We shouldn't either and neither should Europe. Refloating the western economies will save more lives in the developing world than a vaccine.
We should do whatever most effectively saves lives in the UK, resuscitates the UK economy most quickly (and sustainably) and most effectively advances UK interests.
That may involve distributing the vaccine globally but if so it should be done for those reasons (and scientific reasons) and not out of pan-global internationalist ideology.
The key word in the tweet is "equitably"
I suspect that it is on an equal per capita basis or some such. As you might imagine the UK (and US) wouldn't get much...
I'm totally supportive of once the UK has satisfied our needs us using the DfID budget to buy more vaccine and giving it for free to developing countries.
Well some of us did warn that Brexit may well lead to the breakup of the Union but we were denounced as engaging in Project Fear.
Brexiteers like Gove are absolute tossers, they wanted to destroy the EU but may well end up destroying the Union, I hope he gets a paper cut on his todger every day for the rest of his life.
I'm sure many of us will enjoy blaming Johnson, Gove et al for their recklessness when the Union dies, but it was already on its way to the grave regardless. All they may have done is hurry it along a bit, that's all.
Blair killed the Union.
Asymmetric devolution left the constitution fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable.
Tam Dalyell warned what would happen. He was right.
The Tories killed the Union
There's plenty of blame to go around, but I'm afraid that New Labour is top of the list in this particular instance. They created devolution for party political ends, and made a complete dog's breakfast of it into the bargain.
The Tories had 10 years to unbreak it and they have not, their problem now
All the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again.
As a kid, I could always just about get the concept of a cat jumping over the moon but how on earth does a load of kings horses help put a big egg back together again?. The kings men will struggle but c'mon how do horses even begin to start ?
Wasn't Humpty Dumpty a cannon? I believe the egg was a Victorian illustrator's imagination.
To be fair, I think the Kings horses wouldn't be much use in cannon repair either.
If the cannon is on the ground you need to resite it. They are quite heavy.
O/T Excellent new adaptation of All Creatures Great and Small on Channel 5 this evening with Samuel West for anyone who remembers the 1980s Robert Hardy and Christopher Timothy version, continues next week at 9pm
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Now do you see the problem with cleverly designed state run schemes replacing the free market?
Vote Tory in future...
Er... You may not have noticed but the Tories introduce just as many 'cleverly run state schemes' as Labour.
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Now do you see the problem with cleverly designed state run schemes replacing the free market?
Vote Tory in future...
But the Tories are in power?
Sure, but this is the principle... Labour would have come up with a similar scheme if they were in power...
More generally all interventions by the governments create winners and losers. The country is rarely better off for a clever politician's wheeze du jour
Well some of us did warn that Brexit may well lead to the breakup of the Union but we were denounced as engaging in Project Fear.
Brexiteers like Gove are absolute tossers, they wanted to destroy the EU but may well end up destroying the Union, I hope he gets a paper cut on his todger every day for the rest of his life.
I'm sure many of us will enjoy blaming Johnson, Gove et al for their recklessness when the Union dies, but it was already on its way to the grave regardless. All they may have done is hurry it along a bit, that's all.
Blair killed the Union.
Asymmetric devolution left the constitution fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable.
Tam Dalyell warned what would happen. He was right.
The Tories killed the Union
There's plenty of blame to go around, but I'm afraid that New Labour is top of the list in this particular instance. They created devolution for party political ends, and made a complete dog's breakfast of it into the bargain.
The Tories had 10 years to unbreak it and they have not, their problem now
All the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again.
As a kid, I could always just about get the concept of a cat jumping over the moon but how on earth does a load of kings horses help put a big egg back together again?. The kings men will struggle but c'mon how do horses even begin to start ?
Humpty Dumpty was a particularly big cannon that the Royalists had in the English Civil War.
It fell off the wall when the Parliamentarians attacked - the King's men and horses tried to drag it back into position but to no avail...
then the song should surely say that they couldn't put Humpty back again (and not together again!).
May be the gun carriage stayed on the wall and the barrel just slid slowly downwards?
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Now do you see the problem with cleverly designed state run schemes replacing the free market?
Vote Tory in future...
Eh? A Tory government brings in a scheme which discriminates against him. So he should therefore vote Tory??
He is (I believe) a Labour voter, therefore in favour of cleverly designed government interventions as a matter of principle.
This is a specific example which should make him aware of the downsides of such schemes.
Therefore he should revisit his principles?
(Just to be clear, I have every sympathy for him personally and am just having a bit of fun)
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Now do you see the problem with cleverly designed state run schemes replacing the free market?
Vote Tory in future...
Er... You may not have noticed but the Tories introduce just as many 'cleverly run state schemes' as Labour.
Sanity on defence and foreign policy, not frightening the horses on the economy, balance on crime & justice and pledging not to loosen migration control whilst giving Boris enough rope to hang himself on Brexit.
Labour has a 10-15 point lead and is back in office in less than 4 years.
Do you think Labour would actually win by 10-15 points though? In my mind the best is a minority Government
IF Labour continues at circa 40% across GB , I expect to see its support in Scotland to recover to circa 30% - at least matching its 2017 vote share there. Many SNP seats would then become vulnerable.
If that were the case Labour would pick up about 20 SNP seats as well as gaining enough Tory seats to at least force a hung parliament and we would likely end up back in the EEA or with a softer Brexit FTA under PM Starmer
We are talking 2024. Starmer is not going to go into bat in that election talking about any form of ongoing relationship with the EU. Not unless he wants to plummet ten points....
If we are on WTO terms Brexit in 2024 and the economy is in deep recession and the government very unpopular of course he will be, if WTO terms Brexit or any FTA agreed with the EU is going brilliantly then the Tories will likely win again anyway.
I agree. However, whereas the first part of your thesis is bob-on, the second part is possible but highly unlikely in the shadow of Covid.
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Yes, it does seem a bit unfair to people in their late 20s who have been hit just as badly in the virus job losses. A subsidy or NI holiday I could understand but free is a too big an incentive to ignore. 26-30 year olds are going to struggle to find lower level roles while this scheme is running and then find it difficult to displace the younger people who benefited.
O/T Excellent new adaptation of All Creatures Great and Small on Channel 5 this evening with Samuel West for anyone who remembers the 1980s Robert Hardy and Christopher Timothy version, continues next week at 9pm
Agreed. This was first rate
Yes, one of the best new TV dramas this year
I loved the original - happy memories watching as a teenager.
I was expecting this to be pants in comparison, but it was very good I thought. Samuel West is excellent.
Well some of us did warn that Brexit may well lead to the breakup of the Union but we were denounced as engaging in Project Fear.
Brexiteers like Gove are absolute tossers, they wanted to destroy the EU but may well end up destroying the Union, I hope he gets a paper cut on his todger every day for the rest of his life.
I'm sure many of us will enjoy blaming Johnson, Gove et al for their recklessness when the Union dies, but it was already on its way to the grave regardless. All they may have done is hurry it along a bit, that's all.
Blair killed the Union.
Asymmetric devolution left the constitution fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable.
Tam Dalyell warned what would happen. He was right.
The Tories killed the Union
I always agreed with Tam Dalyell. Devolution was a self inflicted disaster.
What was the alternative though? Deny any Scottish government at all?
He could have created an English Parliament with English devolution equivalent to the Scottish one. Then the PM would be PM of the UK and not primarily PM of England. But then someone else would have been English First Minister and he'd have lost much of his powers. So he didn't give away his toys to the English First Minister he kept them for himself.
But him wanting the powers of First Minister of England isn't a reason to have asymmetric devolution.
Boris Johnson is able to do that now, get on with it
Have you any idea of the legislation required to make such a constitutional change
It is not going to happen
And so bye bye Scotland.
Even if the Tories hold off the second independence referendum until Labour gets back in, AND Labour bribes the Scottish electorate to stay with Devomax, AND the bribe succeeds, then it would leave 59 Scottish MPs in the House of Commons with almost nothing left to do with their time except to meddle in English legislation. That's not sustainable.
This problem needs to be resolved. So, sorry, but if England doesn't get parity of esteem with Scotland then the sooner Scotland is gone the better.
That's effectively what the SNP did when they blocked Cameron's attempt to liberalise the fox hunting ban in 2015. It was an effort to piss off the English the other way.
Of course, on that issue - on which public opinion had moved rapidly in the last ten years, even in England - they got away with it but it wouldn't end there.
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Now do you see the problem with cleverly designed state run schemes replacing the free market?
Vote Tory in future...
Trouble is that there isn't a Tory party at the moment. Some radical populists have nicked the name, rosette colour and structures.
To be fair it is the best anthem in the world and yes I know a lot of people died under Soviet rule but its still a rip roaring anthem. Very soulful. A pitiful consequence of those Russians cheating with drugs is that the anthem no longer is played in the Olympics .
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Now do you see the problem with cleverly designed state run schemes replacing the free market?
Vote Tory in future...
Eh? A Tory government brings in a scheme which discriminates against him. So he should therefore vote Tory??
He is (I believe) a Labour voter, therefore in favour of cleverly designed government interventions as a matter of principle.
This is a specific example which should make him aware of the downsides of such schemes.
Therefore he should revisit his principles?
(Just to be clear, I have every sympathy for him personally and am just having a bit of fun)
Ha ha. Fair enough. However, this Tory government has done nothing but intervene in a way no one has done for 40 years, possibly more (in unusual circumstances to be sure). Not sure an advocate of free market principles ought to be canvassing for the Conservatives just about now. Edit. I believe @Gallowgate voted Lib Dem, but he can speak for himself.
Well some of us did warn that Brexit may well lead to the breakup of the Union but we were denounced as engaging in Project Fear.
Brexiteers like Gove are absolute tossers, they wanted to destroy the EU but may well end up destroying the Union, I hope he gets a paper cut on his todger every day for the rest of his life.
I'm sure many of us will enjoy blaming Johnson, Gove et al for their recklessness when the Union dies, but it was already on its way to the grave regardless. All they may have done is hurry it along a bit, that's all.
Blair killed the Union.
Asymmetric devolution left the constitution fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable.
Tam Dalyell warned what would happen. He was right.
The Tories killed the Union
I always agreed with Tam Dalyell. Devolution was a self inflicted disaster.
What was the alternative though? Deny any Scottish government at all?
He could have created an English Parliament with English devolution equivalent to the Scottish one. Then the PM would be PM of the UK and not primarily PM of England. But then someone else would have been English First Minister and he'd have lost much of his powers. So he didn't give away his toys to the English First Minister he kept them for himself.
But him wanting the powers of First Minister of England isn't a reason to have asymmetric devolution.
I like that in principle but the problem has always been that the English First Minister would be so powerful as to overpower the UK PM.
And if you want the UK to survive first and foremost, why is that a problem?
Ultimately either the Scots should have been told no devolution, we're running the UK as one country and you're in Parliament - or there should have been devolution for all. What was done was a mess and structurally flawed - and the fact there was no easy answer isn't a good enough reason to have proceeded knowing the flaws and ignoring them.
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Yes, it does seem a bit unfair to people in their late 20s who have been hit just as badly in the virus job losses. A subsidy or NI holiday I could understand but free is a too big an incentive to ignore. 26-30 year olds are going to struggle to find lower level roles while this scheme is running and then find it difficult to displace the younger people who benefited.
Hmm, not so certain about that. It's a bit of a blunt instrument to be sure, but what isn't? If - as I suspect is the case - the figures for 20-25 year olds are looking really dire, it might be justified. @Gallowgate's circumstances are unusual.
This young person employment story is there a link somewhere to read the details? It seems to be on the Telegraph but I can't find the story on the Telegraph's website?
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Yes, it does seem a bit unfair to people in their late 20s who have been hit just as badly in the virus job losses. A subsidy or NI holiday I could understand but free is a too big an incentive to ignore. 26-30 year olds are going to struggle to find lower level roles while this scheme is running and then find it difficult to displace the younger people who benefited.
Hmm, not so certain about that. It's a bit of a blunt instrument to be sure, but what isn't? If - as I suspect is the case - the figures for 20-25 year olds are looking really dire, it might be justified. @Gallowgate's circumstances are unusual.
Its been possible in the past to get bungs of thousands for hiring a young person as an apprentice. Doesn't mean people only hire young people.
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Yes, it does seem a bit unfair to people in their late 20s who have been hit just as badly in the virus job losses. A subsidy or NI holiday I could understand but free is a too big an incentive to ignore. 26-30 year olds are going to struggle to find lower level roles while this scheme is running and then find it difficult to displace the younger people who benefited.
Hmm, not so certain about that. It's a bit of a blunt instrument to be sure, but what isn't? If - as I suspect is the case - the figures for 20-25 year olds are looking really dire, it might be justified. @Gallowgate's circumstances are unusual.
I recognise that the interests of a far greater number of 20-25 year olds outweigh mine - it's just a bit unfortunate for me that's all!
At least I have plenty of experience as a selling point and they do not.
He only won when he ran against someone who was one of the worst debaters ever to run for the post.
Funny that. Because he is only PM now because he was up against the worst opposition leader in history.
Fortune shines on the righteous.
Johnson was also up against the discredited Livingstone for his two mayoral victories. It is like a top Premiership club reaching the FA Cup final having only been drawn against Non-League opposition.
Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..
I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.
But he's right, he killed off the nice growth Brown gifted him and almost put us into another recession
It's utter nonsense, complete garbage. There was no 'nice growth', there was an artificial and unsustainable slight boost from the ludicrously high and unsustainable overspend - after all, any fool, even Gordon Brown, can get a bit of temporary economic activity going by throwing zillions around. What Brown 'gifted' Osborne was the worst fiscal position in the whole of Europe other than Greece; what Osborne achieved was correcting that whilst keeping unemployment extremely low and growth reasonable - it really was a spectacular success.
Richard, you're dealing with people who simultaneously criticise George Osborne for cutting the deficit too quickly and increasing the national debt.
Yes, I know, it's one of my favourite pieces of bonkersness.
Still, the question is what Sunak can do from the position he now faces. It looks more difficult even than what Osborne had to deal with. I expect he'll tread carefully for the next year or so, if only because no-one yet knows how big the Covid-19 hit will eventually be, nor what the resulting structural changes to the economy are going to be.
I'm optimistic that when all is said and done actually Sunak won't have anywhere near as difficult to deal with compared to Osborne.
The reason being that Brown bequeathed a humongous structural deficit so growing out of it was never viable, even at full employment there was still a deficit. In contrast going into COVID19 there was no structural deficit. There has been a major systemic shock and it will lead to a lot of reforms but there seems to be little reason for a structural deficit.
Let's assume for a moment that you are right about the fiscal situation at the beginning of the year, and in your implicit assumption that Brexit won't do any structural damage to the UK economy. Let's further assume that there is a working vaccine before Christmas, a relatively v-shaped economic recovery, and no problem financing the increased pile of national debt. What remaining problems might face the Chancellor?
1. The pandemic might change the structure of the economy, even if it does not change its size. If there is much more home-working and much less commuting, and associated changes in the economy, then this could have a massive impact on the tax base. You could expect to see large drops in business rates, fuel duty and stamp duty revenue - and a massive hole in the finances of the railways. Consumer income spent on Amazon will not generate as much tax revenue for the Treasury.
2. He has a Prime Minister whose instinct is to promise money to solve problems, to spend money on flamboyant gestures. There will be a necessity to find money in the budget to fulfil these promises.
3. At the beginning of the year the UK had a number of serious economic weaknesses that, unaddressed, will hold us back - poor productivity, persistent trade and balance of payment deficits, the effects of austerity on public services and national infrastructure. It's not just the chickens from the last year that will be looking for space to roost in. There is quite the homecoming in prospect.
4. And then - what will it do to business investor confidence if the SNP win a 2021 Holyrood election on a manifesto calling for another Independence referendum? Much is made of the plans the SNP have, or do not have, for a Scottish currency after Independence, but the political and economic turmoil will put additional pressure on Sterling.
5. From a purely political angle, it's also important to note that Osborne appeared to have the complete backing of his Prime Minister. Johnson will be much more willing to sacrifice Sunak should he have run out of senior civil servants to blame.
The next couple of years will not be an easy time to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Now do you see the problem with cleverly designed state run schemes replacing the free market?
Vote Tory in future...
Eh? A Tory government brings in a scheme which discriminates against him. So he should therefore vote Tory??
He is (I believe) a Labour voter, therefore in favour of cleverly designed government interventions as a matter of principle.
This is a specific example which should make him aware of the downsides of such schemes.
Therefore he should revisit his principles?
(Just to be clear, I have every sympathy for him personally and am just having a bit of fun)
Ha ha. Fair enough. However, this Tory government has done nothing but intervene in a way no one has done for 40 years, possibly more (in unusual circumstances to be sure). Not sure an advocate of free market principles ought to be canvassing for the Conservatives just about now. Edit. I believe @Gallowgate voted Lib Dem, but he can speak for himself.
Unusual circumstances? Unusual circumstances! Let me tell you, when I were a lad, we had proper unusual circumstances!
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Now do you see the problem with cleverly designed state run schemes replacing the free market?
Vote Tory in future...
Eh? A Tory government brings in a scheme which discriminates against him. So he should therefore vote Tory??
He is (I believe) a Labour voter, therefore in favour of cleverly designed government interventions as a matter of principle.
This is a specific example which should make him aware of the downsides of such schemes.
Therefore he should revisit his principles?
(Just to be clear, I have every sympathy for him personally and am just having a bit of fun)
Ha ha. Fair enough. However, this Tory government has done nothing but intervene in a way no one has done for 40 years, possibly more (in unusual circumstances to be sure). Not sure an advocate of free market principles ought to be canvassing for the Conservatives just about now. Edit. I believe @Gallowgate voted Lib Dem, but he can speak for himself.
Indeed, vote Ed Davey's Lib Dems if you are a "market forces"enthusiast, not the Tories.
Arizona and Georgia would be bigly. They are both trending Democrat. Fun fact. Arizona's population has doubled since 1990.
A former work colleague of mine based in California recently moved to Phoenix because he was sick of the traffic around Los Angeles, as well as the house prices. He's certainly a Biden voter.
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Yes, it does seem a bit unfair to people in their late 20s who have been hit just as badly in the virus job losses. A subsidy or NI holiday I could understand but free is a too big an incentive to ignore. 26-30 year olds are going to struggle to find lower level roles while this scheme is running and then find it difficult to displace the younger people who benefited.
Hmm, not so certain about that. It's a bit of a blunt instrument to be sure, but what isn't? If - as I suspect is the case - the figures for 20-25 year olds are looking really dire, it might be justified. @Gallowgate's circumstances are unusual.
Its been possible in the past to get bungs of thousands for hiring a young person as an apprentice. Doesn't mean people only hire young people.
Devil will be in the details I suspect.
Indeed so. Under the Thatcher government, my company was getting quite large incentives to hire youngsters - very successfully in some cases, in the sense that some of them (especially a young lad from Brixton with very little in the way of qualifications when we took him on) went on to do very well indeed.
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Now do you see the problem with cleverly designed state run schemes replacing the free market?
Vote Tory in future...
Eh? A Tory government brings in a scheme which discriminates against him. So he should therefore vote Tory??
He is (I believe) a Labour voter, therefore in favour of cleverly designed government interventions as a matter of principle.
This is a specific example which should make him aware of the downsides of such schemes.
Therefore he should revisit his principles?
(Just to be clear, I have every sympathy for him personally and am just having a bit of fun)
Ha ha. Fair enough. However, this Tory government has done nothing but intervene in a way no one has done for 40 years, possibly more (in unusual circumstances to be sure). Not sure an advocate of free market principles ought to be canvassing for the Conservatives just about now. Edit. I believe @Gallowgate voted Lib Dem, but he can speak for himself.
Indeed, vote Ed Davey's Lib Dems if you are a "market forces"enthusiast, not the Tories.
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Yes, it does seem a bit unfair to people in their late 20s who have been hit just as badly in the virus job losses. A subsidy or NI holiday I could understand but free is a too big an incentive to ignore. 26-30 year olds are going to struggle to find lower level roles while this scheme is running and then find it difficult to displace the younger people who benefited.
Hmm, not so certain about that. It's a bit of a blunt instrument to be sure, but what isn't? If - as I suspect is the case - the figures for 20-25 year olds are looking really dire, it might be justified. @Gallowgate's circumstances are unusual.
Its been possible in the past to get bungs of thousands for hiring a young person as an apprentice. Doesn't mean people only hire young people.
Devil will be in the details I suspect.
Indeed so. Under the Thatcher government, my company was getting quite large incentives to hire youngsters - very successfully in some cases, in the sense that some of them (especially a young lad from Brixton with very little in the way of qualifications when we took him on) went on to do very well indeed.
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Yes, it does seem a bit unfair to people in their late 20s who have been hit just as badly in the virus job losses. A subsidy or NI holiday I could understand but free is a too big an incentive to ignore. 26-30 year olds are going to struggle to find lower level roles while this scheme is running and then find it difficult to displace the younger people who benefited.
Hmm, not so certain about that. It's a bit of a blunt instrument to be sure, but what isn't? If - as I suspect is the case - the figures for 20-25 year olds are looking really dire, it might be justified. @Gallowgate's circumstances are unusual.
Its been possible in the past to get bungs of thousands for hiring a young person as an apprentice. Doesn't mean people only hire young people.
Devil will be in the details I suspect.
Indeed so. Under the Thatcher government, my company was getting quite large incentives to hire youngsters - very successfully in some cases, in the sense that some of them (especially a young lad from Brixton with very little in the way of qualifications when we took him on) went on to do very well indeed.
Osborne did not understand economics and flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour.. ..
I do love this utterly bonkers mantra.
But he's right, he killed off the nice growth Brown gifted him and almost put us into another recession
It's utter nonsense, complete garbage. There was no 'nice growth', there was an artificial and unsustainable slight boost from the ludicrously high and unsustainable overspend - after all, any fool, even Gordon Brown, can get a bit of temporary economic activity going by throwing zillions around. What Brown 'gifted' Osborne was the worst fiscal position in the whole of Europe other than Greece; what Osborne achieved was correcting that whilst keeping unemployment extremely low and growth reasonable - it really was a spectacular success.
Richard, you're dealing with people who simultaneously criticise George Osborne for cutting the deficit too quickly and increasing the national debt.
Yes, I know, it's one of my favourite pieces of bonkersness.
Still, the question is what Sunak can do from the position he now faces. It looks more difficult even than what Osborne had to deal with. I expect he'll tread carefully for the next year or so, if only because no-one yet knows how big the Covid-19 hit will eventually be, nor what the resulting structural changes to the economy are going to be.
I'm optimistic that when all is said and done actually Sunak won't have anywhere near as difficult to deal with compared to Osborne.
The reason being that Brown bequeathed a humongous structural deficit so growing out of it was never viable, even at full employment there was still a deficit. In contrast going into COVID19 there was no structural deficit. There has been a major systemic shock and it will lead to a lot of reforms but there seems to be little reason for a structural deficit.
Let's assume for a moment that you are right about the fiscal situation at the beginning of the year, and in your implicit assumption that Brexit won't do any structural damage to the UK economy. Let's further assume that there is a working vaccine before Christmas, a relatively v-shaped economic recovery, and no problem financing the increased pile of national debt. What remaining problems might face the Chancellor?
1. The pandemic might change the structure of the economy, even if it does not change its size. If there is much more home-working and much less commuting, and associated changes in the economy, then this could have a massive impact on the tax base. You could expect to see large drops in business rates, fuel duty and stamp duty revenue - and a massive hole in the finances of the railways. Consumer income spent on Amazon will not generate as much tax revenue for the Treasury.
2. He has a Prime Minister whose instinct is to promise money to solve problems, to spend money on flamboyant gestures. There will be a necessity to find money in the budget to fulfil these promises.
3. At the beginning of the year the UK had a number of serious economic weaknesses that, unaddressed, will hold us back - poor productivity, persistent trade and balance of payment deficits, the effects of austerity on public services and national infrastructure. It's not just the chickens from the last year that will be looking for space to roost in. There is quite the homecoming in prospect.
4. And then - what will it do to business investor confidence if the SNP win a 2021 Holyrood election on a manifesto calling for another Independence referendum? Much is made of the plans the SNP have, or do not have, for a Scottish currency after Independence, but the political and economic turmoil will put additional pressure on Sterling.
5. From a purely political angle, it's also important to note that Osborne appeared to have the complete backing of his Prime Minister. Johnson will be much more willing to sacrifice Sunak should he have run out of senior civil servants to blame.
The next couple of years will not be an easy time to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I'm not saying it will be easy, nothing important ever is. I'm just saying it may not be as bad as what Osborne had to face for muliple reasons. As for your points.
0. You said by next year, I wouldn't say by next year. I think restraint should be shown ASAP but don't think the deficit needs to be seriously addressed for about 2-3 years. Historically 2-3 years after a recession is when deficits start to come down again and that was true in 2010 too.
1. Yes this is true. The economy will adapt though. Again we've gone into this crash with a far healthier deficit than last time and business rates, fuel duty etc are not the golden goose that Brown was plucking last time. There will indeed be holes to fill, but there are after any recession - but holes to fill is not a whole chasm.
2. All Chancellors face this issue.
3. This counteracts point 1. Inefficient transport, minimum wage sandwich shops, minimum wage coffee shops etc are poor productivity jobs that are getting culled at the minute. Chances are that post-COVID is going to see a boom in productivity.
4. It will be dealt with. People are resigned to chaos at the minute and frankly its all overblown. That's why Brexit isn't such a big deal as people make out - the fundamentals of tax and spend, economic management etc matter far, far more than the constitution and 'heart' issues.
5. We'll see. Johnson could afford rewrite his Cabinet as he pleased in his first reshuffle after the election, he had bountiful political capital after winning the 80 seat majority and Javid to be frank didn't really have much backing. With Sunak as popular as he is now, with Johnson having gone through rough and tumble of politics that has taken the shine off his 80 seat majority, that is no longer the case now. If he were to sack Sunak he would be putting the polling and betting favourite for his successor on the backbenches - hardly a conducive move! I suspect that, barring something extraordinary like a major scandal, Sunak is now the one person Johnson literally can not sack anymore.
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Now do you see the problem with cleverly designed state run schemes replacing the free market?
Vote Tory in future...
Eh? A Tory government brings in a scheme which discriminates against him. So he should therefore vote Tory??
He is (I believe) a Labour voter, therefore in favour of cleverly designed government interventions as a matter of principle.
This is a specific example which should make him aware of the downsides of such schemes.
Therefore he should revisit his principles?
(Just to be clear, I have every sympathy for him personally and am just having a bit of fun)
Ha ha. Fair enough. However, this Tory government has done nothing but intervene in a way no one has done for 40 years, possibly more (in unusual circumstances to be sure). Not sure an advocate of free market principles ought to be canvassing for the Conservatives just about now. Edit. I believe @Gallowgate voted Lib Dem, but he can speak for himself.
Indeed, vote Ed Davey's Lib Dems if you are a "market forces"enthusiast, not the Tories.
You‘re canvassing Charles’ vote ?
Charles will always vote with his pocket, he even sympathises with Trump.
But vote Lib Dem for competence and financial sanity.
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Now do you see the problem with cleverly designed state run schemes replacing the free market?
Vote Tory in future...
Eh? A Tory government brings in a scheme which discriminates against him. So he should therefore vote Tory??
He is (I believe) a Labour voter, therefore in favour of cleverly designed government interventions as a matter of principle.
This is a specific example which should make him aware of the downsides of such schemes.
Therefore he should revisit his principles?
(Just to be clear, I have every sympathy for him personally and am just having a bit of fun)
Ha ha. Fair enough. However, this Tory government has done nothing but intervene in a way no one has done for 40 years, possibly more (in unusual circumstances to be sure). Not sure an advocate of free market principles ought to be canvassing for the Conservatives just about now. Edit. I believe @Gallowgate voted Lib Dem, but he can speak for himself.
Indeed, vote Ed Davey's Lib Dems if you are a "market forces"enthusiast, not the Tories.
You‘re canvassing Charles’ vote ?
If I trusted the Lib Dems not to backslide into fiscal incontinence and sloppy left of centre intervention then I’d be happy to vote for them. But I don’t trust the SDP part
I wish whoever tweets these polls would put a comparison with the previous poll in the same state by the same pollster so we can make a more considered judgement.
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Now do you see the problem with cleverly designed state run schemes replacing the free market?
Vote Tory in future...
Eh? A Tory government brings in a scheme which discriminates against him. So he should therefore vote Tory??
He is (I believe) a Labour voter, therefore in favour of cleverly designed government interventions as a matter of principle.
This is a specific example which should make him aware of the downsides of such schemes.
Therefore he should revisit his principles?
(Just to be clear, I have every sympathy for him personally and am just having a bit of fun)
Ha ha. Fair enough. However, this Tory government has done nothing but intervene in a way no one has done for 40 years, possibly more (in unusual circumstances to be sure). Not sure an advocate of free market principles ought to be canvassing for the Conservatives just about now. Edit. I believe @Gallowgate voted Lib Dem, but he can speak for himself.
Indeed, vote Ed Davey's Lib Dems if you are a "market forces"enthusiast, not the Tories.
You‘re canvassing Charles’ vote ?
Charles will always vote with his pocket, he even sympathises with Trump.
But vote Lib Dem for competence and financial sanity.
I have very little time for Trump. And I vote with my views of what is best for the country. I’m not really worried about pocketbook issues.
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Now do you see the problem with cleverly designed state run schemes replacing the free market?
Vote Tory in future...
Eh? A Tory government brings in a scheme which discriminates against him. So he should therefore vote Tory??
He is (I believe) a Labour voter, therefore in favour of cleverly designed government interventions as a matter of principle.
This is a specific example which should make him aware of the downsides of such schemes.
Therefore he should revisit his principles?
(Just to be clear, I have every sympathy for him personally and am just having a bit of fun)
Ha ha. Fair enough. However, this Tory government has done nothing but intervene in a way no one has done for 40 years, possibly more (in unusual circumstances to be sure). Not sure an advocate of free market principles ought to be canvassing for the Conservatives just about now. Edit. I believe @Gallowgate voted Lib Dem, but he can speak for himself.
Indeed, vote Ed Davey's Lib Dems if you are a "market forces"enthusiast, not the Tories.
You‘re canvassing Charles’ vote ?
Charles will always vote with his pocket, he even sympathises with Trump.
But vote Lib Dem for competence and financial sanity.
I have very little time for Trump. And I vote with my views of what is best for the country. I’m not really worried about pocketbook issues.
Fortunately what is best for your pocket coincides...
I wish whoever tweets these polls would put a comparison with the previous poll in the same state by the same pollster so we can make a more considered judgement.
Its not the only one that shows Texas in play, there were two others that did too.
Anyone catch the end of Newsnight just now? Nice interview of Will Young with Kirsty Wark. Ended quite philosophically. Brought to mind the last line of Voltaire’s Candide. “Let us cultivate our garden”.
But being a bit deaf, I couldn’t make out what they finally said to each other. He’s enjoyed growing tomatoes in lockdown and now feels that he is a garden? Or a gardener? Or both?
Isn't Scottish Labour’s problem that their grassroots are now non-existent? The SNP dominates the left (and centre, and right) of Scottish politics now.
No recovery in the near future without something drastic happening.
We are only 5 years on from 2015. The grass roots are still around. It was the tall poppies that we're scythed down.
Now some of those tall poppies let their gardens go fallow as they felt they were so secure they didn't need to invest time and effort into the rank and file but SLab still has infrastructure
Many on here will not remember the time when labour were all powerful Scotland (I do) and thought they would always rule. Much like the SNP today who have commandeered their voters
I can (just) remember the time when the Tories were dominant in Scotland. My father's cousin was Churchill's and Eden's Secretary of State for Scotland, and regarded the party as almost invincible.
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Yes, it does seem a bit unfair to people in their late 20s who have been hit just as badly in the virus job losses. A subsidy or NI holiday I could understand but free is a too big an incentive to ignore. 26-30 year olds are going to struggle to find lower level roles while this scheme is running and then find it difficult to displace the younger people who benefited.
Unless something new is in the process of being announced I think people are misunderstanding this.
The fully paid for 6 months is based on an apprenticeship for existing £1000 for 16-18yo plus 19-25 yo with special needs.
The new bit annouced in July was £2000 for under 25s or £1500 for 25 and over.
That gives £3k over 6 months which is enough to pay them NMW for apprentices of £4.15.
The gap in funding between a 23 yo (without special needs) and 28yo is just £500, so unlikely to make a difference in recruitment. Apprentices would need to be training off the job at least 20% of their time, its not a normal job.
If you could just recruit any under 25s for free for six months it would be extremely generous, but would be amazed if thats the case.
Isn't Scottish Labour’s problem that their grassroots are now non-existent? The SNP dominates the left (and centre, and right) of Scottish politics now.
No recovery in the near future without something drastic happening.
We are only 5 years on from 2015. The grass roots are still around. It was the tall poppies that we're scythed down.
Now some of those tall poppies let their gardens go fallow as they felt they were so secure they didn't need to invest time and effort into the rank and file but SLab still has infrastructure
Many on here will not remember the time when labour were all powerful Scotland (I do) and thought they would always rule. Much like the SNP today who have commandeered their voters
I can (just) remember the time when the Tories were dominant in Scotland. My father's cousin was Churchill's and Eden's Secretary of State for Scotland, and regarded the party as almost invincible.
Anyone catch the end of Newsnight just now? Nice interview of Will Young with Kirsty Wark. Ended quite philosophically. Brought to mind the last line of Voltaire’s Candide. “Let us cultivate our garden”.
But being a bit deaf, I couldn’t make out what they finally said to each other. He’s enjoyed growing tomatoes in lockdown and now feels that he is a garden? Or a gardener? Or both?
Yes interesting interview, he has had a difficult time recently as his brother died earlier this month so if gardening helps bring some peace all to the good
That scheme really f*cks me, as someone who's attempting a career change at age 28. Why would any firm hire me at entry level when they could hire a 25 year old for free?
Jeez.
Yes, it does seem a bit unfair to people in their late 20s who have been hit just as badly in the virus job losses. A subsidy or NI holiday I could understand but free is a too big an incentive to ignore. 26-30 year olds are going to struggle to find lower level roles while this scheme is running and then find it difficult to displace the younger people who benefited.
Unless something new is in the process of being announced I think people are misunderstanding this.
The fully paid for 6 months is based on an apprenticeship for existing £1000 for 16-18yo plus 19-25 yo with special needs.
The new bit annouced in July was £2000 for under 25s or £1500 for 25 and over.
That gives £3k over 6 months which is enough to pay them NMW for apprentices of £4.15.
The gap in funding between a 23 yo (without special needs) and 28yo is just £500, so unlikely to make a difference in recruitment. Apprentices would need to be training off the job at least 20% of their time, its not a normal job.
If you could just recruit any under 25s for free for six months it would be extremely generous, but would be amazed if thats the case.
Thanks that makes sense. I thought it sounded a bit unlikely to be as people were saying. The devil is in the details as always.
£500 is not going to be a deal breaker in recruitment.
I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.
I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.
With respect , I don't think that being a party member - Labour or Tory - is compatible with being a 'swing voter.' Failure to support your party would - and should - result in expulsion.
Isn't Scottish Labour’s problem that their grassroots are now non-existent? The SNP dominates the left (and centre, and right) of Scottish politics now.
No recovery in the near future without something drastic happening.
We are only 5 years on from 2015. The grass roots are still around. It was the tall poppies that we're scythed down.
Now some of those tall poppies let their gardens go fallow as they felt they were so secure they didn't need to invest time and effort into the rank and file but SLab still has infrastructure
Many on here will not remember the time when labour were all powerful Scotland (I do) and thought they would always rule. Much like the SNP today who have commandeered their voters
I can (just) remember the time when the Tories were dominant in Scotland. My father's cousin was Churchill's and Eden's Secretary of State for Scotland, and regarded the party as almost invincible.
Isn't Scottish Labour’s problem that their grassroots are now non-existent? The SNP dominates the left (and centre, and right) of Scottish politics now.
No recovery in the near future without something drastic happening.
We are only 5 years on from 2015. The grass roots are still around. It was the tall poppies that we're scythed down.
Now some of those tall poppies let their gardens go fallow as they felt they were so secure they didn't need to invest time and effort into the rank and file but SLab still has infrastructure
Many on here will not remember the time when labour were all powerful Scotland (I do) and thought they would always rule. Much like the SNP today who have commandeered their voters
I can (just) remember the time when the Tories were dominant in Scotland. My father's cousin was Churchill's and Eden's Secretary of State for Scotland, and regarded the party as almost invincible.
I wish whoever tweets these polls would put a comparison with the previous poll in the same state by the same pollster so we can make a more considered judgement.
Indeed. Surely more useful for the viewer than to be told that, yes, 47 is 2 more than 45.
Isn't Scottish Labour’s problem that their grassroots are now non-existent? The SNP dominates the left (and centre, and right) of Scottish politics now.
No recovery in the near future without something drastic happening.
We are only 5 years on from 2015. The grass roots are still around. It was the tall poppies that we're scythed down.
Now some of those tall poppies let their gardens go fallow as they felt they were so secure they didn't need to invest time and effort into the rank and file but SLab still has infrastructure
Many on here will not remember the time when labour were all powerful Scotland (I do) and thought they would always rule. Much like the SNP today who have commandeered their voters
I can (just) remember the time when the Tories were dominant in Scotland. My father's cousin was Churchill's and Eden's Secretary of State for Scotland, and regarded the party as almost invincible.
I wish whoever tweets these polls would put a comparison with the previous poll in the same state by the same pollster so we can make a more considered judgement.
Indeed. Surely more useful for the viewer than to be told that, yes, 47 is 2 more than 45.
There are other polls that show Trump well ahead in TX, but it all depends on sampling and weighting. If polls are truly over compensating for 2016 by upweighting "shy Trumpers" then Trump is in trouble there. Lose TX, and he has a mountain to climb.
I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.
I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.
With respect , I don't think that being a party member - Labour or Tory - is compatible with being a 'swing voter.' Failure to support your party would - and should - result in expulsion.
I don’t really care. It’s not a football team. I’m not a “fan”.
I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.
I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.
With respect , I don't think that being a party member - Labour or Tory - is compatible with being a 'swing voter.' Failure to support your party would - and should - result in expulsion.
Nevertheless I suspect there are plenty of people who retain party membership and yet swing in their vote more than such membership would imply, particularly when it comes to various types of election at different levels.
A clever idea that Johnson could put into effect would be to let Sunak take over as prime minister for 6 months to see how he gets on in the job.
Clever for whom? You let someone else do the job and for one they might get a taste for it, for two they might do a good job of it, and both migh tmake taking the job back difficult. I know in some countries a party leader might control matters but not be PM, but I don't think we'd be ready for that.
I wish whoever tweets these polls would put a comparison with the previous poll in the same state by the same pollster so we can make a more considered judgement.
Indeed. Surely more useful for the viewer than to be told that, yes, 47 is 2 more than 45.
Some Americans are numerically challenged.
Edit: Trump’s referring to the embedded national poll which has him on 46 and Biden on 49.
They are surprisingly good numbers for Biden in GA and AZ. Biden seems to be doing relatively better than par in the sun belt states and slightly below par in the snow and rust belt.
I wish whoever tweets these polls would put a comparison with the previous poll in the same state by the same pollster so we can make a more considered judgement.
Indeed. Surely more useful for the viewer than to be told that, yes, 47 is 2 more than 45.
There are other polls that show Trump well ahead in TX, but it all depends on sampling and weighting. If polls are truly over compensating for 2016 by upweighting "shy Trumpers" then Trump is in trouble there. Lose TX, and he has a mountain to climb.
Arizona and Georgia would be bigly. They are both trending Democrat. Fun fact. Arizona's population has doubled since 1990.
A former work colleague of mine based in California recently moved to Phoenix because he was sick of the traffic around Los Angeles, as well as the house prices. He's certainly a Biden voter.
Can’t see the attraction myself. The summers are unbearable in Phoenix and go on forever. I met a young couple in Vienna once who said they got that first creeping feeling in early May, knowing that four months of hell were just around the corner.
I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.
I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.
With respect , I don't think that being a party member - Labour or Tory - is compatible with being a 'swing voter.' Failure to support your party would - and should - result in expulsion.
I don’t really care. It’s not a football team. I’m not a “fan”.
In my life I have voted at GE for Liberals, SDP, Labour, Green, Tories and Lib Dems and been a member of both LD and Labour parties. I don't think that I have changed my views so much as various parties have shifted to the centre, then away from it.
Arizona and Georgia would be bigly. They are both trending Democrat. Fun fact. Arizona's population has doubled since 1990.
A former work colleague of mine based in California recently moved to Phoenix because he was sick of the traffic around Los Angeles, as well as the house prices. He's certainly a Biden voter.
Can’t see the attraction myself. The summers are unbearable in Phoenix and go on forever. I met a young couple in Vienna once who said they got that first creeping feeling in early May, knowing that four months of hell were just around the corner.
I spent some time in Phoenix. If you have a job in the middle of the day, a/c makes it bearable. It can be moderately pleasant first thing in the morning or last thing at night, on all but the hottest days. And, yes, you can buy a six-bedroom palace there for the price of your one-bed condo in Santa Monica. When I was there, prices were rising, and students at T-bird business school or ASU would buy cheap houses while they were studying and sell them again at the end of their courses and pocket the $20k or whatever they'd made.
The problem I'd have with Phoenix is that it's pretty drab and generic. Once you've been out dirt-biking and shooting on the desert and tubing on the Salt Rier, there's nothing much to do but sit by the pool.
I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.
I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.
With respect , I don't think that being a party member - Labour or Tory - is compatible with being a 'swing voter.' Failure to support your party would - and should - result in expulsion.
I don’t really care. It’s not a football team. I’m not a “fan”.
That is fair enough! I have made the same point to a brother who voted Tory in 2017 because of Corbyn. I am not sure how he voted in 2019 - though it was not Labour. I was surprised to learn back in January that - unlike myself - he had joined the Labour party to vote in the Leadership election. I simply take the view - and I believe HYUFD has made similar comments to Big_G - that if an individual is not sufficiently committed to a party to support its candidates at election time, he/she has no right to any say in its internal affairs. I was a Labour member from 1970 until the end of 1996 , but then discontinued my membership. In all good conscience, I feel able to do as I think fit!
I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.
I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.
With respect , I don't think that being a party member - Labour or Tory - is compatible with being a 'swing voter.' Failure to support your party would - and should - result in expulsion.
I don’t really care. It’s not a football team. I’m not a “fan”.
In my life I have voted at GE for Liberals, SDP, Labour, Green, Tories and Lib Dems and been a member of both LD and Labour parties. I don't think that I have changed my views so much as various parties have shifted to the centre, then away from it.
An issue is defining what is "the centre".
In recent years the term "the centre" has been hijacked by pro-Europeans when there is nothing centrist about that. People campaigning for a second referendum last Parliament would call themselves centrists, but when 52% of the country voted to leave and a large bulk of those that voted to Remain thought that the referendum result (even if wrong) should be respected . . . the arch-Europhiles wanting a second referendum were not centrists they were extremists.
I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.
I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.
With respect , I don't think that being a party member - Labour or Tory - is compatible with being a 'swing voter.' Failure to support your party would - and should - result in expulsion.
Nevertheless I suspect there are plenty of people who retain party membership and yet swing in their vote more than such membership would imply, particularly when it comes to various types of election at different levels.
Probably so - but if 'found out' as Alastair Campbell was in the 2019 Euro elections , they should not be surprised to face expulsion.
I can’t stand him - but this random stuff he does, historically seems to work for him. He bumbles on, like a dodgem car, colliding into objects and engaging with issues in what appears to be a completely incoherent and unplanned way.
But some of his pliant audience takes from it the bit that they like. They don’t seem bothered by the totality of the nonsense. He’s like a war plane dropping propaganda leaflets, calculating that he can fool some of the people all of the time with his misinformation and insinuations.
I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.
I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.
With respect , I don't think that being a party member - Labour or Tory - is compatible with being a 'swing voter.' Failure to support your party would - and should - result in expulsion.
I don’t really care. It’s not a football team. I’m not a “fan”.
That is fair enough! I have made the same point to a brother who voted Tory in 2017 because of Corbyn. I am not sure how he voted in 2019 - though it was not Labour. I was surprised to learn back in January that - unlike myself - he had joined the Labour party to vote in the Leadership election. I simply take the view - and I believe HYUFD has made similar comments to Big_G - that if an individual is not sufficiently committed to a party to support its candidates at election time, he/she has no right to any say in its internal affairs. I was a Labour member from 1970 until the end of 1996 , but then discontinued my membership. In all good conscience, I feel able to do as I think fit!
I think it depends upon if you feel able or willing to support the party at this time . . . or prior to a leadership election if you feel able or willing to support the party next time if your preferred candidate would win.
Doing it for trolling purposes is not OK
I joined the Tories a long time ago because I supported the party despite not being keen on its leader at that time (Howard) and appalled by its last elected leader (IDS) and because I wanted a vote next time. I got that vote and cast it for Cameron and was delighted he won and happily supported the party and campaigned for the party the entire time he was leader.
When he was replaced by May I quit the party. I wasn't going to campaign for May and I was disgusted she was chosen.
I don't think joining a party is or should be a life sentence or require a commitment for life. Just a commitment for now.
I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.
I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.
With respect , I don't think that being a party member - Labour or Tory - is compatible with being a 'swing voter.' Failure to support your party would - and should - result in expulsion.
I don’t really care. It’s not a football team. I’m not a “fan”.
In my life I have voted at GE for Liberals, SDP, Labour, Green, Tories and Lib Dems and been a member of both LD and Labour parties. I don't think that I have changed my views so much as various parties have shifted to the centre, then away from it.
An issue is defining what is "the centre".
In recent years the term "the centre" has been hijacked by pro-Europeans when there is nothing centrist about that. People campaigning for a second referendum last Parliament would call themselves centrists, but when 52% of the country voted to leave and a large bulk of those that voted to Remain thought that the referendum result (even if wrong) should be respected . . . the arch-Europhiles wanting a second referendum were not centrists they were extremists.
I voted Tory in 2010, when Cameron had clearly moved the party more central, and Labour in 1992, 97, and 2001 when it too had shifted to the centre. European policy was not the over riding issue otherwise I would have voted Tory in 83 and 87 when the Tories were running on a pro Europe manifesto.
I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.
I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.
With respect , I don't think that being a party member - Labour or Tory - is compatible with being a 'swing voter.' Failure to support your party would - and should - result in expulsion.
Nevertheless I suspect there are plenty of people who retain party membership and yet swing in their vote more than such membership would imply, particularly when it comes to various types of election at different levels.
Probably so - but if 'found out' as Alastair Campbell was in the 2019 Euro elections , they should not be surprised to face expulsion.
I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.
I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.
With respect , I don't think that being a party member - Labour or Tory - is compatible with being a 'swing voter.' Failure to support your party would - and should - result in expulsion.
I don’t really care. It’s not a football team. I’m not a “fan”.
That is fair enough! I have made the same point to a brother who voted Tory in 2017 because of Corbyn. I am not sure how he voted in 2019 - though it was not Labour. I was surprised to learn back in January that - unlike myself - he had joined the Labour party to vote in the Leadership election. I simply take the view - and I believe HYUFD has made similar comments to Big_G - that if an individual is not sufficiently committed to a party to support its candidates at election time, he/she has no right to any say in its internal affairs. I was a Labour member from 1970 until the end of 1996 , but then discontinued my membership. In all good conscience, I feel able to do as I think fit!
I think it depends upon if you feel able or willing to support the party at this time . . . or prior to a leadership election if you feel able or willing to support the party next time if your preferred candidate would win.
Doing it for trolling purposes is not OK
I joined the Tories a long time ago because I supported the party despite not being keen on its leader at that time (Howard) and appalled by its last elected leader (IDS) and because I wanted a vote next time. I got that vote and cast it for Cameron and was delighted he won and happily supported the party and campaigned for the party the entire time he was leader.
When he was replaced by May I quit the party. I wasn't going to campaign for May and I was disgusted she was chosen.
I don't think joining a party is or should be a life sentence or require a commitment for life. Just a commitment for now.
I agree with your last sentence - but whilst a person continues to be a member , there is an obligation to support the party's candidates. When he/she no longer feels able to do that , the time has come to leave - as I did at the end of 1996.
Sounds like you are almost as posh as Charles, if not more so then Nick P if your father's cousin was a Viscount and a son of the Earl of Moray
Yes, I'm the degenerate red sheep of the family . On my dad's side the family tree goes back to Edward III, on my mum's side there's a pre-revolutionary Russian prince. My aunt used to reminisce modestly about the family "country house" being quite pleasant (it was a 50-room castle, going back 750 years - https://www.scotclans.com/scotland/visit-scotland/scottish-castles/scottish-borders/cavers-castle/ ).
Thing is, though, if you go back a few hundred years then everyone's related to everyone, more or less.
I am currently a Labour Party member, but mainly because I wanted to vote to ensure Long Bailey did not win.
I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.
With respect , I don't think that being a party member - Labour or Tory - is compatible with being a 'swing voter.' Failure to support your party would - and should - result in expulsion.
I don’t really care. It’s not a football team. I’m not a “fan”.
That is fair enough! I have made the same point to a brother who voted Tory in 2017 because of Corbyn. I am not sure how he voted in 2019 - though it was not Labour. I was surprised to learn back in January that - unlike myself - he had joined the Labour party to vote in the Leadership election. I simply take the view - and I believe HYUFD has made similar comments to Big_G - that if an individual is not sufficiently committed to a party to support its candidates at election time, he/she has no right to any say in its internal affairs. I was a Labour member from 1970 until the end of 1996 , but then discontinued my membership. In all good conscience, I feel able to do as I think fit!
I think it depends upon if you feel able or willing to support the party at this time . . . or prior to a leadership election if you feel able or willing to support the party next time if your preferred candidate would win.
Doing it for trolling purposes is not OK
I joined the Tories a long time ago because I supported the party despite not being keen on its leader at that time (Howard) and appalled by its last elected leader (IDS) and because I wanted a vote next time. I got that vote and cast it for Cameron and was delighted he won and happily supported the party and campaigned for the party the entire time he was leader.
When he was replaced by May I quit the party. I wasn't going to campaign for May and I was disgusted she was chosen.
I don't think joining a party is or should be a life sentence or require a commitment for life. Just a commitment for now.
I agree with your last sentence - but whilst a person continues to be a member , there is an obligation to support the party's candidates. When he/she no longer feels able to do that , the time has come to leave - as I did at the end of 1996.
Agreed. At the time of a leadership election that may not be the case though - it could be the case that if one candidate wins you need to leave (as I did when May won) but if another candidate wins you'd be happy.
Comments
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1300758752220655616
https://twitter.com/scotsecofstate/status/1300904926604939264?s=21
I suspect that it is on an equal per capita basis or some such. As you might imagine the UK (and US) wouldn't get much...
I'm totally supportive of once the UK has satisfied our needs us using the DfID budget to buy more vaccine and giving it for free to developing countries.
More generally all interventions by the governments create winners and losers. The country is rarely better off for a clever politician's wheeze du jour
This is a specific example which should make him aware of the downsides of such schemes.
Therefore he should revisit his principles?
(Just to be clear, I have every sympathy for him personally and am just having a bit of fun)
He's saying the UK is becoming a coastal state. And then that the fishing industry is important to Scotland (presumably his constituency?)
Johnson lost when he first ran:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/15/oxford-union-president-boris-johnson-neil-sherlock
He only won when he ran against someone who was one of the worst debaters ever to run for the post.
I was expecting this to be pants in comparison, but it was very good I thought. Samuel West is excellent.
Not sure an advocate of free market principles ought to be canvassing for the Conservatives just about now.
Edit.
I believe @Gallowgate voted Lib Dem, but he can speak for himself.
Ultimately either the Scots should have been told no devolution, we're running the UK as one country and you're in Parliament - or there should have been devolution for all. What was done was a mess and structurally flawed - and the fact there was no easy answer isn't a good enough reason to have proceeded knowing the flaws and ignoring them.
I'd probably describe myself as a swing voter.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/01/one-ironclad-rule-history-law-unintended-consequences/
Devil will be in the details I suspect.
At least I have plenty of experience as a selling point and they do not.
Johnson was also up against the discredited Livingstone for his two mayoral victories. It is like a top Premiership club reaching the FA Cup final having only been drawn against Non-League opposition.
1. The pandemic might change the structure of the economy, even if it does not change its size. If there is much more home-working and much less commuting, and associated changes in the economy, then this could have a massive impact on the tax base. You could expect to see large drops in business rates, fuel duty and stamp duty revenue - and a massive hole in the finances of the railways. Consumer income spent on Amazon will not generate as much tax revenue for the Treasury.
2. He has a Prime Minister whose instinct is to promise money to solve problems, to spend money on flamboyant gestures. There will be a necessity to find money in the budget to fulfil these promises.
3. At the beginning of the year the UK had a number of serious economic weaknesses that, unaddressed, will hold us back - poor productivity, persistent trade and balance of payment deficits, the effects of austerity on public services and national infrastructure. It's not just the chickens from the last year that will be looking for space to roost in. There is quite the homecoming in prospect.
4. And then - what will it do to business investor confidence if the SNP win a 2021 Holyrood election on a manifesto calling for another Independence referendum? Much is made of the plans the SNP have, or do not have, for a Scottish currency after Independence, but the political and economic turmoil will put additional pressure on Sterling.
5. From a purely political angle, it's also important to note that Osborne appeared to have the complete backing of his Prime Minister. Johnson will be much more willing to sacrifice Sunak should he have run out of senior civil servants to blame.
The next couple of years will not be an easy time to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.
They are both trending Democrat.
Fun fact. Arizona's population has doubled since 1990.
But I’d say that about most politicians
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1296483350237061121?s=09
0. You said by next year, I wouldn't say by next year. I think restraint should be shown ASAP but don't think the deficit needs to be seriously addressed for about 2-3 years. Historically 2-3 years after a recession is when deficits start to come down again and that was true in 2010 too.
1. Yes this is true. The economy will adapt though. Again we've gone into this crash with a far healthier deficit than last time and business rates, fuel duty etc are not the golden goose that Brown was plucking last time. There will indeed be holes to fill, but there are after any recession - but holes to fill is not a whole chasm.
2. All Chancellors face this issue.
3. This counteracts point 1. Inefficient transport, minimum wage sandwich shops, minimum wage coffee shops etc are poor productivity jobs that are getting culled at the minute. Chances are that post-COVID is going to see a boom in productivity.
4. It will be dealt with. People are resigned to chaos at the minute and frankly its all overblown. That's why Brexit isn't such a big deal as people make out - the fundamentals of tax and spend, economic management etc matter far, far more than the constitution and 'heart' issues.
5. We'll see. Johnson could afford rewrite his Cabinet as he pleased in his first reshuffle after the election, he had bountiful political capital after winning the 80 seat majority and Javid to be frank didn't really have much backing. With Sunak as popular as he is now, with Johnson having gone through rough and tumble of politics that has taken the shine off his 80 seat majority, that is no longer the case now. If he were to sack Sunak he would be putting the polling and betting favourite for his successor on the backbenches - hardly a conducive move! I suspect that, barring something extraordinary like a major scandal, Sunak is now the one person Johnson literally can not sack anymore.
But vote Lib Dem for competence and financial sanity.
For which I apologise as a genuine mistake.
And is the £2bn employment scheme referred to this one that was announced back in July? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53324201
https://eu.caller.com/story/news/local/texas/state-bureau/2020/08/24/poll-shows-tight-presidential-race-texas-between-biden-trump/5622620002/
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/508540-new-poll-shows-biden-with-one-point-lead-on-trump-in-texas
But being a bit deaf, I couldn’t make out what they finally said to each other. He’s enjoyed growing tomatoes in lockdown and now feels that he is a garden? Or a gardener? Or both?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Stuart,_1st_Viscount_Stuart_of_Findhorn
The wheel turns in time for us all.
The fully paid for 6 months is based on an apprenticeship for existing £1000 for 16-18yo plus 19-25 yo with special needs.
The new bit annouced in July was £2000 for under 25s or £1500 for 25 and over.
That gives £3k over 6 months which is enough to pay them NMW for apprentices of £4.15.
The gap in funding between a 23 yo (without special needs) and 28yo is just £500, so unlikely to make a difference in recruitment. Apprentices would need to be training off the job at least 20% of their time, its not a normal job.
If you could just recruit any under 25s for free for six months it would be extremely generous, but would be amazed if thats the case.
£500 is not going to be a deal breaker in recruitment.
When of course nothing is, but some issues we don't have time to wait for politics to change.
http://www.pluralvote.com/article/2020-forecast/state/?q=TX
Edit: Trump’s referring to the embedded national poll which has him on 46 and Biden on 49.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1300921475713597447?s=21
https://twitter.com/Politidope/status/1300913578254446593
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/texas/undefined/
The problem I'd have with Phoenix is that it's pretty drab and generic. Once you've been out dirt-biking and shooting on the desert and tubing on the Salt Rier, there's nothing much to do but sit by the pool.
In recent years the term "the centre" has been hijacked by pro-Europeans when there is nothing centrist about that. People campaigning for a second referendum last Parliament would call themselves centrists, but when 52% of the country voted to leave and a large bulk of those that voted to Remain thought that the referendum result (even if wrong) should be respected . . . the arch-Europhiles wanting a second referendum were not centrists they were extremists.
But some of his pliant audience takes from it the bit that they like. They don’t seem bothered by the totality of the nonsense. He’s like a war plane dropping propaganda leaflets, calculating that he can fool some of the people all of the time with his misinformation and insinuations.
Doing it for trolling purposes is not OK
I joined the Tories a long time ago because I supported the party despite not being keen on its leader at that time (Howard) and appalled by its last elected leader (IDS) and because I wanted a vote next time. I got that vote and cast it for Cameron and was delighted he won and happily supported the party and campaigned for the party the entire time he was leader.
When he was replaced by May I quit the party. I wasn't going to campaign for May and I was disgusted she was chosen.
I don't think joining a party is or should be a life sentence or require a commitment for life. Just a commitment for now.
I can't see myself voting Tory again.
Thing is, though, if you go back a few hundred years then everyone's related to everyone, more or less.