The Tories are above 40% because - well everyone knows tax rises are coming. People are just hoping those tax rises won't disproportionately affect them. Soon as the tax rises hit the Tories are sub 40 with Labour taking a lead I think.
Which is why Tory MPs will likely vote down any budget with significant tax rises
If they do that, does is mean the end of the Johnson experiment? And of Cummings too?
And if he does not get way with tax changes, will Sunak resign?
I look forward to the reply from young HY...
No, not necessarily but Tory MPs, especially newly elected ones now see themselves as closer to US Congressmen then voting fodder ie they will put what their voters want not what No 10 and 11 wants first
And then be deselected right?
Not by their local associations no, their local parties will be right behind them.
Same problem Blair had with the over 100 Labour MPs who voted against the Iraq War, local CLPs backed them
But the party would withdraw the whip and kick them out of the party, right?
It couldn't if over 100 MPs rebelled as it would no longer have a majority and if big taxes were proposed the rebellion would be that big if not bigger
You are delusional. When have MPs ever voted down a budget and kept the whip? This is nonsense, you don't vote against your party on confidence or supply - no ifs or buts.
If tax rises are proposed MPs may grumble, they will brief the press, but they will go through the appropriate lobby as they have to do so.
Labour did in the Iraq War vote as the rebellion was so big they could not remove the whip from over rebel 100 MPs, if there were big tax rises the rebellion would match it, Tory MPs will not vote for political suicide in their own seats with their core voters
The Iraq War rebellion wasn't a confidence and supply issue.
The budget is.
Not in itself
WHAT!?
What do you think the "supply" in "confidence and supply" refers to?
Legally a loss of supply is still not a vote of confidence, the government can then amend the budget, if it loses a vote of no confidence however an election has to be called by the monarch
That's pushing things to breaking point. I'd imagine that the budget would be made a matter of confidence and if lost there would be an election.
No, voting down a big tax rising budget which would be a left wing budget not a Tory budget anyway
Horse do you see why I call him a "blue Corbynite"? He does not represent me or the party any more than Corbynites represent you.
If you think keeping taxes low does not represent the views of most Tories you really are better off in the LDs or even Starmer Labour
I think taxes and deficits need to be kept low.
In order to keep the deficit low, which in the long term keeps taxes low, sometimes tax rises are necessary. Every Tory Chancellor worth their salt has had to increase taxes sometimes. Because sometimes its necessary - or sometimes it can balance out a tax cut elsewhere.
The Tory manifesto promised not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT, certainly if any of those were raised the rebellion from Tory MPs would be triple figures
The Government will want to stick to that plan but if they deem a tax rise necessary then it will be voted for by anyone holding the whip and anyone who doesn't would lose the whip.
Nope, any breach of the Tory manifesto on those taxes will be a breach of the platform those MPs won on, they will vote down such a budget without question and without those MPs the government has no majority.
Noting the prior discussion on UK Q3 GDP growth, worth pointing out that growth in Q3 is mostly a function of how big the decline in GDP was in Q2 (ie the deeper the hole, the bigger is the climb out of it). Recall that UK GDP fell 20% in Q2, vs 9% in the US, 8% in Japan and 12% in the euro area. So yes, we should get some strong data for July next Friday and for Q3 as a whole (I currently expect 16% for Q3) but don't kid yourself that this is anything to crow about.
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
IIRC it was done that way by a Conservative government to secure special privileges for the City of London. But that was a bit before myt time.
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
Party in charge of previous policy of allowing leopards to eat faces cries piteously 'Why won't you support us in our fight to stop leopards eating faces?'
I've not been looking at the matter in detail but is not fisheries policy and conservation a devolved matter anyway? If so then the SNP should be praised for following EVEL (or for resisting a Whitehall powers grab, depending on the details).
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
Presumably then our lads can fish in Irish, French or Portuguese (etc) waters?
Noting the prior discussion on UK Q3 GDP growth, worth pointing out that growth in Q3 is mostly a function of how big the decline in GDP was in Q2 (ie the deeper the hole, the bigger is the climb out of it). Recall that UK GDP fell 20% in Q2, vs 9% in the US, 8% in Japan and 12% in the euro area. So yes, we should get some strong data for July next Friday and for Q3 as a whole (I currently expect 16% for Q3) but don't kid yourself that this is anything to crow about.
Getting your excuses in early, I see...
I doubt anyone will remember this post when the Q3 GDP data are published on November 12, to be honest. I just thought that some on here might be unfamiliar with the concept of dead cat bounce.
No, voting down a big tax rising budget which would be a left wing budget not a Tory budget anyway
Horse do you see why I call him a "blue Corbynite"? He does not represent me or the party any more than Corbynites represent you.
If you think keeping taxes low does not represent the views of most Tories you really are better off in the LDs or even Starmer Labour
I think taxes and deficits need to be kept low.
In order to keep the deficit low, which in the long term keeps taxes low, sometimes tax rises are necessary. Every Tory Chancellor worth their salt has had to increase taxes sometimes. Because sometimes its necessary - or sometimes it can balance out a tax cut elsewhere.
The Tory manifesto promised not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT, certainly if any of those were raised the rebellion from Tory MPs would be triple figures
The Government will want to stick to that plan but if they deem a tax rise necessary then it will be voted for by anyone holding the whip and anyone who doesn't would lose the whip.
Nope, any breach of the Tory manifesto on those taxes will be a breach of the platform those MPs won on, they will vote down such a budget without question and without those MPs the government has no majority.
You are off your rocker again, there is a reason not a single soul is agreeing with you.
MPs do not vote down the government on issues of confidence and supply and keep the whip - no ifs, no buts.
You seem to think for some reason the Budget is not an issue of confidence and supply so I ask again just what do you think the "and supply" refers to?
Just seen some new forecasts come through for Q3. City consensus looks like 17%, European and American banks closer to 15%, UK banks (and UK branches of European banks) closer to 20%. There isn't usually such a big spread but I think European banks especially have underestimated the scale of WFH in the UK and are misunderstanding the real-time indicators showing that public transport use is still only 55% of the prior year.
One of our guys thinks that the £500m EOTHO spend has got close to a 9x economic multiplier based on transaction data we've received from POS and merchant services companies. He says it's the single most successful economic policy of the last 50 years. He thinks the chancellor should extend it for non franchise restaurants with 50 or fewer locations until the end of the year, essentially locking out the big chains like McDonalds and KFC but allowing smaller chains and independents to continue benefiting. It would also cut the cost of the policy by 50-60%.
July GDP data is going to be a very big day for the UK, it should show that the UK is currently the fastest growing global economy and is having the best bounceback and give us a sense of where we're headed by December.
I presume we have another week or so to wait for that?
Found the data on transport usage -
Food for thought among the London centric, I think
Wow so pretty much back at 100% for most of the country.
And people were claiming here yesterday that Boris was lying for saying that huge numbers of people had gone back to work. I said here that the roads seem as busy as they were preCOVID and this demonstrates it.
The country exists outside of London not that you'd know it from people saying "look at this empty Tube, nobody is working!"
But the buses are empty in the bits of Islington that Guardian columnists aspire to live in.
Not many journalists can realistically aspire to live in Islington. You need to have serious inherited wealth to live there, like Dominic Cummings or Boris Johnson* * until his wife threw him out.
But they go to the pubs there and dream. And then go and write columns on the horrors of living in zone 4.
Do they? I've never read one. Don't understand why anyone would want to live north of the river anyway.
I'd have to dig - there was a hilarious one, not long ago, about how the writer felt his precious middle class status was slipping. He could only afford to live in a flat in a "bad" area, and his daughter was speaking in a "common" accent, picked up at the local school.
Even he was trying to justify staying in London - he was a writer and had no actual desk to go to.....
Ha ha my son is full on South London - innit tho fam.
He (the writer) sounded throughly miserable, so I wouldn't laugh.
It was just that if he moved out of London to the horrors of Wiltshire (say), he could be living in a nice village, his daughter at a grammar school etc.
That's not all Boris said, what was the next part that Boris said about what a certain Mr Blackford said in reply about midges?
Did it reveal what the justification was for suggesting Blackford was involved in endangering BJ's safety?
Yes.
Which was?
You'll have to watch the clip sorry, I don't have the transcript or a link.
Gaurn feed makes it clear (a) a lot of shite and (b) the security risks were to Mr Blackford. "12:43 PMQs is over, but the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, allows a point of order.
It’s from Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster. He says in August the Sun quoted a No 10 source blaming Blackford for revealing the location of the PM’s holiday in Scotland. He says this was a political smear. He says he did not reveal where the PM was staying, and was not aware of it. He says this has resulted in Blackford himself, and his family, facing security threats. He says Johnson’s face in the chamber suggests he does not take this seriously, but it is a serious matter.
Johnson says he had a wonderful staycation in Blackford’s constituency. He says he is happy to accept the assurances Blackford gives. But he quotes a tweet from the Daily Record journalist Torcuil Crichton, which he seems to imply undermines what Blackford was saying.
Here is the tweet. It does not at all prove what Johnson implies that it does (that Crichton heard about where Johnson was camping from Blackford).
[tweet here] Hoyle says he is very concerned about the security implications."
That's not all Boris said, what was the next part that Boris said about what a certain Mr Blackford said in reply about midges?
Did it reveal what the justification was for suggesting Blackford was involved in endangering BJ's safety?
Yes.
Which was?
You'll have to watch the clip sorry, I don't have the transcript or a link.
This isn't rocket science. What did you hear that made you come to the conclusion that it was justified to suggest Blackford was involved in endangering BJ's safety?
No, voting down a big tax rising budget which would be a left wing budget not a Tory budget anyway
Horse do you see why I call him a "blue Corbynite"? He does not represent me or the party any more than Corbynites represent you.
If you think keeping taxes low does not represent the views of most Tories you really are better off in the LDs or even Starmer Labour
I think taxes and deficits need to be kept low.
In order to keep the deficit low, which in the long term keeps taxes low, sometimes tax rises are necessary. Every Tory Chancellor worth their salt has had to increase taxes sometimes. Because sometimes its necessary - or sometimes it can balance out a tax cut elsewhere.
The Tory manifesto promised not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT, certainly if any of those were raised the rebellion from Tory MPs would be triple figures
The Government will want to stick to that plan but if they deem a tax rise necessary then it will be voted for by anyone holding the whip and anyone who doesn't would lose the whip.
Nope, any breach of the Tory manifesto on those taxes will be a breach of the platform those MPs won on, they will vote down such a budget without question and without those MPs the government has no majority.
You are off your rocker again, there is a reason not a single soul is agreeing with you.
MPs do not vote down the government on issues of confidence and supply and keep the whip - no ifs, no buts.
You seem to think for some reason the Budget is not an issue of confidence and supply so I ask again just what do you think the "and supply" refers to?
Governments which breach their core manifesto guarantees personally signed off by the PM not to raise income tax, NI or VAT do not get supported by their MPs on such a platform. It would be political suicide to vote for it and those MPs would even prefer an election now than in 4 years time facing certain defeat by voting for it.
Though I repeat there may be a convention loss of Budget votes sees the government fall but there is no legal constitutional requirement for that to be so, only loss of a confidence vote does that. The chancellor would likely simply amend the Budget in response to a defeat to get it passed.
However I have seen no evidence Sunak would be idiotic enough to raise income tax, NI or VAT in clear breach of the 2019 manifesto anyway, at most it will be things like equating CGT with income tax rates
Just seen some new forecasts come through for Q3. City consensus looks like 17%, European and American banks closer to 15%, UK banks (and UK branches of European banks) closer to 20%. There isn't usually such a big spread but I think European banks especially have underestimated the scale of WFH in the UK and are misunderstanding the real-time indicators showing that public transport use is still only 55% of the prior year.
One of our guys thinks that the £500m EOTHO spend has got close to a 9x economic multiplier based on transaction data we've received from POS and merchant services companies. He says it's the single most successful economic policy of the last 50 years. He thinks the chancellor should extend it for non franchise restaurants with 50 or fewer locations until the end of the year, essentially locking out the big chains like McDonalds and KFC but allowing smaller chains and independents to continue benefiting. It would also cut the cost of the policy by 50-60%.
July GDP data is going to be a very big day for the UK, it should show that the UK is currently the fastest growing global economy and is having the best bounceback and give us a sense of where we're headed by December.
I presume we have another week or so to wait for that?
Found the data on transport usage -
Food for thought among the London centric, I think
Wow so pretty much back at 100% for most of the country.
And people were claiming here yesterday that Boris was lying for saying that huge numbers of people had gone back to work. I said here that the roads seem as busy as they were preCOVID and this demonstrates it.
The country exists outside of London not that you'd know it from people saying "look at this empty Tube, nobody is working!"
But the buses are empty in the bits of Islington that Guardian columnists aspire to live in.
Not many journalists can realistically aspire to live in Islington. You need to have serious inherited wealth to live there, like Dominic Cummings or Boris Johnson* * until his wife threw him out.
But they go to the pubs there and dream. And then go and write columns on the horrors of living in zone 4.
Do they? I've never read one. Don't understand why anyone would want to live north of the river anyway.
I'd have to dig - there was a hilarious one, not long ago, about how the writer felt his precious middle class status was slipping. He could only afford to live in a flat in a "bad" area, and his daughter was speaking in a "common" accent, picked up at the local school.
Even he was trying to justify staying in London - he was a writer and had no actual desk to go to.....
Ha ha my son is full on South London - innit tho fam.
He (the writer) sounded throughly miserable, so I wouldn't laugh.
It was just that if he moved out of London to the horrors of Wiltshire (say), he could be living in a nice village, his daughter at a grammar school etc.
Hmm I've been to Malmesbury, no offence but I'd rather be living in South London.
No, voting down a big tax rising budget which would be a left wing budget not a Tory budget anyway
Horse do you see why I call him a "blue Corbynite"? He does not represent me or the party any more than Corbynites represent you.
If you think keeping taxes low does not represent the views of most Tories you really are better off in the LDs or even Starmer Labour
I think taxes and deficits need to be kept low.
In order to keep the deficit low, which in the long term keeps taxes low, sometimes tax rises are necessary. Every Tory Chancellor worth their salt has had to increase taxes sometimes. Because sometimes its necessary - or sometimes it can balance out a tax cut elsewhere.
The Tory manifesto promised not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT, certainly if any of those were raised the rebellion from Tory MPs would be triple figures
The Government will want to stick to that plan but if they deem a tax rise necessary then it will be voted for by anyone holding the whip and anyone who doesn't would lose the whip.
Nope, any breach of the Tory manifesto on those taxes will be a breach of the platform those MPs won on, they will vote down such a budget without question and without those MPs the government has no majority.
You are off your rocker again, there is a reason not a single soul is agreeing with you.
MPs do not vote down the government on issues of confidence and supply and keep the whip - no ifs, no buts.
You seem to think for some reason the Budget is not an issue of confidence and supply so I ask again just what do you think the "and supply" refers to?
Governments which breach their core manifesto guarantees personally signed off by the PM not to raise income tax, NI or VAT do not get supported by their MPs on such a platform. It would be political suicide to vote for it and those MPs would even prefer an election now than in 4 years time facing certain defeat by voting for it.
Though I repeat there may be a convention loss of Budget votes sees the government fall but there is no legal constitutional requirement for that to be so, only loss of a confidence vote does that.
However I have seen no evidence Sunak would be idiotic enough to raise income tax, NI or VAT in clear breach of the 2019 manifesto anyway, at most it will be things like equating CGT with income tax rates
How much would that raise, Young HY?
And how much would he need to raise to pay off his deficit?
That's not all Boris said, what was the next part that Boris said about what a certain Mr Blackford said in reply about midges?
Did it reveal what the justification was for suggesting Blackford was involved in endangering BJ's safety?
Yes.
Which was?
You'll have to watch the clip sorry, I don't have the transcript or a link.
Gaurn feed makes it clear (a) a lot of shite and (b) the security risks were to Mr Blackford. "12:43 PMQs is over, but the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, allows a point of order.
It’s from Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster. He says in August the Sun quoted a No 10 source blaming Blackford for revealing the location of the PM’s holiday in Scotland. He says this was a political smear. He says he did not reveal where the PM was staying, and was not aware of it. He says this has resulted in Blackford himself, and his family, facing security threats. He says Johnson’s face in the chamber suggests he does not take this seriously, but it is a serious matter.
Johnson says he had a wonderful staycation in Blackford’s constituency. He says he is happy to accept the assurances Blackford gives. But he quotes a tweet from the Daily Record journalist Torcuil Crichton, which he seems to imply undermines what Blackford was saying.
Here is the tweet. It does not at all prove what Johnson implies that it does (that Crichton heard about where Johnson was camping from Blackford).
[tweet here] Hoyle says he is very concerned about the security implications."
Mr Johnson does not seem on top of the detail, no?
Johnson was complaining that Blackford retweeted the Torcuil Crichton tweet and implied strongly that Crichton was referring to Johnson in his tweet [fair-skinned and from Eton].
In this case Johnson has the greater complaint than Blackford IMO.
EDIT. The Guardian corrected the take quoted above
If Trump does win in the EC, but loses the national vote by 2-3%, how sustainable is this? In a national vote for a national president, with effectively a 2 party system, that the party that keeps getting millions fewer votes keeps winning?
Add to that the gerrymandered House and Senate, and the highly political judiciary stuffed with increasingly out of touch with majority opinion ultra-conservative judges - isn't it a recipe for the disenfranchised majority getting extremely pissed off?
I agree with you, but have one pedantic point. The senate cannot be gerrymandered, unless state boundaries are redrawn, or significant populations are moved accross state borders. You can complain that Hawaii and Texas both having 2 senators is unfair, but that is not gerrymandering.
The constituency boundaries in the House though, are a disgrace.
Jungle primaries comes pretty close
California Democrats legislate that the top 2 candidates in a primary are the only ones eligible to run for senator
Hmmm: that means that it’s always only 2 Democrats that get to stand
You can vote for anyone you like so long as they are a Democrat
Ah, are Republicans banned from standing in the jungle primaries then?
That sounds pretty serious.
Only the top 2 candidates are allowed to stand in the election
So (I think) in every election it has been 2 democrats running against each other.
It’s introducing a hurdle which is deliberately designed to discriminate against a smaller but meaningful party.
It basically prevents the splits in the Democrat voting base resulting in the GOP ever having the chance to win the senate seat
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
IIRC it was done that way by a Conservative government to secure special privileges for the City of London. But that was a bit before myt time.
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
There's also the fact that fish swim around while oil stays put. This means that heavy fishing in one area can deplete the stocks in another, hence the need for a common fisheries policy.
If Trump does win in the EC, but loses the national vote by 2-3%, how sustainable is this? In a national vote for a national president, with effectively a 2 party system, that the party that keeps getting millions fewer votes keeps winning?
Add to that the gerrymandered House and Senate, and the highly political judiciary stuffed with increasingly out of touch with majority opinion ultra-conservative judges - isn't it a recipe for the disenfranchised majority getting extremely pissed off?
It's entirely sustainable. The Democrats if that happens will need to target states other than California.
That is the system working by design and not a flaw.
It IS a flaw, and plenty of Americans hate it quite understandably. The fact that you think it is a good system doesn't make it one. None of the better democracies use such a stupid system, and I don't see any country racing to copy it. That might tell you something.
We use an equivalent one in the U.K.
Fundamentally it represents communities not individuals.
You disagree. Fine. But it’s not stupid
But it doesn't represent communities. That's the bizarrest defence of the EC yet.
It defines a state as a community - it’s just a language point
You do realise that all the Electoral College does is choose the president and vice-president? Because your comments imply that you don't know this.
I know that.
The president is a federal role chosen by the states through the mechanism of the electoral college. That is deliberately different to a popular vote mechanism.
If Trump does win in the EC, but loses the national vote by 2-3%, how sustainable is this? In a national vote for a national president, with effectively a 2 party system, that the party that keeps getting millions fewer votes keeps winning?
Add to that the gerrymandered House and Senate, and the highly political judiciary stuffed with increasingly out of touch with majority opinion ultra-conservative judges - isn't it a recipe for the disenfranchised majority getting extremely pissed off?
It's entirely sustainable. The Democrats if that happens will need to target states other than California.
That is the system working by design and not a flaw.
It IS a flaw, and plenty of Americans hate it quite understandably. The fact that you think it is a good system doesn't make it one. None of the better democracies use such a stupid system, and I don't see any country racing to copy it. That might tell you something.
We use an equivalent one in the U.K.
Fundamentally it represents communities not individuals.
You disagree. Fine. But it’s not stupid
The Electoral College is stupid (if you like it, fine, but it is still stupid). And we do not use an equivalent one in the UK.
States / constituencies elect MPs
The MPs caucus together and select a head of the executive branch
What’s fundamentally different?
The MPs don't then go home job done, they continue to represent their constituencies, and are also able select someone else as Prime Minister whenever they want. Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really believe there is any kind of comparison, in which case you are much stupider than I thought?
How charming.
MPs have multiple roles. They are both legislators and Electors.
No, voting down a big tax rising budget which would be a left wing budget not a Tory budget anyway
Horse do you see why I call him a "blue Corbynite"? He does not represent me or the party any more than Corbynites represent you.
If you think keeping taxes low does not represent the views of most Tories you really are better off in the LDs or even Starmer Labour
I think taxes and deficits need to be kept low.
In order to keep the deficit low, which in the long term keeps taxes low, sometimes tax rises are necessary. Every Tory Chancellor worth their salt has had to increase taxes sometimes. Because sometimes its necessary - or sometimes it can balance out a tax cut elsewhere.
The Tory manifesto promised not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT, certainly if any of those were raised the rebellion from Tory MPs would be triple figures
The Government will want to stick to that plan but if they deem a tax rise necessary then it will be voted for by anyone holding the whip and anyone who doesn't would lose the whip.
Nope, any breach of the Tory manifesto on those taxes will be a breach of the platform those MPs won on, they will vote down such a budget without question and without those MPs the government has no majority.
You are off your rocker again, there is a reason not a single soul is agreeing with you.
MPs do not vote down the government on issues of confidence and supply and keep the whip - no ifs, no buts.
You seem to think for some reason the Budget is not an issue of confidence and supply so I ask again just what do you think the "and supply" refers to?
Governments which breach their core manifesto guarantees personally signed off by the PM not to raise income tax, NI or VAT do not get supported by their MPs on such a platform. It would be political suicide to vote for it and those MPs would even prefer an election now than in 4 years time facing certain defeat by voting for it.
Though I repeat there may be a convention loss of Budget votes sees the government fall but there is no legal constitutional requirement for that to be so, only loss of a confidence vote does that.
However I have seen no evidence Sunak would be idiotic enough to raise income tax, NI or VAT in clear breach of the 2019 manifesto anyway, at most it will be things like equating CGT with income tax rates
How much would that raise, Young HY?
And how uch would he need to raise to pay off his deficit?
And how would he do that?
The Tory Party is the party of low tax before it is the party of the deficit, if you raise taxes you lose, see Bush Snr 1992 even if you reduce the deficit.
If people put cutting the deficit first they can vote for Davey's LDs.
There is even an argument we should cut taxes to grow the economy now, once growth has been restored and revenues increased then we can start to repay the deficit again
The Tories are above 40% because - well everyone knows tax rises are coming. People are just hoping those tax rises won't disproportionately affect them. Soon as the tax rises hit the Tories are sub 40 with Labour taking a lead I think.
Which is why Tory MPs will likely vote down any budget with significant tax rises
If they do that, does is mean the end of the Johnson experiment? And of Cummings too?
And if he does not get way with tax changes, will Sunak resign?
I look forward to the reply from young HY...
No, not necessarily but Tory MPs, especially newly elected ones now see themselves as closer to US Congressmen then voting fodder ie they will put what their voters want not what No 10 and 11 wants first
Do you think that Cummings and Johnson have taken this factor into account when they go in for their war-gaming?
Hmm... I think that they might want to ask those remainers such as Philip Hammond, Oliver Letwin and Dominic Grieve how that goes.
Yes. Boris has shown from the start he means business.
Will you be applying to the Beeb for one of the new 'right wing comedy' slots, Philip?
ID cards are not necessarily a bad idea but of course it's Cummings so what he really wants is to mine our data and give the contracts to his friends
No, ID cards are a terrible idea.
A single sign on for government services is a good idea, providing that Ms @Cyclefree or a well-known privacy advocate is involved in setting it up to avoid the big database.
As pointed out upthread, we already have one.
As for ID cards, the reasons government want them is because they want the data, to monitor and surveil us and, most likely to monetise and sell it.
And as far as my data is concerned, they can fuck right off.
I was against Blair’s monstrous ID cards idea and I’m not going to go for this Brexit-Tory one either.
Ah okay, I didn’t know there was already a single sign on.
So they’re trying to do Blair’s ID card but without the actual card. No thanks.
Just wondering if PB Tories agree with Claire Fox, IRA supporter, going into the HoL, or whether their hatred for the IRA is only useful as a Labour attack line
If Trump does win in the EC, but loses the national vote by 2-3%, how sustainable is this? In a national vote for a national president, with effectively a 2 party system, that the party that keeps getting millions fewer votes keeps winning?
Add to that the gerrymandered House and Senate, and the highly political judiciary stuffed with increasingly out of touch with majority opinion ultra-conservative judges - isn't it a recipe for the disenfranchised majority getting extremely pissed off?
I agree with you, but have one pedantic point. The senate cannot be gerrymandered, unless state boundaries are redrawn, or significant populations are moved accross state borders. You can complain that Hawaii and Texas both having 2 senators is unfair, but that is not gerrymandering.
The constituency boundaries in the House though, are a disgrace.
Jungle primaries comes pretty close
California Democrats legislate that the top 2 candidates in a primary are the only ones eligible to run for senator
Hmmm: that means that it’s always only 2 Democrats that get to stand
You can vote for anyone you like so long as they are a Democrat
Ah, are Republicans banned from standing in the jungle primaries then?
That sounds pretty serious.
Only the top 2 candidates are allowed to stand in the election
So (I think) in every election it has been 2 democrats running against each other.
It’s introducing a hurdle which is deliberately designed to discriminate against a smaller but meaningful party.
It basically prevents the splits in the Democrat voting base resulting in the GOP ever having the chance to win the senate seat
Maybe Republicans could come up with policies that appeal to the average California voter, with sound economic policies, rather than their bizarre niche identity politics.
It really sounds like you think Republicans should get special dispensation despite being unpopular.
That's not all Boris said, what was the next part that Boris said about what a certain Mr Blackford said in reply about midges?
Did it reveal what the justification was for suggesting Blackford was involved in endangering BJ's safety?
Yes.
Which was?
You'll have to watch the clip sorry, I don't have the transcript or a link.
Gaurn feed makes it clear (a) a lot of shite and (b) the security risks were to Mr Blackford. "12:43 PMQs is over, but the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, allows a point of order.
It’s from Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster. He says in August the Sun quoted a No 10 source blaming Blackford for revealing the location of the PM’s holiday in Scotland. He says this was a political smear. He says he did not reveal where the PM was staying, and was not aware of it. He says this has resulted in Blackford himself, and his family, facing security threats. He says Johnson’s face in the chamber suggests he does not take this seriously, but it is a serious matter.
Johnson says he had a wonderful staycation in Blackford’s constituency. He says he is happy to accept the assurances Blackford gives. But he quotes a tweet from the Daily Record journalist Torcuil Crichton, which he seems to imply undermines what Blackford was saying.
Here is the tweet. It does not at all prove what Johnson implies that it does (that Crichton heard about where Johnson was camping from Blackford).
[tweet here] Hoyle says he is very concerned about the security implications."
Mr Johnson does not seem on top of the detail, no?
Johnson was complaining that Blackford retweeted the Torcuil Crichton tweet and implied strongly that Crichton was referring to Johnson in his tweet [fair-skinned and from Eton].
In this case Johnson has the greater complaint than Blackford IMO.
EDIT. The Guardian corrected the take quoted above
That's not all Boris said, what was the next part that Boris said about what a certain Mr Blackford said in reply about midges?
Did it reveal what the justification was for suggesting Blackford was involved in endangering BJ's safety?
Yes.
Which was?
You'll have to watch the clip sorry, I don't have the transcript or a link.
Gaurn feed makes it clear (a) a lot of shite and (b) the security risks were to Mr Blackford. "12:43 PMQs is over, but the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, allows a point of order.
It’s from Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster. He says in August the Sun quoted a No 10 source blaming Blackford for revealing the location of the PM’s holiday in Scotland. He says this was a political smear. He says he did not reveal where the PM was staying, and was not aware of it. He says this has resulted in Blackford himself, and his family, facing security threats. He says Johnson’s face in the chamber suggests he does not take this seriously, but it is a serious matter.
Johnson says he had a wonderful staycation in Blackford’s constituency. He says he is happy to accept the assurances Blackford gives. But he quotes a tweet from the Daily Record journalist Torcuil Crichton, which he seems to imply undermines what Blackford was saying.
Here is the tweet. It does not at all prove what Johnson implies that it does (that Crichton heard about where Johnson was camping from Blackford).
[tweet here] Hoyle says he is very concerned about the security implications."
Mr Johnson does not seem on top of the detail, no?
Johnson was complaining that Blackford retweeted the Torcuil Crichton tweet and implied strongly that Crichton was referring to Johnson in his tweet [fair-skinned and from Eton].
In this case Johnson has the greater complaint than Blackford IMO.
EDIT. The Guardian corrected the take quoted above
But it was well known that Mr J was camping in a 'remote' area in Scotland already - eg
He keeps saying that, but fails to understand that British fish are no longer common EU resources. The U.K. is asking for simply a similar deal to those already done with Canada and Japan.
Just wondering if PB Tories agree with Claire Fox, IRA supporter, going into the HoL, or whether their hatred for the IRA is only useful as a Labour attack line
I doubt the IRA stuff is a useful attack line for anyone nowadays.
Just wondering if PB Tories agree with Claire Fox, IRA supporter, going into the HoL, or whether their hatred for the IRA is only useful as a Labour attack line
Anything that allows you to make that point means either (a) Claire must REALLY have impressed to make the pain worth it or (b) people who proposed her don't give a shit about her past pronouncements.
That's not all Boris said, what was the next part that Boris said about what a certain Mr Blackford said in reply about midges?
Did it reveal what the justification was for suggesting Blackford was involved in endangering BJ's safety?
Yes.
Which was?
You'll have to watch the clip sorry, I don't have the transcript or a link.
Gaurn feed makes it clear (a) a lot of shite and (b) the security risks were to Mr Blackford. "12:43 PMQs is over, but the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, allows a point of order.
It’s from Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster. He says in August the Sun quoted a No 10 source blaming Blackford for revealing the location of the PM’s holiday in Scotland. He says this was a political smear. He says he did not reveal where the PM was staying, and was not aware of it. He says this has resulted in Blackford himself, and his family, facing security threats. He says Johnson’s face in the chamber suggests he does not take this seriously, but it is a serious matter.
Johnson says he had a wonderful staycation in Blackford’s constituency. He says he is happy to accept the assurances Blackford gives. But he quotes a tweet from the Daily Record journalist Torcuil Crichton, which he seems to imply undermines what Blackford was saying.
Here is the tweet. It does not at all prove what Johnson implies that it does (that Crichton heard about where Johnson was camping from Blackford).
[tweet here] Hoyle says he is very concerned about the security implications."
Mr Johnson does not seem on top of the detail, no?
Johnson was complaining that Blackford retweeted the Torcuil Crichton tweet and implied strongly that Crichton was referring to Johnson in his tweet [fair-skinned and from Eton].
In this case Johnson has the greater complaint than Blackford IMO.
EDIT. The Guardian corrected the take quoted above
Wester Ross is 600+ square miles in area. I fear that the GRU assassins may have had their work cut out for them, particularly as there would be no shortage of fair skinned Old Etonians kicking about the place at that time of the year.
Ah I see. Hike taxes and then promise to slash them if reelected in 2024.
"We've come through the storm together, we the People's Conservative government and you the People. Now is the time to reap the rewards. Don't let all your sacrifice and hard work be in vain. Don't let Labour spoil it all. You know what they're like, Labour. They're like teenagers. You can't trust them with money."
He keeps saying that, but fails to understand that British fish are no longer common EU resources. The U.K. is asking for simply a similar deal to those already done with Canada and Japan.
Just wondering if PB Tories agree with Claire Fox, IRA supporter, going into the HoL, or whether their hatred for the IRA is only useful as a Labour attack line
Anything that allows you to make that point means either (a) Claire must REALLY have impressed to make the pain worth it or (b) people who proposed her don't give a shit about her past pronouncements.
Which makes it doubly strange why Johnson brought it up in the HoC today
That's not all Boris said, what was the next part that Boris said about what a certain Mr Blackford said in reply about midges?
Did it reveal what the justification was for suggesting Blackford was involved in endangering BJ's safety?
Yes.
Which was?
You'll have to watch the clip sorry, I don't have the transcript or a link.
Gaurn feed makes it clear (a) a lot of shite and (b) the security risks were to Mr Blackford. "12:43 PMQs is over, but the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, allows a point of order.
It’s from Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster. He says in August the Sun quoted a No 10 source blaming Blackford for revealing the location of the PM’s holiday in Scotland. He says this was a political smear. He says he did not reveal where the PM was staying, and was not aware of it. He says this has resulted in Blackford himself, and his family, facing security threats. He says Johnson’s face in the chamber suggests he does not take this seriously, but it is a serious matter.
Johnson says he had a wonderful staycation in Blackford’s constituency. He says he is happy to accept the assurances Blackford gives. But he quotes a tweet from the Daily Record journalist Torcuil Crichton, which he seems to imply undermines what Blackford was saying.
Here is the tweet. It does not at all prove what Johnson implies that it does (that Crichton heard about where Johnson was camping from Blackford).
[tweet here] Hoyle says he is very concerned about the security implications."
Mr Johnson does not seem on top of the detail, no?
Johnson was complaining that Blackford retweeted the Torcuil Crichton tweet and implied strongly that Crichton was referring to Johnson in his tweet [fair-skinned and from Eton].
In this case Johnson has the greater complaint than Blackford IMO.
EDIT. The Guardian corrected the take quoted above
Wester Ross is 600+ square miles in area. I fear that the GRU assassins may have had their work cut out for them, particularly as there would be no shortage of fair skinned Old Etonians kicking about the place at that time of the year.
Reminds one of a passage in Paul Torday's 'Salmon Fishing in the Yemen'!
That's not all Boris said, what was the next part that Boris said about what a certain Mr Blackford said in reply about midges?
Did it reveal what the justification was for suggesting Blackford was involved in endangering BJ's safety?
Yes.
Which was?
You'll have to watch the clip sorry, I don't have the transcript or a link.
Gaurn feed makes it clear (a) a lot of shite and (b) the security risks were to Mr Blackford. "12:43 PMQs is over, but the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, allows a point of order.
It’s from Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster. He says in August the Sun quoted a No 10 source blaming Blackford for revealing the location of the PM’s holiday in Scotland. He says this was a political smear. He says he did not reveal where the PM was staying, and was not aware of it. He says this has resulted in Blackford himself, and his family, facing security threats. He says Johnson’s face in the chamber suggests he does not take this seriously, but it is a serious matter.
Johnson says he had a wonderful staycation in Blackford’s constituency. He says he is happy to accept the assurances Blackford gives. But he quotes a tweet from the Daily Record journalist Torcuil Crichton, which he seems to imply undermines what Blackford was saying.
Here is the tweet. It does not at all prove what Johnson implies that it does (that Crichton heard about where Johnson was camping from Blackford).
[tweet here] Hoyle says he is very concerned about the security implications."
Mr Johnson does not seem on top of the detail, no?
Johnson was complaining that Blackford retweeted the Torcuil Crichton tweet and implied strongly that Crichton was referring to Johnson in his tweet [fair-skinned and from Eton].
In this case Johnson has the greater complaint than Blackford IMO.
EDIT. The Guardian corrected the take quoted above
Wester Ross is 600+ square miles in area. I fear that the GRU assassins may have had their work cut out for them, particularly as there would be no shortage of fair skinned Old Etonians kicking about the place at that time of the year.
Is it even true that fair skinned people suffer more from midges? My wife, who is much darker skinned than me, came off far worse in our recent encounter with midges. Perhaps my comprehensive schooling offered me some protection?
He keeps saying that, but fails to understand that British fish are no longer common EU resources. The U.K. is asking for simply a similar deal to those already done with Canada and Japan.
He keeps saying that, but fails to understand that British fish are no longer common EU resources.
Did Mr Grayling remember to tell the fish wehn they cross the borders?* Or arrange to issue them with blue passports?
*I won't even ask about the Irish Sea.
Will we have to sort out a new agreement with Iceland, the Faros and Norway? Or don't we fish the waters any more?
Coincidentally I've been sorting through some old books on the Royal Navy. Some photos of the Cod Wars - sending frigates in to play dodgems with Icelandic gunboats with ice-reinforced bows, and not always coming off the better, because British fishermen had the right to fish in other folks' waters. One doesn't hear much about that naval campaign these days. I certainly sympathise with the sailors sent to those waters!
That's not all Boris said, what was the next part that Boris said about what a certain Mr Blackford said in reply about midges?
Did it reveal what the justification was for suggesting Blackford was involved in endangering BJ's safety?
Yes.
Which was?
You'll have to watch the clip sorry, I don't have the transcript or a link.
Gaurn feed makes it clear (a) a lot of shite and (b) the security risks were to Mr Blackford. "12:43 PMQs is over, but the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, allows a point of order.
It’s from Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster. He says in August the Sun quoted a No 10 source blaming Blackford for revealing the location of the PM’s holiday in Scotland. He says this was a political smear. He says he did not reveal where the PM was staying, and was not aware of it. He says this has resulted in Blackford himself, and his family, facing security threats. He says Johnson’s face in the chamber suggests he does not take this seriously, but it is a serious matter.
Johnson says he had a wonderful staycation in Blackford’s constituency. He says he is happy to accept the assurances Blackford gives. But he quotes a tweet from the Daily Record journalist Torcuil Crichton, which he seems to imply undermines what Blackford was saying.
Here is the tweet. It does not at all prove what Johnson implies that it does (that Crichton heard about where Johnson was camping from Blackford).
[tweet here] Hoyle says he is very concerned about the security implications."
Mr Johnson does not seem on top of the detail, no?
Johnson was complaining that Blackford retweeted the Torcuil Crichton tweet and implied strongly that Crichton was referring to Johnson in his tweet [fair-skinned and from Eton].
In this case Johnson has the greater complaint than Blackford IMO.
EDIT. The Guardian corrected the take quoted above
Wester Ross is 600+ square miles in area. I fear that the GRU assassins may have had their work cut out for them, particularly as there would be no shortage of fair skinned Old Etonians kicking about the place at that time of the year.
Is it even true that fair skinned people suffer more from midges? My wife, who is much darker skinned than me, came off far worse in our recent encounter with midges. Perhaps my comprehensive schooling offered me some protection?
That's not all Boris said, what was the next part that Boris said about what a certain Mr Blackford said in reply about midges?
Did it reveal what the justification was for suggesting Blackford was involved in endangering BJ's safety?
Yes.
Which was?
You'll have to watch the clip sorry, I don't have the transcript or a link.
Gaurn feed makes it clear (a) a lot of shite and (b) the security risks were to Mr Blackford. "12:43 PMQs is over, but the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, allows a point of order.
It’s from Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster. He says in August the Sun quoted a No 10 source blaming Blackford for revealing the location of the PM’s holiday in Scotland. He says this was a political smear. He says he did not reveal where the PM was staying, and was not aware of it. He says this has resulted in Blackford himself, and his family, facing security threats. He says Johnson’s face in the chamber suggests he does not take this seriously, but it is a serious matter.
Johnson says he had a wonderful staycation in Blackford’s constituency. He says he is happy to accept the assurances Blackford gives. But he quotes a tweet from the Daily Record journalist Torcuil Crichton, which he seems to imply undermines what Blackford was saying.
Here is the tweet. It does not at all prove what Johnson implies that it does (that Crichton heard about where Johnson was camping from Blackford).
[tweet here] Hoyle says he is very concerned about the security implications."
Mr Johnson does not seem on top of the detail, no?
Johnson was complaining that Blackford retweeted the Torcuil Crichton tweet and implied strongly that Crichton was referring to Johnson in his tweet [fair-skinned and from Eton].
In this case Johnson has the greater complaint than Blackford IMO.
EDIT. The Guardian corrected the take quoted above
But it was well known that Mr J was camping in a 'remote' area in Scotland already - eg
So pretty obvious who TC was referring to - I certainly read his tweet in that sense at the time. Though Mr B's crack did not help, I agree.
Point Johnson is making, correctly in my view, is that Blackford is disingenuous in his accusations of No 10 smearing him. He did reveal through implication where the PM was staying. And obviously in that case he also knew or believed Johnson to be there, despite his current denial.
If Blackford hadn't sent out that tweet his complaint would be justified. But he did, and it isn't.
He keeps saying that, but fails to understand that British fish are no longer common EU resources. The U.K. is asking for simply a similar deal to those already done with Canada and Japan.
How many years did Starmer serve in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and campaign for him to be Prime Minister?
Because that's this Labour hypocrisy in a nutshell.
If that is the best you can come up with as an attack line the Tory party has a big problem...
Let's see what the EHRC report says - and how Starmer handles questions about his being part of the Shadow Cabinet that the report will pass judgment upon.
The draft was given to Labour in July. They had 28 days to comment, so the report could be published imminently.
That's not all Boris said, what was the next part that Boris said about what a certain Mr Blackford said in reply about midges?
Did it reveal what the justification was for suggesting Blackford was involved in endangering BJ's safety?
Yes.
Which was?
You'll have to watch the clip sorry, I don't have the transcript or a link.
Gaurn feed makes it clear (a) a lot of shite and (b) the security risks were to Mr Blackford. "12:43 PMQs is over, but the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, allows a point of order.
It’s from Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster. He says in August the Sun quoted a No 10 source blaming Blackford for revealing the location of the PM’s holiday in Scotland. He says this was a political smear. He says he did not reveal where the PM was staying, and was not aware of it. He says this has resulted in Blackford himself, and his family, facing security threats. He says Johnson’s face in the chamber suggests he does not take this seriously, but it is a serious matter.
Johnson says he had a wonderful staycation in Blackford’s constituency. He says he is happy to accept the assurances Blackford gives. But he quotes a tweet from the Daily Record journalist Torcuil Crichton, which he seems to imply undermines what Blackford was saying.
Here is the tweet. It does not at all prove what Johnson implies that it does (that Crichton heard about where Johnson was camping from Blackford).
[tweet here] Hoyle says he is very concerned about the security implications."
Mr Johnson does not seem on top of the detail, no?
Johnson was complaining that Blackford retweeted the Torcuil Crichton tweet and implied strongly that Crichton was referring to Johnson in his tweet [fair-skinned and from Eton].
In this case Johnson has the greater complaint than Blackford IMO.
EDIT. The Guardian corrected the take quoted above
Wester Ross is 600+ square miles in area. I fear that the GRU assassins may have had their work cut out for them, particularly as there would be no shortage of fair skinned Old Etonians kicking about the place at that time of the year.
Is it even true that fair skinned people suffer more from midges? My wife, who is much darker skinned than me, came off far worse in our recent encounter with midges. Perhaps my comprehensive schooling offered me some protection?
I've never heard such a thing - my dark haired partner is also more susceptible than gingery me.
I think Torcuil Crichton was just being mischievous.
That's not all Boris said, what was the next part that Boris said about what a certain Mr Blackford said in reply about midges?
Did it reveal what the justification was for suggesting Blackford was involved in endangering BJ's safety?
Yes.
Which was?
You'll have to watch the clip sorry, I don't have the transcript or a link.
Gaurn feed makes it clear (a) a lot of shite and (b) the security risks were to Mr Blackford. "12:43 PMQs is over, but the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, allows a point of order.
It’s from Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster. He says in August the Sun quoted a No 10 source blaming Blackford for revealing the location of the PM’s holiday in Scotland. He says this was a political smear. He says he did not reveal where the PM was staying, and was not aware of it. He says this has resulted in Blackford himself, and his family, facing security threats. He says Johnson’s face in the chamber suggests he does not take this seriously, but it is a serious matter.
Johnson says he had a wonderful staycation in Blackford’s constituency. He says he is happy to accept the assurances Blackford gives. But he quotes a tweet from the Daily Record journalist Torcuil Crichton, which he seems to imply undermines what Blackford was saying.
Here is the tweet. It does not at all prove what Johnson implies that it does (that Crichton heard about where Johnson was camping from Blackford).
[tweet here] Hoyle says he is very concerned about the security implications."
Mr Johnson does not seem on top of the detail, no?
Johnson was complaining that Blackford retweeted the Torcuil Crichton tweet and implied strongly that Crichton was referring to Johnson in his tweet [fair-skinned and from Eton].
In this case Johnson has the greater complaint than Blackford IMO.
EDIT. The Guardian corrected the take quoted above
But it was well known that Mr J was camping in a 'remote' area in Scotland already - eg
So pretty obvious who TC was referring to - I certainly read his tweet in that sense at the time. Though Mr B's crack did not help, I agree.
Point Johnson is making, correctly in my view, is that Blackford is disingenuous in his accusations of No 10 smearing him. He did reveal through implication where the PM was staying. And obviously in that case he also knew or believed Johnson to be there, despite his current denial.
If Blackford hadn't sent out that tweet his complaint would be justified. But he did, and it isn't.
Didn't reveal it - at best corroborated it (all of Wester Ross?) - but agreed, not sensible.
If Trump does win in the EC, but loses the national vote by 2-3%, how sustainable is this? In a national vote for a national president, with effectively a 2 party system, that the party that keeps getting millions fewer votes keeps winning?
Add to that the gerrymandered House and Senate, and the highly political judiciary stuffed with increasingly out of touch with majority opinion ultra-conservative judges - isn't it a recipe for the disenfranchised majority getting extremely pissed off?
I agree with you, but have one pedantic point. The senate cannot be gerrymandered, unless state boundaries are redrawn, or significant populations are moved accross state borders. You can complain that Hawaii and Texas both having 2 senators is unfair, but that is not gerrymandering.
The constituency boundaries in the House though, are a disgrace.
Jungle primaries comes pretty close
California Democrats legislate that the top 2 candidates in a primary are the only ones eligible to run for senator
Hmmm: that means that it’s always only 2 Democrats that get to stand
You can vote for anyone you like so long as they are a Democrat
Ah, are Republicans banned from standing in the jungle primaries then?
That sounds pretty serious.
Only the top 2 candidates are allowed to stand in the election
So (I think) in every election it has been 2 democrats running against each other.
It’s introducing a hurdle which is deliberately designed to discriminate against a smaller but meaningful party.
It basically prevents the splits in the Democrat voting base resulting in the GOP ever having the chance to win the senate seat
So is this a run-off election where every voter gets a free choice from all candidates in the first round, and the top two go through to round two? Or is the first round run like the usual US primaries with only registered voters voting choosing from Dem candidates and only Republican Voters choosing from GOP candidates, and if second place Dem gets more votes than the top GOP candidate then both Dems go through to the "second round"?
If it's the first, I don't really see anything wrong, if it's the second that's bad. It does mean that there is an insentive to vote in the primaries though, and if the Republicans could get a succesful "Register as a Republican Voter" campaign, it might nullify the Dem advantage.
That said there is so much wrong in US democracy, that this is not so high up on the list.
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
IIRC it was done that way by a Conservative government to secure special privileges for the City of London. But that was a bit before myt time.
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
The rights and wrongs of UK fishermen selling their individual quotas to overseas concerns is quite a different issue to the UK's quota under the CFP, and it's not that helpful to conflate the two.
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
Presumably then our lads can fish in Irish, French or Portuguese (etc) waters?
Certainly Irish fishing boats fish in Spanish waters. There's some bad feeling about it though, and the Irish boats aren't welcomed in Spanish ports. They normally land their catch back in Ireland even when it's then sent straight back to Spain.
Putin to me resembles a gangster more than he does a politician. I just do not understand the attraction. These "Strongman" leaders who are all the rage these days, they seem to validate and celebrate everything that is worst in human nature. Possessiveness. Narcissism. Spite. Vengefulness. Primitive views on race and gender. You name it, they exhibit it and feed it. Such a downer that so many of them are prospering and fouling up the place. 3/11 will, I hope and expect, strike a much needed blow the other way.
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
Presumably then our lads can fish in Irish, French or Portuguese (etc) waters?
Not exactly.
Yes they can fish in other waters but it is stocks that matter. Our share of stocks is artificially deflated so does not represent the UK's natural sovereign resources in our waters. So we lose out.
Being able to fish in other waters might be nice if we were getting from those waters the same stocks we are letting people take from ours . . . but that's not the case.
And in the event of no deal Barnier will forever be the EU negotiator who lost the UK to Europe
Not the legacy he would have wanted
I'm sorry but "lost the UK to Europe"? I think you need to drop the hyperbole. If the UK leaves the transition period on 1 January 2021 without an FTA with the EU the negotiations will continue until one is agreed: its not like the withdrawal agreement with a hard deadline. As far as the EU is concerned the Withdrawal Agreement is signed, the money paid, the citizens rights protected and the Northern Ireland protocol being effected.
The UK is asking for an FTA and the EU is setting out the terms for one eventually the UK will agree. Michel Barnier would be the negotiator who followed his brief not to compromise the Customs Union and Single Market but allowing the UK unbalanced access to it.
On and by the way on the fish this is from a recent article in the Economist:
"“it is worth emphasising that under international law, Britain can never revert to becoming an independent coastal state. This nationalistic trope was eagerly seized upon by Brexiteers. Unfortunately for them there is a binding international treaty obligation on post-Brexit Britain to allow any surplus fisheries within the United Kingdom’s 200 nautical mile exclusive economic (fishing) zone to be shared with fishermen from other countries, especially those who have traditionally fished in British waters.
This obligation is contained within the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Non-compliance may result in the British government being brought before a Conciliation Commission. While conciliation sounds friendly, a similar commission established as a result of an application by the tiny state of East Timor ultimately led to mighty Australia being compelled to negotiate a maritime boundary treaty that, inter alia, provides for the equitable sharing of any offshore hydrocarbon resources found in the seabed between these two countries.”
And in the event of no deal Barnier will forever be the EU negotiator who lost the UK to Europe
Not the legacy he would have wanted
The UK is already lost to Europe. Barnier's job is to get the best deal he can without threatening the integrity of the Single Market. Whether such a deal is possible is largely in the hands of the UK.
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
Presumably then our lads can fish in Irish, French or Portuguese (etc) waters?
Not exactly.
Yes they can fish in other waters but it is stocks that matter. Our share of stocks is artificially deflated so does not represent the UK's natural sovereign resources in our waters. So we lose out.
Being able to fish in other waters might be nice if we were getting from those waters the same stocks we are letting people take from ours . . . but that's not the case.
If that is indeed the case, why did we agree to having our share of the stocks "artificially deflated"? Was this in return for something else?
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
IIRC it was done that way by a Conservative government to secure special privileges for the City of London. But that was a bit before myt time.
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
There's also the fact that fish swim around while oil stays put. This means that heavy fishing in one area can deplete the stocks in another, hence the need for a common fisheries policy.
Everyone (sensible anyway) agrees with the fact that there is a common interest in managing fish stocks
There are fundamental disagreements on how to do that
And the CFP is horribly adverse to U.K. interests - it was where Heath was legged over but accepted it as the price of getting a deal done on EC entry IIRC
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
Presumably then our lads can fish in Irish, French or Portuguese (etc) waters?
Not exactly.
Yes they can fish in other waters but it is stocks that matter. Our share of stocks is artificially deflated so does not represent the UK's natural sovereign resources in our waters. So we lose out.
Being able to fish in other waters might be nice if we were getting from those waters the same stocks we are letting people take from ours . . . but that's not the case.
If that is indeed the case, why did we agree to having our share of the stocks "artificially deflated"? Was this in return for something else?
He keeps saying that, but fails to understand that British fish are no longer common EU resources. The U.K. is asking for simply a similar deal to those already done with Canada and Japan.
Who could sell them; the UK Government or the fishermen?
The fishermen, which is one thing I don't understand - what happens when the current system ends?
If the current system ends then the rights lapse. A new system will need to be created to issue new rights. Depending upon how the rights were framed there may or may not be compensation for this and the possibility for rights lapsing has always existed.
This for instance happened when the EU abolished its milk quotas - the value of the quotas that were purchased was simply lost when the scheme lapsed and farmers had to write off the value of the milk quotas they had paid for, with no compensation given I believe.
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
IIRC it was done that way by a Conservative government to secure special privileges for the City of London. But that was a bit before myt time.
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
There's also the fact that fish swim around while oil stays put. This means that heavy fishing in one area can deplete the stocks in another, hence the need for a common fisheries policy.
Everyone (sensible anyway) agrees with the fact that there is a common interest in managing fish stocks
There are fundamental disagreements on how to do that
And the CFP is horribly adverse to U.K. interests - it was where Heath was legged over but accepted it as the price of getting a deal done on EC entry IIRC
CFP came later than the Heath deal. Mrs T was at the helm by then, see this take on the matter (which is not quite what is portrayed in Brexiter discourse)
Comments
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1301116895043739649?s=21
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
https://order-order.com/2020/09/02/covid-justice-group-is-momentum-front-organisation/
Doesn't the red wall actually support higher taxes, wasn't there polling done on this
MPs do not vote down the government on issues of confidence and supply and keep the whip - no ifs, no buts.
You seem to think for some reason the Budget is not an issue of confidence and supply so I ask again just what do you think the "and supply" refers to?
It was just that if he moved out of London to the horrors of Wiltshire (say), he could be living in a nice village, his daughter at a grammar school etc.
"12:43
PMQs is over, but the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, allows a point of order.
It’s from Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster. He says in August the Sun quoted a No 10 source blaming Blackford for revealing the location of the PM’s holiday in Scotland. He says this was a political smear. He says he did not reveal where the PM was staying, and was not aware of it. He says this has resulted in Blackford himself, and his family, facing security threats. He says Johnson’s face in the chamber suggests he does not take this seriously, but it is a serious matter.
Johnson says he had a wonderful staycation in Blackford’s constituency. He says he is happy to accept the assurances Blackford gives. But he quotes a tweet from the Daily Record journalist Torcuil Crichton, which he seems to imply undermines what Blackford was saying.
Here is the tweet. It does not at all prove what Johnson implies that it does (that Crichton heard about where Johnson was camping from Blackford).
[tweet here]
Hoyle says he is very concerned about the security implications."
The TC tweet i shere ...
https://twitter.com/Torcuil/status/1295460638592991233
Mr Johnson does not seem on top of the detail, no?
Because that's this Labour hypocrisy in a nutshell.
Though I repeat there may be a convention loss of Budget votes sees the government fall but there is no legal constitutional requirement for that to be so, only loss of a confidence vote does that. The chancellor would likely simply amend the Budget in response to a defeat to get it passed.
However I have seen no evidence Sunak would be idiotic enough to raise income tax, NI or VAT in clear breach of the 2019 manifesto anyway, at most it will be things like equating CGT with income tax rates
And how much would he need to raise to pay off his deficit?
And how would he do that?
In this case Johnson has the greater complaint than Blackford IMO.
EDIT. The Guardian corrected the take quoted above
So (I think) in every election it has been 2 democrats running against each other.
It’s introducing a hurdle which is deliberately designed to discriminate against a smaller but meaningful party.
It basically prevents the splits in the Democrat voting base resulting in the GOP ever having the chance to win the senate seat
The president is a federal role chosen by the states through the mechanism of the electoral college. That is deliberately different to a popular vote mechanism.
MPs have multiple roles. They are both legislators and Electors.
"These were the good times"
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1301163238185369600
If people put cutting the deficit first they can vote for Davey's LDs.
There is even an argument we should cut taxes to grow the economy now, once growth has been restored and revenues increased then we can start to repay the deficit again
I think you should strongly consider it.
No Novichock on planes please!
So they’re trying to do Blair’s ID card but without the actual card. No thanks.
It really sounds like you think Republicans should get special dispensation despite being unpopular.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12357014/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-camping-holiday/
So pretty obvious who TC was referring to - I certainly read his tweet in that sense at the time. Though Mr B's crack did not help, I agree.
*I won't even ask about the Irish Sea.
"We've come through the storm together, we the People's Conservative government and you the People. Now is the time to reap the rewards. Don't let all your sacrifice and hard work be in vain. Don't let Labour spoil it all. You know what they're like, Labour. They're like teenagers. You can't trust them with money."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52420116
https://twitter.com/TheNationalUAE/status/1300781506630242304
If Blackford hadn't sent out that tweet his complaint would be justified. But he did, and it isn't.
The draft was given to Labour in July. They had 28 days to comment, so the report could be published imminently.
I think Torcuil Crichton was just being mischievous.
Or is the first round run like the usual US primaries with only registered voters voting choosing from Dem candidates and only Republican Voters choosing from GOP candidates, and if second place Dem gets more votes than the top GOP candidate then both Dems go through to the "second round"?
If it's the first, I don't really see anything wrong, if it's the second that's bad. It does mean that there is an insentive to vote in the primaries though, and if the Republicans could get a succesful "Register as a Republican Voter" campaign, it might nullify the Dem advantage.
That said there is so much wrong in US democracy, that this is not so high up on the list.
Not the legacy he would have wanted
Yes they can fish in other waters but it is stocks that matter. Our share of stocks is artificially deflated so does not represent the UK's natural sovereign resources in our waters. So we lose out.
Being able to fish in other waters might be nice if we were getting from those waters the same stocks we are letting people take from ours . . . but that's not the case.
The UK is asking for an FTA and the EU is setting out the terms for one eventually the UK will agree. Michel Barnier would be the negotiator who followed his brief not to compromise the Customs Union and Single Market but allowing the UK unbalanced access to it.
On and by the way on the fish this is from a recent article in the Economist:
"“it is worth emphasising that under international law, Britain can never revert to becoming an independent coastal state. This nationalistic trope was eagerly seized upon by Brexiteers. Unfortunately for them there is a binding international treaty obligation on post-Brexit Britain to allow any surplus fisheries within the United Kingdom’s 200 nautical mile exclusive economic (fishing) zone to be shared with fishermen from other countries, especially those who have traditionally fished in British waters.
This obligation is contained within the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Non-compliance may result in the British government being brought before a Conciliation Commission. While conciliation sounds friendly, a similar commission established as a result of an application by the tiny state of East Timor ultimately led to mighty Australia being compelled to negotiate a maritime boundary treaty that, inter alia, provides for the equitable sharing of any offshore hydrocarbon resources found in the seabed between these two countries.”
There are fundamental disagreements on how to do that
And the CFP is horribly adverse to U.K. interests - it was where Heath was legged over but accepted it as the price of getting a deal done on EC entry IIRC
This for instance happened when the EU abolished its milk quotas - the value of the quotas that were purchased was simply lost when the scheme lapsed and farmers had to write off the value of the milk quotas they had paid for, with no compensation given I believe.
https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/milk-quota-abolition-everything-need-know
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/06/ukip-british-fishing-westminster-brussels-brexit