, trying to reflect what people were saying to me, and she was inside the tent trying to reflect what was inside the tent to the public"
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/i-m-no-blairite-says-labour-deputy-leadership-hopeful-ian-murray-1-5073630
Obviously has plenty of drive to achieve what he has since, but i'm unconvinced he's quite the towering king of detail some like to suggest.
"In such cases the full-time employment contract does not fit either party"
modified to
"In such cases the full-time employment contract does not fit well either party"
https://twitter.com/ClarenceHouse/status/1216311348306550784?s=20
Back tonight for Sandringham tomorrow.....Also good show of respect to Oman.
Democracy in action!
Basically if he loses an election or sometime towards the end of his second or the beggining of his third term.
Blair wasn't exactly man of the people, given his elite education etc, but his platform was a sensible centre left one that people thought addressed many of their concerns on education, health etc.
At the moment if it isn't "when I were a lad, we could only afford one shoe stuff", we have other candidates wanting referendums on the monarchy and abolishing the house of lords. That isn't going to get Stoke man thinking you are listening to their issues.
David Cameron, didn't serve a full term after winning a majority but had served a full term as PM
John Major, served a full term after winning a majority*
Thatcher, served multiple full terms after winning majorities. Was deposed mid-term after a decade, whereas Johnson is newly PM.
I don't think the article is technically accurate, apologies if I'm missing something. I also think it is simply misleading to suggest past Tory PMs with majorities have often had short lifespans. The last PM of any party to win their *first* majority but not fight the next election was Macmillan (and Eden immediately before him, two in a row curiously).
In any case, not all majorities are equal. The last Tory PM to win a majority on this scale was Thatcher and she governed for over a decade.
*(And the 'In office but not in power' point is interesting but I don't see how it is relevant for this bet, which is on exit date not 'Effective loss of control date')
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
David Cameron 2015 - Gone in 2016
John Major 1992 - Gone in 1995*
Margaret Thatcher 1987 - Gone in 1990
*This market is when Boris Johnson ceases to be Tory leader, I spoke to Shadsy and Betfair CS last year about John Major's resignation in 1995 to trigger a Tory leadership contest, both said they would have probably paid out John Major exiting as Tory leader in June 1995. Though doing a John Major is not an option available to Boris Johnson as the rules have changed.
His problem now is selling the BINO he wants and the voters (although they don't know it yet) want as a hard Brexit to members of the Conservative Party. A tall order but is Boris beguiling enough to pull it off? Quite possibly.
https://twitter.com/IrishUnity/status/1215975226875531264?s=20
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7876751/amp/DAN-HODGES-Labour-politicians-need-stop-hypocrites-capture-working-communitys-trust.html?__twitter_impression=true
The point that most persuaded me was that he is talking a good game on Anti-Semitism now, but where was he when Jews needed him? Loyally serving under Corbyn and not speaking out. Unlike Jess Phillips.
https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1216312922042970113
This response to his interview is also true:
https://twitter.com/DaveBSheppard/status/1216328597062987788
Better that we leave and life trundles on regardless.
What to do with an unexpected night stop in Bangkok?
(Was supposed to be in Manila, but their airport is closed after a nearby volcano did its stuff).
That may well be her view, notwithstanding the imperative of appealing to party members in order to be the next Labour leader and preserve the far left's grip on the party, as opposed to ever winning a general election as party leader.
I see Agent P is a 3 flegger himself. Only a matter of time before he adds the Star of David and the Stars and Stripes I feel.
Hmm. I hadn't thought of that.
ii) Ask @SeanT for advice.
iii) For the sake of your immortal soul, do the exact opposite.
iv) In fact, just stay in hotel room and read a book. Simpler.
What people argue is that increased difficulty is worth it for other advantages.
Of course, nobody ever proposed what those advantages were, so...
I've accepted we're leaving but my honest assessment of Brexit is that at best it will have been a complete waste of time.
I accept that's what people want and if by Brexiting we end up giving people more control (even though we could do that before), then that's great, I won't argue against that.
But my problem is that to be cynical about it, I honestly think in five years very little is going to change, hence my comment about at best this being a complete waste of time.
But to be honest I think fighting this battle is pointless, I've lost, uncovering old ground isn't going to help anyone.
NEW THREAD
On the substance of your point, it is worth noting that many of those who I would deem most hostile to Corbyn have nominated Jess Phillips, presumably because she has been the most outspoken of the candidates in their hostility to him. As such they are not going to come out in favour of Starmer in any case, as least whilst Phillips has a chance of being on the ballot paper.
My point was that this dismissive attitude towards individuals, on the basis that their demographic group is privileged, comes at least as much modernising centrists as it does from socialists. Phillips' behaviour around issues such as male suicide is one example. The use of the word "gammon" is another (I am not implying that Phillips has used or endorsed that word, but plenty of liberal centrists do.)
Labour has the right values both economically and on social issues. We just have to learn to stop hating people who disagree with us. That applies to centrists as much as socialists.
There's none so blind ...
If people call it the “Ukrainian planet crash” over time they will forget it was shot down