Just found out that one of my favourite trade fairs at the NEC has been cancelled, not just for this year, but permanently. Why are long-term decisions being made in the midst of a crisis? Doesn't make sense.
But look at that wording. It's not exactly "bitterly oppose till we are licking the windows like SLAB and their ScoTory chums already are".
I wonder if a gap is being left ...
You really think UKLab/SLab are going to rethink their opposition to indyref2 if the SNP win a majority next year? I mean, it's not like they have the power to enact one anytime soon given the Tories' 80 seat majority, and I'm not sure the first thing SKS would want to do upon being elected in 2024 would be to spend the entire first year as PM doing nothing but desperately campaigning to save the union.
He won't have a choice if the SNP hold the balance of power.
I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. After all, if Labour don’t have a majority the SNP will have the choice of either voting to install Starmer or abstaining and letting the Tories remain in office (Gus O’Donnell and Brown having helpfully rewritten our constitutional arrangements so the PM is the PM until resignation or a vote to remove). The latter would not be an easy sell in Glasgow or Dundee.
Starmer could therefore always say, ‘yes, but’ on a referendum - saying, for example, ‘yes, but 40% of the whole electorate must vote for change,’ or ‘yes, but 2/3 of MSPs must agree on the form of the question.’ He is a lawyer and to judge from his record is a master of semantics.
But personally I am struggling to see how if the SNP are still in government in 2022-23 anyone can realistically deny them Sindyref II.
Yup Boris can and will deny them.
He ran in the UK election on a “you’ve had your once in a generation vote just over 5 years ago, no referendum in this Parliament”. He won, and there’s no reason to go back on that:-
SNP voters are hardly likely Tory converts in anything other than tiny numbers. It shores up the Tory vote as “the reliable unionists”, compared to SLab being tempted to play footsie.
If he wins again UK wide and gets 6-10 Scottish seats, job done for another five years. Sturgeon’s not daft enough to declare UDI and see recognition from Xi, Putin, and Venezuela as her reward, while Madrid quietly goes nuts and kills any European option stone dead.
Meanwhile Starmer will have to say something about what he’d do if he wins an overall majority, or needs SNP support. Saying he supports a referendum means out come the Sturgeon posters with Starmer tucked in her handbag ( see Ed M 2015). If he says he’s dead against, SLab MP’s in 2024 can probably all go to Westminster on the same motorbike, and he has to somehow overcome a majority in England against him of 150 plus with a bit of Welsh help, and that’s not the given it was, and Wales gets 8 less seats in all likelihood too.
From Boris’ perspective even if Starmer “loses” Scotland for the union, it just means the bar to a Tory majority in the 93% of the country that’s left has been pretty permanently lowered by about 50/55 seats. Not too bad a consolation.
Hmm. Slab MPs can already go to London on as single Segway, of course. A motorbike would be a 100% (or 200%, with sidecar) improvement.
And on this comment and others today, remember Slab has been claiming for decades (a claim which Jim Callaghan denied, and he should know) that it was all the SNP's fault for letting Mrs Thatcher in. They were part of the vote against Callaghan, yes, but not all.
A lot of Scots are therefore very familiar with that canard and the underlying problems which it highlights about Scotland's representation at Westminster (in several sense of the word).
Yes granted.
If Scotland goes ( more likely than it was five years ago, but not a slam dunk gimme) there’s a straight forward plus for the Tories in rUK and Labour have a strategic problem, that they will resolve of course but only by moving towards a more English electorate which is likely to mean moving a bit rightwards from their normal centre of gravity.
FPT
As there is no Labour MP in NI and one unicycle-load in Scotland (and uncertain hopes of improvement) and a [edit] hopper bus load in Wales you are basically presenting a motive for Mr Starmer to give up on Scotland and move to the right preemptively - not Ingsoc but a new Labour Party of England.
FPT Justin124 said: ' Had the SNP not supported the Tories in late March 1979 the Government would not have fallen at that point - and no GE would have taken place on 3rd May. The election would have then been in June or October that year.'
Carnyx said:
'Something inevitable came 3-4 months early, at best, in other words.
Jim Callaghan never blamed the SNP. '
The difference in timing of the GE could well have proved crucial. A few more weeks or months would have given Callaghan time to enable memories of the Winter of Discontent to fade a fair bit further than had occured by 3rd May. As a result the Tory lead in vote share might well have narrowed to circa 3% rather than the 7% margin Thatcher managed that May. That would likely have meant a Hung Parliament - probably a minority Tory Government supported by the Ulster Unionists. Probably far too weak to increase VAT from 8% to 15% a month later.
Hmm... [edit] a good counterfactual. But I can't see it. Vague memories, I was young, but my impression is relentless hatred of Labour being whiopped up by the Tory newspapers - no way would that W of D with all its power strikes, homework by candle, rat-infested rubbish heaps, corpses piling up in mortuaries, be allowed to be forgotten till after Mrs T had had her victory. And not even after that.
FFS, the Torties on PB andf elsewhere still go on about the WoD. And look at how they and the newspapers monstered Mr Corby for the occasional funeral or speech platform. It's not as if he had killed 120,000 people during his administration, is it?
And, again, Mr Callaghan's failure to adopt your thesis, even in hindsight, is very strong evidence.
Edit: just seen @sarissa 's point - good one there re the strength of the print media then.
Callaghan should have goe for a GE in Autumn 1978. A much better prospect of a win then.
I totally agree. In my view he was a poor leader and got so many timing decisions disastrously wrong. First the failure to call an election for Autumn 78. Secondly it became clear almost a week ahead of the No Confidence Vote on 28th March 1979 that the Government was likely to lose it - most calculations had them losing by two votes. Faced with that, in my view he should have gone along to the Palace 48 hours before the Vote - 26th March - and asked the Queen to agree to an election being held on 7th June. Once the date had been announced it could not really have been changed and the Vote due on 28th March would have assumed less importance. The Tories would have been up in arms but powerless to change the timing. I suspect that Harold Wilson would have acted along these lines. Finally after losing the 1979 election, he hung on to the Leadership as LOTO for too long . By not stepping down until October 1980 he thwarted Denis Healey's hopes of being his successor.
This is a very interesting discussion, thank you.
Though it makes the SNP vote against look more and more like a midge bite on someone dying of slow congestive heart failure.
Liverpool 1 point short of the magic 100. And City end with a MUCH better goal difference.
Still a good season for them but perhaps a bit of the gloss has come off.
You keep pushing this line, it is absolutely absurd. 18 points ahead of second but the gloss is off because the goal difference is worse? In what universe would that be rational;?
There were no power strikes during the Winter of Discontent - they belong to the Heath Government and the 3-Day Week of late 73/early 74. The turmoil of Jan/Feb 1979 began with a Lorry Drivers' strike followed by the unrelenting misery when public sector workers led by Alan Fisher's NUPE joined in. The miners and electricity workers were not involved - but the crisis went on for so long with the Government appearing helpless. I was a Labour PPC at the time and felt strongly that Callaghan should have deployed the Army.
I wonder if deploying the Army would have split the Labour movement? We'll never know.
I remember seeing a documentary recently with a senior Labour figure of that time who blamed the unions for sabotaging the Callaghan government, and not seeing Mrs Thatcher coming down the tracks at them "and boy did you guys deserve her" or words to that effect.
The Schadenfreude was unmistakable.
Also in that documentary, a union leader (maybe Ron Todd) tried to present the Thatcher reforms as better for the unions because they came from the Tories. Desperate logic.
Liverpool 1 point short of the magic 100. And City end with a MUCH better goal difference.
Still a good season for them but perhaps a bit of the gloss has come off.
You keep pushing this line, it is absolutely absurd. 18 points ahead of second but the gloss is off because the goal difference is worse? In what universe would that be rational;?
The gloss is off because Liverpool looked like they were going to break lots of PL records and ended up breaking none. The only record they broke was their own 30 year duck in the PL.
FPT Justin124 said: ' Had the SNP not supported the Tories in late March 1979 the Government would not have fallen at that point - and no GE would have taken place on 3rd May. The election would have then been in June or October that year.'
Carnyx said:
'Something inevitable came 3-4 months early, at best, in other words.
Jim Callaghan never blamed the SNP. '
The difference in timing of the GE could well have proved crucial. A few more weeks or months would have given Callaghan time to enable memories of the Winter of Discontent to fade a fair bit further than had occured by 3rd May. As a result the Tory lead in vote share might well have narrowed to circa 3% rather than the 7% margin Thatcher managed that May. That would likely have meant a Hung Parliament - probably a minority Tory Government supported by the Ulster Unionists. Probably far too weak to increase VAT from 8% to 15% a month later.
Hmm... [edit] a good counterfactual. But I can't see it. Vague memories, I was young, but my impression is relentless hatred of Labour being whiopped up by the Tory newspapers - no way would that W of D with all its power strikes, homework by candle, rat-infested rubbish heaps, corpses piling up in mortuaries, be allowed to be forgotten till after Mrs T had had her victory. And not even after that.
FFS, the Torties on PB andf elsewhere still go on about the WoD. And look at how they and the newspapers monstered Mr Corby for the occasional funeral or speech platform. It's not as if he had killed 120,000 people during his administration, is it?
And, again, Mr Callaghan's failure to adopt your thesis, even in hindsight, is very strong evidence.
Edit: just seen @sarissa 's point - good one there re the strength of the print media then.
Callaghan should have goe for a GE in Autumn 1978. A much better prospect of a win then.
I totally agree. In my view he was a poor leader and got so many timing decisions disastrously wrong. First the failure to call an election for Autumn 78. Secondly it became clear almost a week ahead of the No Confidence Vote on 28th March 1979 that the Government was likely to lose it - most calculations had them losing by two votes. Faced with that, in my view he should have gone along to the Palace 48 hours before the Vote - 26th March - and asked the Queen to agree to an election being held on 7th June. Once the date had been announced it could not really have been changed and the Vote due on 28th March would have assumed less importance. The Tories would have been up in arms but powerless to change the timing. I suspect that Harold Wilson would have acted along these lines. Finally after losing the 1979 election, he hung on to the Leadership as LOTO for too long . By not stepping down until October 1980 he thwarted Denis Healey's hopes of being his successor.
This is a very interesting discussion, thank you.
Though it makes the SNP vote against look more and more like a midge bite on someone dying of slow congestive heart failure.
There is an interesting story - which I believe to be true - regarding thr crucial House of Commons Division which saw Callaghan's Government fall by a single vote. The SNP group of 11 MPs was committed to supporting the Tory Opposition and went through the Aye Lobby as expected. At the last moment though one of their MPs - Hamish Watt MP for Banff- decided to effectively cancel out his Aye vote by also walking through the Noe Lobby. As he ran to the Noe Lobby ,the Division Doors slammed literally three seconds before he could get there. Had he succeeded , the Vote would have been tied with Callaghan's Government surviving!
Liverpool 1 point short of the magic 100. And City end with a MUCH better goal difference.
Still a good season for them but perhaps a bit of the gloss has come off.
You keep pushing this line, it is absolutely absurd. 18 points ahead of second but the gloss is off because the goal difference is worse? In what universe would that be rational;?
The gloss is off because Liverpool looked like they were going to break lots of PL records and ended up breaking none. The only record they broke was their own 30 year duck in the PL.
Oh and OllyT, here's some records Liverpool have broken this season.
Earliest title win
By claiming the title with seven matches to spare Liverpool beat the mark set of becoming champions with five matches remaining, set by Manchester United in 2000/01, and Man City in 2017/18.
Fastest to 30 wins
The 3-1 victory at Brighton & Hove Albion on 8 July was the Reds' 30th this season, and they achieved that mark in a Premier League record of 34 matches.
Best start ever
When Liverpool reached 61 points from their opening 21 matches, it was the most a team had ever accumulated at that stage in any of Europe's top five leagues.
But all worth nothing because you've got a better goal difference.
Liverpool 1 point short of the magic 100. And City end with a MUCH better goal difference.
Still a good season for them but perhaps a bit of the gloss has come off.
You keep pushing this line, it is absolutely absurd. 18 points ahead of second but the gloss is off because the goal difference is worse? In what universe would that be rational;?
The deficit on goal difference AND finishing on 99 pts not 100. Both of those are quite big psychologically. Bet if we were in the dressing room we'd pick up a certain flatness.
Soon wear off though no doubt. A title's a title and it has been 30 years.
These places all seem to have high Islamic populations. There are probably hundreds of similar sized towns in England that aren't on this list. Maybe it's just because a lot of them are close to each other though
Bolton is the only one not on there! And I have just found out Darwen is more or less Bolton
Darwen is not more or less Bolton. It may be close but there are miles of high uninhabited moorland between them. Which makes them psychologically quite distant.
Liverpool 1 point short of the magic 100. And City end with a MUCH better goal difference.
Still a good season for them but perhaps a bit of the gloss has come off.
You keep pushing this line, it is absolutely absurd. 18 points ahead of second but the gloss is off because the goal difference is worse? In what universe would that be rational;?
The gloss is off because Liverpool looked like they were going to break lots of PL records and ended up breaking none. The only record they broke was their own 30 year duck in the PL.
Would have taken 5th at the start of the season, but a bit disappointed.
No way are we good enough for the CL though. We had the advantage of being seeded last time, 4th place makes for a tougher group.
Not what you want to hear from me - and apologies in advance for it - but my strong hunch from quite some time back was that you were not going to hang on for top 4.
Wonder what next season will bring in the PL. Might be an odd one.
Oh and OllyT, here's some records Liverpool have broken this season.
Earliest title win
By claiming the title with seven matches to spare Liverpool beat the mark set of becoming champions with five matches remaining, set by Manchester United in 2000/01, and Man City in 2017/18.
Fastest to 30 wins
The 3-1 victory at Brighton & Hove Albion on 8 July was the Reds' 30th this season, and they achieved that mark in a Premier League record of 34 matches.
Best start ever
When Liverpool reached 61 points from their opening 21 matches, it was the most a team had ever accumulated at that stage in any of Europe's top five leagues.
But all worth nothing because you've got a better goal difference.
Liverpool 1 point short of the magic 100. And City end with a MUCH better goal difference.
Still a good season for them but perhaps a bit of the gloss has come off.
You keep pushing this line, it is absolutely absurd. 18 points ahead of second but the gloss is off because the goal difference is worse? In what universe would that be rational;?
The gloss is off because Liverpool looked like they were going to break lots of PL records and ended up breaking none. The only record they broke was their own 30 year duck in the PL.
There were no power strikes during the Winter of Discontent - they belong to the Heath Government and the 3-Day Week of late 73/early 74. The turmoil of Jan/Feb 1979 began with a Lorry Drivers' strike followed by the unrelenting misery when public sector workers led by Alan Fisher's NUPE joined in. The miners and electricity workers were not involved - but the crisis went on for so long with the Government appearing helpless. I was a Labour PPC at the time and felt strongly that Callaghan should have deployed the Army.
I wonder if deploying the Army would have split the Labour movement? We'll never know.
I remember seeing a documentary recently with a senior Labour figure of that time who blamed the unions for sabotaging the Callaghan government, and not seeing Mrs Thatcher coming down the tracks at them "and boy did you guys deserve her" or words to that effect.
The Schadenfreude was unmistakable.
Also in that documentary, a union leader (maybe Ron Todd) tried to present the Thatcher reforms as better for the unions because they came from the Tories. Desperate logic.
Here it is btw. Well worth a watch in an idle hour:
Another amusing section is 50 minutes in when they are discussing bringing the Army in to replace striking gravediggers. Somebody questions this proposal and Peter Shore says "Surely they could provide a skeleton service?"
(It never came to that because the gravediggers took a 14% pay rise).
It was Jamie Morris, not Ron Todd, who said that Mrs Thatcher was better for the unions than Callaghan, 56 minutes in.
There were no power strikes during the Winter of Discontent - they belong to the Heath Government and the 3-Day Week of late 73/early 74. The turmoil of Jan/Feb 1979 began with a Lorry Drivers' strike followed by the unrelenting misery when public sector workers led by Alan Fisher's NUPE joined in. The miners and electricity workers were not involved - but the crisis went on for so long with the Government appearing helpless. I was a Labour PPC at the time and felt strongly that Callaghan should have deployed the Army.
I wonder if deploying the Army would have split the Labour movement? We'll never know.
I remember seeing a documentary recently with a senior Labour figure of that time who blamed the unions for sabotaging the Callaghan government, and not seeing Mrs Thatcher coming down the tracks at them "and boy did you guys deserve her" or words to that effect.
The Schadenfreude was unmistakable.
Also in that documentary, a union leader (maybe Ron Todd) tried to present the Thatcher reforms as better for the unions because they came from the Tories. Desperate logic.
Here it is btw. Well worth a watch in an idle hour:
Another amusing section is 50 minutes in when they are discussing bringing the Army in to replace striking gravediggers. Somebody questions this proposal and Peter Shore says "Surely they could provide a skeleton service?"
(It never came to that because the gravediggers took a 14% pay rise).
It was Jamie Morris, not Ron Todd, who said that Mrs Thatcher was better for the unions than Callaghan, 56 minutes in.
Did the gravediggers object to having to make unfunny jokes while a prince in disguise was moping around?
Oh and OllyT, here's some records Liverpool have broken this season.
Earliest title win
By claiming the title with seven matches to spare Liverpool beat the mark set of becoming champions with five matches remaining, set by Manchester United in 2000/01, and Man City in 2017/18.
Fastest to 30 wins
The 3-1 victory at Brighton & Hove Albion on 8 July was the Reds' 30th this season, and they achieved that mark in a Premier League record of 34 matches.
Best start ever
When Liverpool reached 61 points from their opening 21 matches, it was the most a team had ever accumulated at that stage in any of Europe's top five leagues.
But all worth nothing because you've got a better goal difference.
Slowest ever title win as well.
Indeed, being the champions of the world this season has helped the deal with the crushing failure of not having the best goal difference in the PL.
Does anyone have any explanation for Singapore statistics? Do they test people with Covid-19 every single day until they produce a negative result of something? And report every one as a positive case. I mean i get the argument that the cases are largely concentrated in the young working population, but 27 deaths on the back of 50,000 cases is just silly. And they're still running at nearly 500 a day which is a per capita equivalent to 6,000 in the UK. And it's not like we're not doing any testing.
FPT Justin124 said: ' Had the SNP not supported the Tories in late March 1979 the Government would not have fallen at that point - and no GE would have taken place on 3rd May. The election would have then been in June or October that year.'
Carnyx said:
'Something inevitable came 3-4 months early, at best, in other words.
Jim Callaghan never blamed the SNP. '
The difference in timing of the GE could well have proved crucial. A few more weeks or months would have given Callaghan time to enable memories of the Winter of Discontent to fade a fair bit further than had occured by 3rd May. As a result the Tory lead in vote share might well have narrowed to circa 3% rather than the 7% margin Thatcher managed that May. That would likely have meant a Hung Parliament - probably a minority Tory Government supported by the Ulster Unionists. Probably far too weak to increase VAT from 8% to 15% a month later.
Hmm... [edit] a good counterfactual. But I can't see it. Vague memories, I was young, but my impression is relentless hatred of Labour being whiopped up by the Tory newspapers - no way would that W of D with all its power strikes, homework by candle, rat-infested rubbish heaps, corpses piling up in mortuaries, be allowed to be forgotten till after Mrs T had had her victory. And not even after that.
FFS, the Torties on PB andf elsewhere still go on about the WoD. And look at how they and the newspapers monstered Mr Corby for the occasional funeral or speech platform. It's not as if he had killed 120,000 people during his administration, is it?
And, again, Mr Callaghan's failure to adopt your thesis, even in hindsight, is very strong evidence.
Edit: just seen @sarissa 's point - good one there re the strength of the print media then.
Callaghan should have goe for a GE in Autumn 1978. A much better prospect of a win then.
I totally agree. In my view he was a poor leader and got so many timing decisions disastrously wrong. First the failure to call an election for Autumn 78. Secondly it became clear almost a week ahead of the No Confidence Vote on 28th March 1979 that the Government was likely to lose it - most calculations had them losing by two votes. Faced with that, in my view he should have gone along to the Palace 48 hours before the Vote - 26th March - and asked the Queen to agree to an election being held on 7th June. Once the date had been announced it could not really have been changed and the Vote due on 28th March would have assumed less importance. The Tories would have been up in arms but powerless to change the timing. I suspect that Harold Wilson would have acted along these lines. Finally after losing the 1979 election, he hung on to the Leadership as LOTO for too long . By not stepping down until October 1980 he thwarted Denis Healey's hopes of being his successor.
This is a very interesting discussion, thank you.
Though it makes the SNP vote against look more and more like a midge bite on someone dying of slow congestive heart failure.
There is an interesting story - which I believe to be true - regarding thr crucial House of Commons Division which saw Callaghan's Government fall by a single vote. The SNP group of 11 MPs was committed to supporting the Tory Opposition and went through the Aye Lobby as expected. At the last moment though one of their MPs - Hamish Watt MP for Banff- decided to effectively cancel out his Aye vote by also walking through the Noe Lobby. As he ran to the Noe Lobby ,the Division Doors slammed literally three seconds before he could get there. Had he succeeded , the Vote would have been tied with Callaghan's Government surviving!
Interesting story.
Though of course with six hundred people casting votes, you'll always get a few near misses/accidents/personal disasters interfering. There may have been others on the Aye side.
That sounds distinctly like a plan to whack everybody, regardless of how well-off or otherwise they are, rather than loading the burden onto estates. It imposes a flat tax rate on the whole population, above the threshold age, in order that the obvious alternative funding source - inherited property - can be passed on more substantially intact.
That social care policy genuinely sounds pretty good
It is shocking, I already pay enough tax as forty something.
This really isn't a Conservative government, this is socialism.
There's nothing fiscally un-conservative about doing something and raising taxes to pay for it, though? One can debate if it's wise, but it's not in principle fiscally reckless.
That sounds distinctly like a plan to whack everybody, regardless of how well-off or otherwise they are, rather than loading the burden onto estates. It imposes a flat tax rate on the whole population, above the threshold age, in order that the obvious alternative funding source - inherited property - can be passed on more substantially intact.
That's a very Tory solution. Will Labour back it?
With caveats, I suspect they might do.
Although they recently said tax rises are not the solution - but what about new taxes?
That sounds distinctly like a plan to whack everybody, regardless of how well-off or otherwise they are, rather than loading the burden onto estates. It imposes a flat tax rate on the whole population, above the threshold age, in order that the obvious alternative funding source - inherited property - can be passed on more substantially intact.
That's a very Tory solution. Will Labour back it?
I suspect it will be an insurance based scheme and sounds a good solution
Liverpool 1 point short of the magic 100. And City end with a MUCH better goal difference.
Still a good season for them but perhaps a bit of the gloss has come off.
You keep pushing this line, it is absolutely absurd. 18 points ahead of second but the gloss is off because the goal difference is worse? In what universe would that be rational;?
The gloss is off because Liverpool looked like they were going to break lots of PL records and ended up breaking none. The only record they broke was their own 30 year duck in the PL.
Bless, your bitterness is wonderful.
Bless, Liverpool fans who bragged about how they were going to go unbeaten, break the 100 points record, win every home game, win the PL by a record margin now pretending it never mattered! As a City fan I have absolutely nothing to feel bitter about as far as Liverpool are concerned. Listening to their fans you' wouldn't think anyone had ever won the PL before.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
That social care policy genuinely sounds pretty good
It is shocking, I already pay enough tax as forty something.
This really isn't a Conservative government, this is socialism.
There's nothing fiscally un-conservative about doing something and raising taxes to pay for it, though? One can debate if it's wise, but it's not in principle fiscally reckless.
Or, to put it another way, if you don't raise the additional revenue then is it proposed that (a) we let the future aged sit neglected in their own piss or (b) make cuts somewhere else to keep taxes lower? If it's the latter then, logically, one should propose what the requisite cuts ought to be.
That sounds distinctly like a plan to whack everybody, regardless of how well-off or otherwise they are, rather than loading the burden onto estates. It imposes a flat tax rate on the whole population, above the threshold age, in order that the obvious alternative funding source - inherited property - can be passed on more substantially intact.
That's a very Tory solution. Will Labour back it?
I suspect it will be an insurance based scheme and sounds a good solution
As this is a proposal from a Boris Johnson Government, I can't agree with it, although it does make perfect sense and not before time.
That sounds distinctly like a plan to whack everybody, regardless of how well-off or otherwise they are, rather than loading the burden onto estates. It imposes a flat tax rate on the whole population, above the threshold age, in order that the obvious alternative funding source - inherited property - can be passed on more substantially intact.
That's a very Tory solution. Will Labour back it?
I am guessing the left will condemn it as a Trojan horse. Flat rate care insurance for the over 40s today, flat rate health insurance for everyone tomorrow.
That sounds distinctly like a plan to whack everybody, regardless of how well-off or otherwise they are, rather than loading the burden onto estates. It imposes a flat tax rate on the whole population, above the threshold age, in order that the obvious alternative funding source - inherited property - can be passed on more substantially intact.
That's a very Tory solution. Will Labour back it?
I suspect it will be an insurance based scheme and sounds a good solution
As this is a proposal from a Boris Johnson Government, I can't agree with it, although it does make perfect sense and not before time.
That social care policy genuinely sounds pretty good
It is shocking, I already pay enough tax as forty something.
This really isn't a Conservative government, this is socialism.
There's nothing fiscally un-conservative about doing something and raising taxes to pay for it, though? One can debate if it's wise, but it's not in principle fiscally reckless.
Any government that wants to be fiscally prudent will have to raise taxes sooner rather than later.
The question is whether they will admit it in advance.
Corbyn did to a limited extent, although his sums (contrary to his claims) didn’t even begin to add up. Johnson probably won’t. If he is still PM at the next election, therefore, Starmer will have an awkward problem explaining to people that yes, we can have all these nice things but we have to pay for them through higher taxes.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
I am just a tad older than you and have been hit by all the same trends (my first year at uni was the final year of grants.) And yes, pensions will be shite by the time we retire. But what can you do? Too many decrepit old farts and too few workers is the future.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
The interesting one will be will current pensioners have to pay this?
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
I was the last year to have their fees paid, which was only fair, as in those days A Levels were hard.
That sounds distinctly like a plan to whack everybody, regardless of how well-off or otherwise they are, rather than loading the burden onto estates. It imposes a flat tax rate on the whole population, above the threshold age, in order that the obvious alternative funding source - inherited property - can be passed on more substantially intact.
That's a very Tory solution. Will Labour back it?
I suspect it will be an insurance based scheme and sounds a good solution
As this is a proposal from a Boris Johnson Government, I can't agree with it, although it does make perfect sense and not before time.
That is so funny
I can't tell whether it's an ironic or serious comment from MP.
Oh and OllyT, here's some records Liverpool have broken this season.
Earliest title win
By claiming the title with seven matches to spare Liverpool beat the mark set of becoming champions with five matches remaining, set by Manchester United in 2000/01, and Man City in 2017/18.
Fastest to 30 wins
The 3-1 victory at Brighton & Hove Albion on 8 July was the Reds' 30th this season, and they achieved that mark in a Premier League record of 34 matches.
Best start ever
When Liverpool reached 61 points from their opening 21 matches, it was the most a team had ever accumulated at that stage in any of Europe's top five leagues.
But all worth nothing because you've got a better goal difference.
I didn't say it was worth nothing I said it was not the all- time record breaking season Liverpool fans were telling us what going to happen a few months back.
Creditable though the things you mention are you aren't going to see them in any of the record books. The records that count come from what you do over 38 games, not the first 21. Still nice to see the barrels being scraped.
Liverpool 1 point short of the magic 100. And City end with a MUCH better goal difference.
Still a good season for them but perhaps a bit of the gloss has come off.
You keep pushing this line, it is absolutely absurd. 18 points ahead of second but the gloss is off because the goal difference is worse? In what universe would that be rational;?
The gloss is off because Liverpool looked like they were going to break lots of PL records and ended up breaking none. The only record they broke was their own 30 year duck in the PL.
Bless, your bitterness is wonderful.
Bless, Liverpool fans who bragged about how they were going to go unbeaten, break the 100 points record, win every home game, win the PL by a record margin now pretending it never mattered! As a City fan I have absolutely nothing to feel bitter about as far as Liverpool are concerned. Listening to their fans you' wouldn't think anyone had ever won the PL before.
We only wanted one thing, one thing alone, the title, anything else was a bonus.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
The interesting one will be will current pensioners have to pay this?
I have no problem paying it to be honest, it will be a lot cheaper than paying for care
That social care policy genuinely sounds pretty good
It is shocking, I already pay enough tax as forty something.
This really isn't a Conservative government, this is socialism.
There's nothing fiscally un-conservative about doing something and raising taxes to pay for it, though? One can debate if it's wise, but it's not in principle fiscally reckless.
Any government that wants to be fiscally prudent will have to raise taxes sooner rather than later.
The question is whether they will admit it in advance.
Corbyn did to a limited extent, although his sums (contrary to his claims) didn’t even begin to add up. Johnson probably won’t. If he is still PM at the next election, therefore, Starmer will have an awkward problem explaining to people that yes, we can have all these nice things but we have to pay for them through higher taxes.
See that is Boris' brilliant USP. Free stuff and loads of it, and never having to pay for it on his watch.
By comparison Starmer really is has a hard sell. No free stuff, but you still have to pay for it anyway!
That social care policy genuinely sounds pretty good
It is shocking, I already pay enough tax as forty something.
This really isn't a Conservative government, this is socialism.
There's nothing fiscally un-conservative about doing something and raising taxes to pay for it, though? One can debate if it's wise, but it's not in principle fiscally reckless.
Any government that wants to be fiscally prudent will have to raise taxes sooner rather than later.
The question is whether they will admit it in advance.
Corbyn did to a limited extent, although his sums (contrary to his claims) didn’t even begin to add up. Johnson probably won’t. If he is still PM at the next election, therefore, Starmer will have an awkward problem explaining to people that yes, we can have all these nice things but we have to pay for them through higher taxes.
See that is Boris' brilliant USP. Free stuff and loads of it, and never having to pay for it on his watch.
By comparison Starmer really is has a hard sell. No free stuff, but you still have to pay for it anyway!
Maybe Johnson is the answer after all?
Didn't corbyn offer loads of free stuff - he just wasn't believed.
That social care policy genuinely sounds pretty good
It is shocking, I already pay enough tax as forty something.
This really isn't a Conservative government, this is socialism.
There's nothing fiscally un-conservative about doing something and raising taxes to pay for it, though? One can debate if it's wise, but it's not in principle fiscally reckless.
Any government that wants to be fiscally prudent will have to raise taxes sooner rather than later.
The question is whether they will admit it in advance.
Corbyn did to a limited extent, although his sums (contrary to his claims) didn’t even begin to add up. Johnson probably won’t. If he is still PM at the next election, therefore, Starmer will have an awkward problem explaining to people that yes, we can have all these nice things but we have to pay for them through higher taxes.
See that is Boris' brilliant USP. Free stuff and loads of it, and never having to pay for it on his watch.
By comparison Starmer really is has a hard sell. No free stuff, but you still have to pay for it anyway!
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
The interesting one will be will current pensioners have to pay this?
Liverpool 1 point short of the magic 100. And City end with a MUCH better goal difference.
Still a good season for them but perhaps a bit of the gloss has come off.
You keep pushing this line, it is absolutely absurd. 18 points ahead of second but the gloss is off because the goal difference is worse? In what universe would that be rational;?
The gloss is off because Liverpool looked like they were going to break lots of PL records and ended up breaking none. The only record they broke was their own 30 year duck in the PL.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
The interesting one will be will current pensioners have to pay this?
I have no problem paying it to be honest, it will be a lot cheaper than paying for care
I would doubt that you'd have to. Whacking pensioners is pretty much taboo. The middle aged, not so much.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
The interesting one will be will current pensioners have to pay this?
I have no problem paying it to be honest, it will be a lot cheaper than paying for care
I think you might still have to pay that anyway if you can afford it, for the time being at least. Don't forget the profligate already get it for free.
That social care policy genuinely sounds pretty good
It is shocking, I already pay enough tax as forty something.
This really isn't a Conservative government, this is socialism.
There's nothing fiscally un-conservative about doing something and raising taxes to pay for it, though? One can debate if it's wise, but it's not in principle fiscally reckless.
Any government that wants to be fiscally prudent will have to raise taxes sooner rather than later.
The question is whether they will admit it in advance.
Corbyn did to a limited extent, although his sums (contrary to his claims) didn’t even begin to add up. Johnson probably won’t. If he is still PM at the next election, therefore, Starmer will have an awkward problem explaining to people that yes, we can have all these nice things but we have to pay for them through higher taxes.
See that is Boris' brilliant USP. Free stuff and loads of it, and never having to pay for it on his watch.
By comparison Starmer really is has a hard sell. No free stuff, but you still have to pay for it anyway!
Maybe Johnson is the answer after all?
Johnson found the magic money tree
If it an insurance scheme it should be self sufficient and no money tree needed to be fair
Oh and OllyT, here's some records Liverpool have broken this season.
Earliest title win
By claiming the title with seven matches to spare Liverpool beat the mark set of becoming champions with five matches remaining, set by Manchester United in 2000/01, and Man City in 2017/18.
Fastest to 30 wins
The 3-1 victory at Brighton & Hove Albion on 8 July was the Reds' 30th this season, and they achieved that mark in a Premier League record of 34 matches.
Best start ever
When Liverpool reached 61 points from their opening 21 matches, it was the most a team had ever accumulated at that stage in any of Europe's top five leagues.
But all worth nothing because you've got a better goal difference.
I didn't say it was worth nothing I said it was not the all- time record breaking season Liverpool fans were telling us what going to happen a few months back.
Creditable though the things you mention are you aren't going to see them in any of the record books. The records that count come from what you do over 38 games, not the first 21. Still nice to see the barrels being scraped.
Earliest ever title victory (and latest ever) is a very clear record.
Having wrapped up the title with 7 an unprecedented games to spare is it any surprise the pressure was off during the longest ever victory lap recorded?
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
The interesting one will be will current pensioners have to pay this?
I have no problem paying it to be honest, it will be a lot cheaper than paying for care
I would doubt that you'd have to. Whacking pensioners is pretty much taboo. The middle aged, not so much.
Great so the older generations that have had everything on a silver plate don't need to pay for this either?
The Japanese model pensioners do have to pay it, if that model is introduced but they don't then that's not good.
That social care policy genuinely sounds pretty good
It is shocking, I already pay enough tax as forty something.
This really isn't a Conservative government, this is socialism.
There's nothing fiscally un-conservative about doing something and raising taxes to pay for it, though? One can debate if it's wise, but it's not in principle fiscally reckless.
Any government that wants to be fiscally prudent will have to raise taxes sooner rather than later.
The question is whether they will admit it in advance.
Corbyn did to a limited extent, although his sums (contrary to his claims) didn’t even begin to add up. Johnson probably won’t. If he is still PM at the next election, therefore, Starmer will have an awkward problem explaining to people that yes, we can have all these nice things but we have to pay for them through higher taxes.
See that is Boris' brilliant USP. Free stuff and loads of it, and never having to pay for it on his watch.
By comparison Starmer really is has a hard sell. No free stuff, but you still have to pay for it anyway!
Maybe Johnson is the answer after all?
Johnson found the magic money tree
He has indeed. Meanwhile Starmer and Sunak are busy trying to grow their own with little success.
Comments
Just found out that one of my favourite trade fairs at the NEC has been cancelled, not just for this year, but permanently. Why are long-term decisions being made in the midst of a crisis? Doesn't make sense.
As there is no Labour MP in NI and one unicycle-load in Scotland (and uncertain hopes of improvement) and a [edit] hopper bus load in Wales you are basically presenting a motive for Mr Starmer to give up on Scotland and move to the right preemptively - not Ingsoc but a new Labour Party of England.
Though it makes the SNP vote against look more and more like a midge bite on someone dying of slow congestive heart failure.
He might chuck his wicket away, but it’s glorious to watch while it last.
Edit - what a shame for Burns, but how well he batted there. Why did it take England so long to pick him?
So if the light holds, about 7-8 overs tonight.
We'll need more polls to confirm, I believe YouGov was 10 points
I remember seeing a documentary recently with a senior Labour figure of that time who blamed the unions for sabotaging the Callaghan government, and not seeing Mrs Thatcher coming down the tracks at them "and boy did you guys deserve her" or words to that effect.
The Schadenfreude was unmistakable.
Also in that documentary, a union leader (maybe Ron Todd) tried to present the Thatcher reforms as better for the unions because they came from the Tories. Desperate logic.
R still hovering just above 1. Incidence remains quite low.
No way are we good enough for the CL though. We had the advantage of being seeded last time, 4th place makes for a tougher group.
Exclusive: Matt Hancock advocate of plan to raise tax as solution to social care crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/26/uk-ministers-looking-at-plans-to-raise-taxes-for-over-40s-to-pay-for-social-care
Now
Shai Hope comes in, who’s had a worse one.
No, Kemar Roach. A night watchman to protect a tailender. Er, out of form reserve wicketkeeper.*This is perhaps slightly underrating how superb Stuart Broad has been.
Earliest title win
By claiming the title with seven matches to spare Liverpool beat the mark set of becoming champions with five matches remaining, set by Manchester United in 2000/01, and Man City in 2017/18.
Fastest to 30 wins
The 3-1 victory at Brighton & Hove Albion on 8 July was the Reds' 30th this season, and they achieved that mark in a Premier League record of 34 matches.
Best start ever
When Liverpool reached 61 points from their opening 21 matches, it was the most a team had ever accumulated at that stage in any of Europe's top five leagues.
But all worth nothing because you've got a better goal difference.
Soon wear off though no doubt. A title's a title and it has been 30 years.
This really isn't a Conservative government, this is socialism.
Which makes them psychologically quite distant.
Go Boris!
Wonder what next season will bring in the PL. Might be an odd one.
NUFC have a decent case to be the 2nd best overachievers. After Sheff Utd.
https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1287431482588499968
https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1287434961490972672
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYWsUXQrLYw&t=1s
Another amusing section is 50 minutes in when they are discussing bringing the Army in to replace striking gravediggers. Somebody questions this proposal and Peter Shore says "Surely they could provide a skeleton service?"
(It never came to that because the gravediggers took a 14% pay rise).
It was Jamie Morris, not Ron Todd, who said that Mrs Thatcher was better for the unions than Callaghan, 56 minutes in.
'Champions of League 1, you'll never sing that.'
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/509049-ronald-reagan-foundation-asks-trump-campaign-rnc-to-stop-using-former
Though of course with six hundred people casting votes, you'll always get a few near misses/accidents/personal disasters interfering. There may have been others on the Aye side.
I’ve just checked Ireland vs England Lions.
Roy out first ball.
Score 122-1 after 12 overs.
That's a very Tory solution. Will Labour back it?
Although they recently said tax rises are not the solution - but what about new taxes?
The question is whether they will admit it in advance.
Corbyn did to a limited extent, although his sums (contrary to his claims) didn’t even begin to add up. Johnson probably won’t. If he is still PM at the next election, therefore, Starmer will have an awkward problem explaining to people that yes, we can have all these nice things but we have to pay for them through higher taxes.
I think this is the first Johnson policy I have supported, who says I am partisan?
I didn't say it was worth nothing I said it was not the all- time record breaking season Liverpool fans were telling us what going to happen a few months back.
Creditable though the things you mention are you aren't going to see them in any of the record books. The records that count come from what you do over 38 games, not the first 21. Still nice to see the barrels being scraped.
By comparison Starmer really is has a hard sell. No free stuff, but you still have to pay for it anyway!
Maybe Johnson is the answer after all?
Wiley posted a lot of anti-semitic content in recent days and was called out on it.
Utterly lush.
It might if they were still in it.
Having wrapped up the title with 7 an unprecedented games to spare is it any surprise the pressure was off during the longest ever victory lap recorded?
The Japanese model pensioners do have to pay it, if that model is introduced but they don't then that's not good.