On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
More like Spectator s**t stirring. Footballers are effectively companies in themselves nowadays. The tax they pay will reflect what companies pay, after deducting employees wages, fees and costs etc. Rashford will only have a limited football life anyway so if he doesn't want to end up cleaning windows at 50+. I'm sure he was involved with the FSM thing last summer because his Mother was doing it.
stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.
“…adherence to the aims of…monetary union” is what people are on about. New members have to adhere to the aim of monetary union, which means joining the Euro. Sure, there’s no timetable, but you can’t join the EU with a commitment to keep your own currency indefinitely.
Tell that to Sweden.
Sweden and Denmark is why those rules have been made clearer for members that came along later..
And again since Poland, Hungary and other Eastern European countries have dodged the Euro. It's now impossible to join the EU without a very tight set of deadlines on when convergence criteria for EMU membership must be met.
I think just about the only country making any effort to join the Euro is Bulgaria and that's because their grafters see a lot of money to be made during the transition.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative, not a BritNat. BritNats are fascists and part of a party called BNP, a somewhat similar name to the similarly obnoxious and hate filled SNP. The other similarity between SNP and BNP is that both parties claim not to be racist or fascist, when the xenophobia of the former is obvious and the racist Anglophobia of the latter is endemic within that despicable party and often on display from SNP and Alba supporters who post on this site.
stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.
It's literally right there.
Yes, but you don't have to be using the Euro to join the EU.
You don't have to be using the Euro to be a continuing member of the EU.
We can tell both of these facts are true by the numerous states who have joined the EU who were not using the Euro, have not adopted the Euro and did not meet the Euro convergence criteria when they joined the EU.
Meeting the Euro usage criteria is not a criteria for joining the EU.
Scotland isn't in the EU. Joining criteria is different from membership criteria. The accession process insists that candidate countries use the convergence to the Euro for their existing currency. They got fooled by a lot of the Eastern European countries and have further tightened the rules.
Simply, Scotland must commit to meeting monetary union criteria within an EU approved set period of time so it can join the Euro. It can't do that if it keeps Sterling.
And again it will be fudged by both Scotland and the EU. There is no currency Elephant in the Room for anti-independence campaigners. Nor will people give a toss what people south of the wall say about it.
We know how referenda are won. Heart. Feel. Pride. The facts, especially when its "facts" are much lower down the list of considerations. If the Union is to be retained then positive arguments need to be made, not Project Fear 2
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
Guildford is an interesting seat for a number of reasons:
1. Boundary changes: the hinterland of the seat is changing quite dramatically, though the town itself and most of the population stays as it was. If anything, I think this is good news for the Lib Dems as it adds the stations at Clandon, Horsley, and Effingham Junction to the seat, which might be more Lib Dem than the rural parts to the west and southeast of the town.
2. The Tory incumbent Angela Richardson might get a bit of boost when she defends the seat for the first time, though I don't think personal incumbency is as important as party incumbency.
3. What happens to Anne Milton's 4,356 votes? Did those people vote for her thinking she genuinely had a chance of winning? Or are these loyal Tories who might go home next time?
4. Working from home leading to people moving there from London.
That could apply to anywhere that isn't a big city to be honest. Is Guildford more likely to get those people? I doubt it as it is a very expensive place to live. I suspect the effect of Londoners moving out will be hard to see as they'll be spread fairly evenly around the country.
The fact that it is expensive is precisely why the Londoners who move there are more likely to be wealthier and better educated than the people moving to some of the other commuter towns. And therefore more likely to be ABC1 remainers, and therefore more likely to vote LibDem.
Alternatively, Guildford is already full of London commuters who tend to be a bit wealthier than those in neighbouring Woking.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
For those betting on TeamGB medals... Team GB shooter Amber Hill has withdrawn from #Tokyo2020 after testing positive for COVID-19 in the UK prior to her departure.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.
It's literally right there.
Yes, but you don't have to be using the Euro to join the EU.
You don't have to be using the Euro to be a continuing member of the EU.
We can tell both of these facts are true by the numerous states who have joined the EU who were not using the Euro, have not adopted the Euro and did not meet the Euro convergence criteria when they joined the EU.
Meeting the Euro usage criteria is not a criteria for joining the EU.
Scotland isn't in the EU. Joining criteria is different from membership criteria. The accession process insists that candidate countries use the convergence to the Euro for their existing currency. They got fooled by a lot of the Eastern European countries and have further tightened the rules.
Simply, Scotland must commit to meeting monetary union criteria within an EU approved set period of time so it can join the Euro. It can't do that if it keeps Sterling.
And again it will be fudged by both Scotland and the EU. There is no currency Elephant in the Room for anti-independence campaigners. Nor will people give a toss what people south of the wall say about it.
We know how referenda are won. Heart. Feel. Pride. The facts, especially when its "facts" are much lower down the list of considerations. If the Union is to be retained then positive arguments need to be made, not Project Fear 2
The one thing the EU is unwilling to fudge these days is EMU convergence criteria. They've been burned by it too many times.
I personally don't care whether Scotland stays or goes. My gut feeling is that they would bottle it again by a fairly similar margin as last time because letting go of English taxpayer money would impoverish them and losing Sterling would mean 20 years of very, very hard graft to build an entirely new economy.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative, not a BritNat. BritNats are fascists and part of a party called BNP, a somewhat similar name to the similarly obnoxious and hate filled SNP. The other similarity between SNP and BNP is that both parties claim not to be racist or fascist, when the xenophobia of the former is obvious and the racist Anglophobia of the latter is endemic within that despicable party and often on display from SNP and Alba supporters who post on this site.
Indeed, I was a Remain voter in 2016 and I am a Unionist
yes, very emotional. on the independence issue, I can foresee an Independent Scotland receiving positive overtures from the EU, with a view to expanding the EU trade markets, and strengthening the trade links with Ireland. Who knows, this could tip the reunification arguement for NI. If Scotland was offered the use of the Euro in return (imagine Euros with Scottish historical heroes all over them), I could see a ready deal in the offing here. I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy. Link that with "Scottish Oil" and it may be worth something, along with the continuence of the NATO foothold.
Just putting it out there, don't shoot the messenger please...
'I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy.'
In more cutting off nose to spite face news..
This is just so much bollocks. Firstly, it’s the Express. Secondly the seven year old quote in the headline comes from some random “risk analyst” commenting on something Ed Davey said during the referendum. So the Express reheats some old quotes as click bait to enrage Independence supporters and fire up its own English Nationalist base you are willing to play along. Round of applause.
Remind me who the Express supports?...
The embarassing element is that Davey may have started it....
They were quoting him from a 2014 interview with Good Morning Scotland, when he was energy secretary, talking about the prospects for a pan GB energy market after Scottish Independence. Given he was on the “No” side his interpretation was that this would not be straightforward nor necessarily in the interests of rUK. Given that he’s a unionist politician, and known to be one, that’s hardly surprising nor embarrassing.
stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.
It's literally right there.
Yes, but you don't have to be using the Euro to join the EU.
You don't have to be using the Euro to be a continuing member of the EU.
We can tell both of these facts are true by the numerous states who have joined the EU who were not using the Euro, have not adopted the Euro and did not meet the Euro convergence criteria when they joined the EU.
Meeting the Euro usage criteria is not a criteria for joining the EU.
Scotland isn't in the EU. Joining criteria is different from membership criteria. The accession process insists that candidate countries use the convergence to the Euro for their existing currency. They got fooled by a lot of the Eastern European countries and have further tightened the rules.
Simply, Scotland must commit to meeting monetary union criteria within an EU approved set period of time so it can join the Euro. It can't do that if it keeps Sterling.
And again it will be fudged by both Scotland and the EU. There is no currency Elephant in the Room for anti-independence campaigners. Nor will people give a toss what people south of the wall say about it.
We know how referenda are won. Heart. Feel. Pride. The facts, especially when its "facts" are much lower down the list of considerations. If the Union is to be retained then positive arguments need to be made, not Project Fear 2
Both positive and negative arguments need to be made, and there isn't a good answer on the currency one. The Euro would be very unpopular. Remainder UK will not agree to a currency union. A Scottish pound would end up a highly unstable petrocurrency
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.
It's literally right there.
Yes, but you don't have to be using the Euro to join the EU.
You don't have to be using the Euro to be a continuing member of the EU.
We can tell both of these facts are true by the numerous states who have joined the EU who were not using the Euro, have not adopted the Euro and did not meet the Euro convergence criteria when they joined the EU.
Meeting the Euro usage criteria is not a criteria for joining the EU.
Scotland isn't in the EU. Joining criteria is different from membership criteria. The accession process insists that candidate countries use the convergence to the Euro for their existing currency. They got fooled by a lot of the Eastern European countries and have further tightened the rules.
Simply, Scotland must commit to meeting monetary union criteria within an EU approved set period of time so it can join the Euro. It can't do that if it keeps Sterling.
And again it will be fudged by both Scotland and the EU. There is no currency Elephant in the Room for anti-independence campaigners. Nor will people give a toss what people south of the wall say about it.
We know how referenda are won. Heart. Feel. Pride. The facts, especially when its "facts" are much lower down the list of considerations. If the Union is to be retained then positive arguments need to be made, not Project Fear 2
If that was the case then the Scots would already have voted for independence in 2014 if heart always ruled over head
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.
It's literally right there.
Yes, but you don't have to be using the Euro to join the EU.
You don't have to be using the Euro to be a continuing member of the EU.
We can tell both of these facts are true by the numerous states who have joined the EU who were not using the Euro, have not adopted the Euro and did not meet the Euro convergence criteria when they joined the EU.
Meeting the Euro usage criteria is not a criteria for joining the EU.
Scotland isn't in the EU. Joining criteria is different from membership criteria. The accession process insists that candidate countries use the convergence to the Euro for their existing currency. They got fooled by a lot of the Eastern European countries and have further tightened the rules.
Simply, Scotland must commit to meeting monetary union criteria within an EU approved set period of time so it can join the Euro. It can't do that if it keeps Sterling.
And again it will be fudged by both Scotland and the EU. There is no currency Elephant in the Room for anti-independence campaigners. Nor will people give a toss what people south of the wall say about it.
We know how referenda are won. Heart. Feel. Pride. The facts, especially when its "facts" are much lower down the list of considerations. If the Union is to be retained then positive arguments need to be made, not Project Fear 2
The one thing the EU is unwilling to fudge these days is EMU convergence criteria. They've been burned by it too many times.
I personally don't care whether Scotland stays or goes. My gut feeling is that they would bottle it again by a fairly similar margin as last time because letting go of English taxpayer money would impoverish them and losing Sterling would mean 20 years of very, very hard graft to build an entirely new economy.
I'm actually not so sure they will bottle it. The fact we left the EU against the expressed desire of the Scottish electorate is probably worth a fair number of Yes votes.
Equally from memory younger scottish voters are in favour of independence so it's inevitable unless other things change.
stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.
It's literally right there.
Yes, but you don't have to be using the Euro to join the EU.
You don't have to be using the Euro to be a continuing member of the EU.
We can tell both of these facts are true by the numerous states who have joined the EU who were not using the Euro, have not adopted the Euro and did not meet the Euro convergence criteria when they joined the EU.
Meeting the Euro usage criteria is not a criteria for joining the EU.
Scotland isn't in the EU. Joining criteria is different from membership criteria. The accession process insists that candidate countries use the convergence to the Euro for their existing currency. They got fooled by a lot of the Eastern European countries and have further tightened the rules.
Simply, Scotland must commit to meeting monetary union criteria within an EU approved set period of time so it can join the Euro. It can't do that if it keeps Sterling.
And again it will be fudged by both Scotland and the EU. There is no currency Elephant in the Room for anti-independence campaigners. Nor will people give a toss what people south of the wall say about it.
We know how referenda are won. Heart. Feel. Pride. The facts, especially when its "facts" are much lower down the list of considerations. If the Union is to be retained then positive arguments need to be made, not Project Fear 2
Both positive and negative arguments need to be made, and there isn't a good answer on the currency one. The Euro would be very unpopular. Remainder UK will not agree to a currency union. A Scottish pound would end up a highly unstable petrocurrency
Nah, it wouldn't be a petrocurrency, there's not very much oil and gas left. It would just be a very weak currency for a long time because Scotland would have a huge deficit in both budget and trade terms.
It would also struggle to raise capital in it's new currency so would need to sell sterling, euro or dollar denominated debt which would bind an independent Scotland to many years of austerity similar to Greece to bring the budget into balance and keep the currency strong enough to purchase foreign currency to service existing sterling debts and new sterling/euro/dollar denominated debt.
These are some very basic day one things an independent nation needs to deal with, the world will keep turning though and they will just muddle through for 20 or so years.
stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.
It's literally right there.
Yes, but you don't have to be using the Euro to join the EU.
You don't have to be using the Euro to be a continuing member of the EU.
We can tell both of these facts are true by the numerous states who have joined the EU who were not using the Euro, have not adopted the Euro and did not meet the Euro convergence criteria when they joined the EU.
Meeting the Euro usage criteria is not a criteria for joining the EU.
Scotland isn't in the EU. Joining criteria is different from membership criteria. The accession process insists that candidate countries use the convergence to the Euro for their existing currency. They got fooled by a lot of the Eastern European countries and have further tightened the rules.
Simply, Scotland must commit to meeting monetary union criteria within an EU approved set period of time so it can join the Euro. It can't do that if it keeps Sterling.
And again it will be fudged by both Scotland and the EU. There is no currency Elephant in the Room for anti-independence campaigners. Nor will people give a toss what people south of the wall say about it.
We know how referenda are won. Heart. Feel. Pride. The facts, especially when its "facts" are much lower down the list of considerations. If the Union is to be retained then positive arguments need to be made, not Project Fear 2
The one thing the EU is unwilling to fudge these days is EMU convergence criteria. They've been burned by it too many times.
I personally don't care whether Scotland stays or goes. My gut feeling is that they would bottle it again by a fairly similar margin as last time because letting go of English taxpayer money would impoverish them and losing Sterling would mean 20 years of very, very hard graft to build an entirely new economy.
I'm actually not so sure they will bottle it. The fact we left the EU against the expressed desire of the Scottish electorate is probably worth a fair number of Yes votes.
Equally from memory younger scottish voters are in favour of independence so it's inevitable unless other things change.
Not necessary, especially with devomax and as only a Labour government would now allow an indyref2 and with devomax
43. Which reforms may be needed in order to comply with the relevant Treaty provisions and a possible timetable for adoption?
...rules regarding fiscal accountability have been included and they are aimed at ensuring long-term sustainability of the system of public finances in Serbia. The Law defines general and specific fiscal rules. The objective behind implementation of fiscal rules is to reduce fiscal deficit on the general state level from 4.75% of GDP in 2010 to 1% of GDP in 2015, primarily by reducing current expenditure... The general fiscal rules also lay down that the public debt (excluding obligations arising from restitution) must not exceed 45% of GDP. Amendments to the Law also involve introduction of fiscal rules for the local level of government and they set out that fiscal deficit of the local level of government must not exceed 10% of their revenues that year. Specific fiscal rules set out that the reduction of fiscal deficit in relation to GDP will be achieved primarily by reducing current public expenditure, namely by regulating the level of adjustment of salaries in the public sector as well as pensions. These rules define the manner of indexing salaries in the public sector and pensions whose aim is to reduce expenditure on pensions from approximately 13% to 10% of GDP, and expenditure on salaries in the public sector from almost 10% to 8% of GDP.
stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.
“…adherence to the aims of…monetary union” is what people are on about. New members have to adhere to the aim of monetary union, which means joining the Euro. Sure, there’s no timetable, but you can’t join the EU with a commitment to keep your own currency indefinitely.
Tell that to Sweden.
Sweden and Denmark is why those rules have been made clearer for members that came along later..
And again since Poland, Hungary and other Eastern European countries have dodged the Euro. It's now impossible to join the EU without a very tight set of deadlines on when convergence criteria for EMU membership must be met.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
haha good one Philip. You clearly still don't understand the difference between liberal and libertarian. You are not a Conservative either, except in name only as an entryist to the Conservative Party. You are a Brexit Party supporter. You voted for them, so you are a Faragist. Unless of course you wish to repent lol!
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
No he isn't, no libertarian would have imposed a lockdown, now require Covid passports for nightclubs and large events and ended free movement from the EU and have increased spending as Boris is while also increasing NI and corporation tax.
No libertarian would have introduced Section 28 as Thatcher did either.
Cameron maybe and certainly Osborne and Truss but libertarians are only a relatively small wing of the party now.
The Treaty does not specify a particular timetable for joining the euro area, but leaves it to member states to develop their own strategies for meeting the condition for euro adoption.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Due to strict ownership rules I assume that PL footballers are on PAYE so I'd imagine that's all in order (probably getting on for 50:50 when you add NI contributions). The rest of their earnings (image rights, etc.) are where the fun and games begin. The football leaks stuff on Cristiano Ronaldo is interesting.
So a good assumption would be that their salaries are "structured" so that nominal basic pay is paid in the UK and liable to PAYE and the rest (e.g. image rights) is paid into an offshore business account along with sponsorship deals etc? Something like that I imagine. I'm sure there are HMRC "guidelines" on what they can get away with re the split. That's really no different to the shenanigans that the likes of big tech get up to.
There's no way these millionaire footballers are paying 50% of their headline wages in tax.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.
it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
The Treaty does not specify a particular timetable for joining the euro area, but leaves it to member states to develop their own strategies for meeting the condition for euro adoption.
Don't quote treaty at them, you're spoiling their fun.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Due to strict ownership rules I assume that PL footballers are on PAYE so I'd imagine that's all in order (probably getting on for 50:50 when you add NI contributions). The rest of their earnings (image rights, etc.) are where the fun and games begin. The football leaks stuff on Cristiano Ronaldo is interesting.
So a good assumption would be that their salaries are "structured" so that nominal basic pay is paid in the UK and liable to PAYE and the rest (e.g. image rights) is paid into an offshore business account along with sponsorship deals etc? Something like that I imagine. I'm sure there are HMRC "guidelines" on what they can get away with re the split. That's really no different to the shenanigans that the likes of big tech get up to.
There's no way these millionaire footballers are paying 50% of their headline wages in tax.
I don't know for sure, but footballers are rather obvious people to look at for tax dodging, so I think it's all above board (in this country, at least).
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
haha good one Philip. You clearly still don't understand the difference between liberal and libertarian. You are not a Conservative either, except in name only as an entryist to the Conservative Party. You are a Brexit Party supporter. You voted for them, so you are a Faragist. Unless of course you wish to repent lol!
I have nothing to repent. I was in the thirty percent of the country that voted as a protest vote, to oust May. I also got the bonus of ousting Farage with my vote too.
I have been a supporter of the Conservative Party almost all my life and a member of the Party for almost all of the last two decades of my adult life. The exception being while the authoritarian xenophobe Theresa May was in office, but I can understand why far right anti-democratic authoritarians like yourself and HYUFD were in the less than 10 percent of the country who chose to vote for her in 2019.
I've also made it abundantly clear that I despise Farage and I have never voted for him or any of his supporters to represent us at Parliament. I voted to expel him from the European Parliament.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Elite sportsmen pay is notoriously convoluted. Ray Parlour divorce case shed a light onto how Arsenal paid its players for a long time, his salary was actually rather small, it was his share holding in an offshore company that were valuable. Non-British nationals applied for non-dom status and basically avoided all tax on everything but their base salary.
I believe most players also don't even actually get the salary portion in one year. Their contract might be reported as £x million per year, but it is actually an agreement to be paid a wage over 5-10 years into the future. That is why you hear of these weird situations during a transfer when it is reported they are negotiating over unpaid salary. It isn't the club has been defaulting on payments, it is all how it will now be paid out into the future.
There was talk about Messi new contract actually even not been any pay for quite a few years, more a guarantee of a salary for basically the rest of his life once he stopped playing.
We also seen how many relatives also become employees of clubs e.g. Saracens rugby players, in order to get around salary caps, also in football you amazingly find their dad, brother etc are "scouts" for the club.
And this is before we get to things like image rights.
stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.
It's literally right there.
Yes, but you don't have to be using the Euro to join the EU.
You don't have to be using the Euro to be a continuing member of the EU.
We can tell both of these facts are true by the numerous states who have joined the EU who were not using the Euro, have not adopted the Euro and did not meet the Euro convergence criteria when they joined the EU.
Meeting the Euro usage criteria is not a criteria for joining the EU.
Scotland isn't in the EU. Joining criteria is different from membership criteria. The accession process insists that candidate countries use the convergence to the Euro for their existing currency. They got fooled by a lot of the Eastern European countries and have further tightened the rules.
Simply, Scotland must commit to meeting monetary union criteria within an EU approved set period of time so it can join the Euro. It can't do that if it keeps Sterling.
And again it will be fudged by both Scotland and the EU. There is no currency Elephant in the Room for anti-independence campaigners. Nor will people give a toss what people south of the wall say about it.
We know how referenda are won. Heart. Feel. Pride. The facts, especially when its "facts" are much lower down the list of considerations. If the Union is to be retained then positive arguments need to be made, not Project Fear 2
Both positive and negative arguments need to be made, and there isn't a good answer on the currency one. The Euro would be very unpopular. Remainder UK will not agree to a currency union. A Scottish pound would end up a highly unstable petrocurrency
Nah, it wouldn't be a petrocurrency, there's not very much oil and gas left. It would just be a very weak currency for a long time because Scotland would have a huge deficit in both budget and trade terms.
It would also struggle to raise capital in it's new currency so would need to sell sterling, euro or dollar denominated debt which would bind an independent Scotland to many years of austerity similar to Greece to bring the budget into balance and keep the currency strong enough to purchase foreign currency to service existing sterling debts and new sterling/euro/dollar denominated debt.
These are some very basic day one things an independent nation needs to deal with, the world will keep turning though and they will just muddle through for 20 or so years.
stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.
It's literally right there.
Yes, but you don't have to be using the Euro to join the EU.
You don't have to be using the Euro to be a continuing member of the EU.
We can tell both of these facts are true by the numerous states who have joined the EU who were not using the Euro, have not adopted the Euro and did not meet the Euro convergence criteria when they joined the EU.
Meeting the Euro usage criteria is not a criteria for joining the EU.
Scotland isn't in the EU. Joining criteria is different from membership criteria. The accession process insists that candidate countries use the convergence to the Euro for their existing currency. They got fooled by a lot of the Eastern European countries and have further tightened the rules.
Simply, Scotland must commit to meeting monetary union criteria within an EU approved set period of time so it can join the Euro. It can't do that if it keeps Sterling.
And again it will be fudged by both Scotland and the EU. There is no currency Elephant in the Room for anti-independence campaigners. Nor will people give a toss what people south of the wall say about it.
We know how referenda are won. Heart. Feel. Pride. The facts, especially when its "facts" are much lower down the list of considerations. If the Union is to be retained then positive arguments need to be made, not Project Fear 2
If that was the case then the Scots would already have voted for independence in 2014 if heart always ruled over head
Have you ever broken up with a romantic partner? Hearts don’t stay in one place forever.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.
it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister
Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year
The Treaty does not specify a particular timetable for joining the euro area, but leaves it to member states to develop their own strategies for meeting the condition for euro adoption.
So you accept that it’s a legitimate question to ask what strategy this particular new member state would adopt to meet the condition for euro adoption?
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
I would rather the party was not shared with authoritarian jackboot wearers like HYUFD, May and Nigel.
However FPTP forces big tent politics and I support FPTP because I support big tent compromises. I just want to see authoritarians like them constrained to a minor part of the party and if they come to the fore I'm prepared to quit the party as I did when authoritarian May was in charge.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
More like Spectator s**t stirring. Footballers are effectively companies in themselves nowadays. The tax they pay will reflect what companies pay, after deducting employees wages, fees and costs etc. Rashford will only have a limited football life anyway so if he doesn't want to end up cleaning windows at 50+. I'm sure he was involved with the FSM thing last summer because his Mother was doing it.
A limited football life???, he will earn £150 million at least from football, I doubt he will be cleaning windows.
In big doms interview he constantly talks about we did this, we put boris in place, we might set up a new party, we took over an existing party....
Who is the we?
Michael Gove.
I'm currently on holiday but I took a call from an old friend who moves in these circles.
Says Cummings is concentrating on wiping out Johnson and Sunak (whom he recently gave the kiss of death) and others.
Gove is clearing the decks, hence the divorce, expect a few other revelations before conference season.
Gove is more of a committed Unionist than he is a Brexiteer, he doesn't want to be remembered as the midwife of Scottish independence.
It is no coincidence that Cummings was Gove's consigliere.
The talk of replacing/ousting Johnson after the 2019 GE was reminiscent of Gove taking out Johnson after winning the referendum of 2016.
Now back to my holiday and sweating like a 70s DJ in a police station.
Have to wonder what Rishi has done that's so terrible.
As for PM Gove, as Jim Hacker's Chief Whip put it- who is suitable for the job? The only way to find out is to suck it and see.
Whats Sunak done thats terrible? From Gove's perspective simply be ahead of him in the next leadership betting.
According to Unherd this morning it’s because he puts fiscal sanity ahead of levelling up
Thanks. That makes sense. It does highlight the farcical (in the theatrical sense) position that the PM is in. Johnson has got where he is by convincing several disparate groups that he wants what they want. As time goes on, it gets harder to deliver on fundamentally contradictory aims.
It's a great way to win an election, but not a great way to succeed in government.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.
it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister
Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year
...and I bet Rashford has to buy his own wallpaper as well....
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
No he isn't, no libertarian would have imposed a lockdown, now require Covid passports for nightclubs and large events and ended free movement from the EU and have increased spending as Boris is while also increasing NI and corporation tax.
No libertarian would have introduced Section 28 as Thatcher did either.
Cameron maybe and certainly Osborne and Truss but libertarians are only a relatively small wing of the party now.
No Conservative is a "libertarian". It is a totally conflicting philosophy. One can be a liberal Conservative, which I would have once described myself as . Cameron Osborne and Truss fit that label.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
More like Spectator s**t stirring. Footballers are effectively companies in themselves nowadays. The tax they pay will reflect what companies pay, after deducting employees wages, fees and costs etc. Rashford will only have a limited football life anyway so if he doesn't want to end up cleaning windows at 50+. I'm sure he was involved with the FSM thing last summer because his Mother was doing it.
A limited football life???, he will earn £150 million at least from football, I doubt he will be cleaning windows.
I was once told that 40% of for PL players are declared bankrupt. Sometimes it isn't how much you earn, it is how you use it.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
No he isn't, no libertarian would have imposed a lockdown, now require Covid passports for nightclubs and large events and ended free movement from the EU and have increased spending as Boris is while also increasing NI and corporation tax.
No libertarian would have introduced Section 28 as Thatcher did either.
Cameron maybe and certainly Osborne and Truss but libertarians are only a relatively small wing of the party now.
Boris as been reluctant to have lockdowns but done them as they were necessary, he is a realist more than anything else but that doesn't take away from the fact that he is much more on the libertarian wing and doesn't want to do that sort of thing - and its being done as a last resort.
As for gay rights you misrepresent Thatcher. Section 28 is illiberal and I'm glad its gone, but don't forget that when Thatcher was elected to Parliament homosexuality was criminalised - and she voted for it to be legalised. Thanks in part to her votes she left Parliament with gay rights much more liberalised than they were when she was elected to Parliament.
Mr. Rabbit, it takes a special talent to blow that much cash, though.
I heard from a financial person once that they had dealings with a Premier League footballer who had to rearrange his money setup to make up for gambling losses. Seemed utterly bizarre to me. But there we are.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.
it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister
Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year
...and I bet Rashford has to buy his own wallpaper as well....
Premier league footballers pay for basically nothing....the club even buys them their underwear. During the pandemic, they even did their food shopping for them. Dele Ali said until lockdown he had never cooked a meal in his life, and had done beans on toast.
Peter Crouch described how confused he was when he retired....he was so used to simply going into training, all meals provided, all his clothes for the day etc etc etc. On foreign away games, all he took was his washbag, they already had his passport and everything single thing for the next two days was provided.
And then they get all the sponsors freebies etc etc etc.
Even things they pay for, there is a person for that. Many have personal chefs, if they want tickets for something, there is a person for that, holiday, person for that.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.
Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
No he isn't, no libertarian would have imposed a lockdown, now require Covid passports for nightclubs and large events and ended free movement from the EU and have increased spending as Boris is while also increasing NI and corporation tax.
No libertarian would have introduced Section 28 as Thatcher did either.
Cameron maybe and certainly Osborne and Truss but libertarians are only a relatively small wing of the party now.
No Conservative is a "libertarian". It is a totally conflicting philosophy. One can be a liberal Conservative, which I would have once described myself as . Cameron Osborne and Truss fit that label.
Of course Theresa May attacked Libertarianism. That just verified how unfit to be leader of the Party she was.
Libertarianism is essentially the combination of social liberalism and economic conservativism, the complete opposite of Faragism, and absolutely does fit in with the Conservative Party. At least elements of it like myself and the MPs and PMs past and present mentioned.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.
it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister
Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year
...and I bet Rashford has to buy his own wallpaper as well....
Premier league footballers pay for basically nothing....the club even buys them their underwear. During the pandemic, they even did their food shopping for them. Dele Ali said until lockdown he had never cooked a meal in his life, and had done beans on toast.
Peter Crouch described how confused he was when he retired....he was so used to simply going into training, all meals provided, all his clothes for the day etc etc etc. On foreign away games, all he took was his washbag, they already had his passport and everything single thing for the next two days was provided.
And then they get all the sponsors freebies etc etc etc.
Even things they pay for, there is a person for that. Many have personal chefs, if they want tickets for something, there is a person for that, holiday, person for that.
I was actually joking...though not about the Clown getting the party to pay for his decorating...to start with.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.
it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister
Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year
I am sure Bozo will be doing his best to catch up when he leaves, and I bet you will be queuing up to shake his sweaty fat little hand. Anyway, if you are a Tory ( you seem to be very loyal, and why not?) why should you have a problem with someone making lots of money? Good on Rashford. When did being rich mean that you are no longer allowed to remember what it was like to be poor?
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
haha good one Philip. You clearly still don't understand the difference between liberal and libertarian. You are not a Conservative either, except in name only as an entryist to the Conservative Party. You are a Brexit Party supporter. You voted for them, so you are a Faragist. Unless of course you wish to repent lol!
I have nothing to repent. I was in the thirty percent of the country that voted as a protest vote, to oust May. I also got the bonus of ousting Farage with my vote too.
I have been a supporter of the Conservative Party almost all my life and a member of the Party for almost all of the last two decades of my adult life. The exception being while the authoritarian xenophobe Theresa May was in office, but I can understand why far right anti-democratic authoritarians like yourself and HYUFD were in the less than 10 percent of the country who chose to vote for her in 2019.
I've also made it abundantly clear that I despise Farage and I have never voted for him or any of his supporters to represent us at Parliament. I voted to expel him from the European Parliament.
So what do I have to repent?
Because your vote didn't have an addendum saying "not the other stuff".
Your vote for Farage gave support to him specifically. In all that he does and did. And therefore when he comes to other escapades, such as his one many offshore patrolling regimen, he can point to your vote and say: people support me.
It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.
Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.
"A bit dodgy". Riiiiiiight.
After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
I feel like Gove is missing something quite major in his pursuit of ultimate power. The Tory Parliamentary Party pretty much now all feckin hate Cummings. If Gove is PM, it’s a two for one deal. So why would MPs put Gove into the final two, much less the members voting for him? And that’s before we get to general election voters…
Unless of course Gove and Cummings are lining up behind a new puppet. One wonders if they have enough dirt on a Raab or a Patel to offer them the same Faustian pact made with Boris.
Either way, the Conservative Party are going to have to work an awful lot harder to regain my vote than that.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
No he isn't, no libertarian would have imposed a lockdown, now require Covid passports for nightclubs and large events and ended free movement from the EU and have increased spending as Boris is while also increasing NI and corporation tax.
No libertarian would have introduced Section 28 as Thatcher did either.
Cameron maybe and certainly Osborne and Truss but libertarians are only a relatively small wing of the party now.
No Conservative is a "libertarian". It is a totally conflicting philosophy. One can be a liberal Conservative, which I would have once described myself as . Cameron Osborne and Truss fit that label.
Of course Theresa May attacked Libertarianism. That just verified how unfit to be leader of the Party she was.
Libertarianism is essentially the combination of social liberalism and economic conservativism, the complete opposite of Faragism, and absolutely does fit in with the Conservative Party. At least elements of it like myself and the MPs and PMs past and present mentioned.
I think the lols are on you for relying on Wikipedia -I guess you get most of your cut 'n paste opinions there. Not good Phil! Particularly as the excerpt you have chosen does not support your argument. Thatcher used neoliberal economic policies. She was never a libertarian. Trump is, or at least his followership is, libertarian, very much like yourself.
There are elements in the Conservative party that may have libertarian leanings on some matters. This does not make them libertarian.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.
There is a non-zero chance that he actually does do stuff like that, but he doesn't want to talk about it (not just for his own sake, but for the sake of the people whom he helps). A lot of very rich people do a lot of charitable work without talking much about it.
As an aside, a Championship footballer (*) has moved into the village some of my relatives live in. He has bought three properties, two of which he rents out, and the third he lives in. He has apparently worked very hard to ingratiate himself into the village, helping out with lots of local causes, which meant things like some planning permission to move his garage (now a gym) so it was no longer visible from the road. There's also a fair amount of protection for him locally, even though he's lived there for only a few years. He and his family are apparently very liked.
I don't know what Championship players earn, especially not in top clubs, but he must be on a fair amount.
I wouldn't make any claim about Rashford financia6 arrangements are "dodgy" or not....i doubt he himself has any real idea about how it is all structured.
The thing about having a good public image and then getting brand deals....well that isn't exactly a secret, that is RocNations exact business model, they want to take their athletes build a positive image, enact "change" via political (with a small p) campaigns, both because they are an activisitic PR group and because they believe it also makes good business sense.
It doesn't make Rashford dishonest in his cause, but it also isn't false to say there is also a carefully crafted PR side to it because they think it will ultimately financially benefit Rashford and RocNation, because the feeling is brands today want to work more with those who have a strong positive public image, not just are the best.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Its always baffled me that the public are so supportive of someone who earns £15million plus per year, who has at least 8 houses, loads of super cars, but does not contribute any of that money to help his cause, just a bit of time, which he has plenty of. He could easily buy someone on UC a house per month and still have a £1 million quid to play aorund with. Now that would make a massive difference .He could also get his super rich team mates to do the same.
it baffles me that some of the public are so supportive of an individual who earned huge sums for writing polemics and clowning around on gameshows, and feel that those traits are appropriate qualifications to be Prime Minister
Marcus Rashford earns in 4 days what the PM earns in a year
Marcus Rashford is paid on the basis of a remarkable meritocratic skill. I thought Conservatives would approve of this. Marcus Rashford's economic value as a top footballer is greater than Boris Johnson's is as Prime Minister.
Personally I think the Prime Minister should be paid considerably more than he is. Someone running the country and earning less than a Premiership footballer or unique talent actor or musician is one thing. Earning less than the Principal of an academy school, the CE of a local authority, or an NHS Trust is another matter. They are generally not unique talents, just fortunate to win at a job interview.
It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.
Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.
"A bit dodgy". Riiiiiiight.
After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.
Surely the pile on is from Rashford supporters against anyone who dares critique him? Nobody is above criticiscm or being discussed in the media.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Due to strict ownership rules I assume that PL footballers are on PAYE so I'd imagine that's all in order (probably getting on for 50:50 when you add NI contributions). The rest of their earnings (image rights, etc.) are where the fun and games begin. The football leaks stuff on Cristiano Ronaldo is interesting.
So a good assumption would be that their salaries are "structured" so that nominal basic pay is paid in the UK and liable to PAYE and the rest (e.g. image rights) is paid into an offshore business account along with sponsorship deals etc? Something like that I imagine. I'm sure there are HMRC "guidelines" on what they can get away with re the split. That's really no different to the shenanigans that the likes of big tech get up to.
There's no way these millionaire footballers are paying 50% of their headline wages in tax.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Wasn’t it UKIP rather than BXP that he voted for? Back in the Euro election when almost every Tory voter defected.
I certainly wish HY well in getting rid of all those fake Tories - its just a shame he cannot work on it full time.
stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
No need to join the Euro to join the EU because there is no timetable on joining the Euro in the maastricht treaty.
“…adherence to the aims of…monetary union” is what people are on about. New members have to adhere to the aim of monetary union, which means joining the Euro. Sure, there’s no timetable, but you can’t join the EU with a commitment to keep your own currency indefinitely.
Tell that to Sweden.
Sweden and Denmark is why those rules have been made clearer for members that came along later..
And again since Poland, Hungary and other Eastern European countries have dodged the Euro. It's now impossible to join the EU without a very tight set of deadlines on when convergence criteria for EMU membership must be met.
There is no deadline.
Which is why they do it in the accession process rather than after entry to the EU.
On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
Due to strict ownership rules I assume that PL footballers are on PAYE so I'd imagine that's all in order (probably getting on for 50:50 when you add NI contributions). The rest of their earnings (image rights, etc.) are where the fun and games begin. The football leaks stuff on Cristiano Ronaldo is interesting.
So a good assumption would be that their salaries are "structured" so that nominal basic pay is paid in the UK and liable to PAYE and the rest (e.g. image rights) is paid into an offshore business account along with sponsorship deals etc? Something like that I imagine. I'm sure there are HMRC "guidelines" on what they can get away with re the split. That's really no different to the shenanigans that the likes of big tech get up to.
There's no way these millionaire footballers are paying 50% of their headline wages in tax.
All customers and about half to three quarters of the staff masked up. Lots of gaps on the shelves, as if they've not had a delivery since last week. (And as B&M has just opened in the same block, you'd have thought they'd have pulled their finger out this week.) More than half my shopping list was out of stock. Two of the recycling bins are overflowing.
It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.
Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.
"A bit dodgy". Riiiiiiight.
After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.
Surely the pile on is from Rashford supporters against anyone who dares critique him? Nobody is above criticiscm or being discussed in the media.
His brand will go through the roof now. Being targeted by the Spectator is gold dust.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Wasn’t it UKIP rather than BXP that he voted for? Back in the Euro election when almost every Tory voter defected.
I certainly wish HY well in getting rid of all those fake Tories - its just a shame he cannot work on it full time.
He voted BXP once, or so he says. He is an entryist, not a Conservative. He is to the Tory Party what Corbynites are to Labour. He is in favour of the breakup of UK, anti Royal family, hates rural folk and particularly farmers. Hardly a Tory really. He is very much a Trumpian though even though he claims to hate Trump.
It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.
Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.
"A bit dodgy". Riiiiiiight.
After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.
Surely the pile on is from Rashford supporters against anyone who dares critique him? Nobody is above criticiscm or being discussed in the media.
Lol - delusional. This will backfire as badly as "lets attack the players for being marxists" did.
This list of Lib Dem "target seats" does, I think, rather reflect the amount of effort and resources that the Lib Dems put into them at the last election, as they attempted to save the political skins of their recent big-name converts to liberalism.
The whole Lib Dem campaign was attuned in 2019 to mitigating or even reversing the disastrous Boris policy of leaving the EU, with no idea of the consequences or plans for dealing with the problems. Whether this particular line will be so prominent next time I do not know. I do not think it was so in the two recent byelections.
What really did for the Tories in these bye-elections, in addition to the incompetence and corruption, was the impression that Boris and his gang were arrogant authoritarians who did not pay any attention to the needs and aspirations of local people. It is very hard to see how the Tories can reverse this impression, except by clearing out the present Cabinet. Including Gove, of course.
The list of LD target seats with a Tory MP is an index of educated poshness with a certain style attached.
Questions to puzzle over would include these: If poshness and education are enough for LDs to come close why are seats like Arundel so Tory and the LDs so distant?
Whatever the answer is - and I think the question is significant - I think there are a very finite number of seats which LDs can aspire to.
It is also possible that when the next election comes the options will be stark: You are voting for two possibilities only, a Tory majority government or an unknown form of centre left alliance in which Lab, LD, Green and SNP are essential to its working.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
With Brexit done, the more likely option is that John Redwood (or his successor, he’s 70 now) goes back to the 24,000 majority that he got in 2015, after @MrsB of this parish stopped challenging him.
Trident would go to SuBase Kings Bay in GA with the US boomers as an interim measure that would end up permanent as that's the route of least resistance that keeps the US happy.
Scotland would get a NATO (or EU) air policing mission like Iceland does right now because that serves everybody's interests. GIUK remains covered. Scotland don't have to shell out for an air force.
I can see Scotland ending up in the same position for similar reasons.
The 26 counties are in Partnership for Peace which is stage one of the four stage path to NATO membership. PfP along with whatever EU defence structure supercedes PESCO is the logical destination for Scotland.
How does an Independent Scotland get into the EU?
It would need an independent currency which means balancing it's books and I dread to think what the Scottish budget deficit looks like.
For sure we will have no clue till it happens, current UK books are not just cooked , they are cooked , fried , roasted and toasted. Other small countries manage just fine without all the natural assets that Scotland has so it should be of little concern long term, if at all. Bit like worrying about what your granny would have been like if she had testicles.
It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.
Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.
"A bit dodgy". Riiiiiiight.
After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.
Surely the pile on is from Rashford supporters against anyone who dares critique him? Nobody is above criticiscm or being discussed in the media.
Lol - delusional. This will backfire as badly as "lets attack the players for being marxists" did.
Can tell you're not a football fan that's for sure!
Quite right to. The UK government created separate GB and NI customs zones so that trade within the UK is crippled - an appalling piece of negotiation made all the more laughable that they didn't have a clue what they are doing.
So yes, reopen negotiations. We have a working base until we find a way forward in that (a) UK and EU standards are aligned and (b) UK isn't about to sign any new agreements with anyone else that would threaten that.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
yes, very emotional. on the independence issue, I can foresee an Independent Scotland receiving positive overtures from the EU, with a view to expanding the EU trade markets, and strengthening the trade links with Ireland. Who knows, this could tip the reunification arguement for NI. If Scotland was offered the use of the Euro in return (imagine Euros with Scottish historical heroes all over them), I could see a ready deal in the offing here. I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy. Link that with "Scottish Oil" and it may be worth something, along with the continuence of the NATO foothold.
Just putting it out there, don't shoot the messenger please...
'I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy.'
In more cutting off nose to spite face news..
Well the only place they could supply is Ireland who are already supplied by England. Whether it's possible to justify building such a cable is an interesting question.
Stick cable in to Europe, be far better than being stiffed as we are just now.
and yet still averaging around a 10 point lead. Hmmm.
As I recall, last time the polls narrowed, this happened prior. I think we're headed that way by the end of the year.
Yes but you do mention it every week. I'm pretty sure based on your past comments PM Corbyn is into his 3rd year of governing and 20 points ahead in the polls now. You do overreact to every polling change that works in Labour's favour. Look at the trend first.
In big doms interview he constantly talks about we did this, we put boris in place, we might set up a new party, we took over an existing party....
Who is the we?
Michael Gove.
I'm currently on holiday but I took a call from an old friend who moves in these circles.
Says Cummings is concentrating on wiping out Johnson and Sunak (whom he recently gave the kiss of death) and others.
Gove is clearing the decks, hence the divorce, expect a few other revelations before conference season.
Gove is more of a committed Unionist than he is a Brexiteer, he doesn't want to be remembered as the midwife of Scottish independence.
It is no coincidence that Cummings was Gove's consigliere.
The talk of replacing/ousting Johnson after the 2019 GE was reminiscent of Gove taking out Johnson after winning the referendum of 2016.
Now back to my holiday and sweating like a 70s DJ in a police station.
Gove is however electoral poison - especially for younger age groups.
I'm first in line to be impervious to the charms of the Gover but I'm mildly intrigued by the voters of Surrey Heath; do they back him in spite of his Govieness 'cos he's a Con, or does he have some personal following? He increased his majority every GE from 2005 except interestingly the last one which I suppose was the great efflorescence of English nationalism.
Gove does have his fans - I'm one on a non-political basis. He is a politician who is really interested in doing stuff, and I'm allergic to politicians who just want to BE something. I can well imagine that he'd be a great constituency MP - if I had some personal problem that an MP could help resolve, I would absolutely trust Gove to do the necessary.
He is the nastiest , slimiest , creepy politician in the country. A vile odious little creep.
yes, very emotional. on the independence issue, I can foresee an Independent Scotland receiving positive overtures from the EU, with a view to expanding the EU trade markets, and strengthening the trade links with Ireland. Who knows, this could tip the reunification arguement for NI. If Scotland was offered the use of the Euro in return (imagine Euros with Scottish historical heroes all over them), I could see a ready deal in the offing here. I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy. Link that with "Scottish Oil" and it may be worth something, along with the continuence of the NATO foothold.
Just putting it out there, don't shoot the messenger please...
'I also read somewhere that there is a net flow North to South of generated electrical energy.'
In more cutting off nose to spite face news..
Well the only place they could supply is Ireland who are already supplied by England. Whether it's possible to justify building such a cable is an interesting question.
Stick cable in to Europe, be far better than being stiffed as we are just now.
Clearly you weren't thinking - why is he making that suggestion. We currently import electricity from various parts of Europe, they don't have any need for more.
It's no surprise Rashford is a bit dodgy, it is very hard to remain squeaky clean these days, but he has effectively handed over control of everything he does to PR firms which is a risk. The whole taking money from Mcdonalds while promoting kids meals always looked rather suspect.
Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.
"A bit dodgy". Riiiiiiight.
After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.
Surely the pile on is from Rashford supporters against anyone who dares critique him? Nobody is above criticiscm or being discussed in the media.
Lol - delusional. This will backfire as badly as "lets attack the players for being marxists" did.
Can tell you're not a football fan that's for sure!
Not massively so these days but more so than the wazzocks in government posing with hastily purchased England tops shoved over shirt and tie without removing the shop tags.
Again, if you think the right having a pop at Marcus Rashford is going to play well then please do pay attention as this implodes rapidly just as attacking the knee did.
It is not yet clear that the good people of, say, Wokingham, will certainly prefer the Burgon/Pidcock/Sturgeon/Davey/tree hugging alliance to John Redwood. That will be their choice.
Its posh seats which people of working age want to live in. Guildford, St Albans etc yes, Arundel is for the retired posh.
That's right, also within constituencies. In my patch (Hunt's constituency, SW Surrey) the Tories are down to 2 County Councillors out of 7, and both are in the villages where there are masses of wealthy retired people, while they have fallen miles behind the LibDems (and behind Labour at Borough level in some places like mine) in the small towns. Another factor is a college in the area even if not a full-blown university.
On algarkirk's hypothesis, for all the doubts about Starmer's positive ideas, few people will feel he's going to be a puppet of Burgon and Pidcock (if they've even heard of them). Is a possible post-election understanding with Sturgeon going to seem very terrifying in Wokingham? Will voters there care much about that? As for tree-huggers, lots of wealthy folk are quite open to a bit of greenery.
Interesting. In SW Surrey LD strength goes back decades so I shall wait and see, while agreeing that the Tories remain vulnerable in a number of seats. Your remaining argument is strong, that I fully accept. At the next election there is going to be strong contest between the Tories and all others. Personally I think the Tories as the only option for a majority government will hold attractions, that the LDs will do well but as usual spread too thin, and that the Tories will win SW Surrey and Wokingham.
I agree that Nicola is not a threat in Surrey or Wokingham in the same way she is in my English northern borders patch (if I stand up I can see Scotland). But neither is the idea of a government relying on the SNP a positive attraction anywhere in England. They may not be loathed but they are far from loved.
More loved than the others.
‘Nicola Sturgeon the most popular leader in the UK, poll finds’
Polling asked voters last week how they thought each UK party leader was performing, with the First Minister receiving a net +24% approval rating in Scotland and +10% across the UK.
By contrast, Boris Johnson scored -35% in Scotland and -8% across the UK, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was given a -17% by people in Scotland and +9% in the UK, and LibDem leader Ed Davey scored -15% and -12% respectively; making Sturgeon the most popular leader in both Scotland and the UK.
The hardline Nats who hate Nicola Sturgeon are BritNats like you.
HYUFD is a Conservative,
Don't be silly. He is many things. A Conservative he is not.
Nigel finds it much easier to associate with authoritarian "Conservatives" that believe in Jackboots, invading Scotland and Spain etc like HYUFD than he does the liberal wing of the Party like myself.
You are a libertarian not a conservative
As are many Conservatives. As is the PM, as were Thatcher and Cameron. As is Truss.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
So there’s room in the party for more than just authoritarian jackboot wearers? And you’re happy to be in a party with these people?
Most of Philip's posts on here could easily be written by someone of the far right, with the exception of some incongruous support for BLM, which might be because he doesn't like being labelled as a Faragist, even though he voted for the Brexit Party and up until recently seemed pretty enthusiastic about them. Poor lad is a bit confused.
You're a liar, or pig ignorant.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
I don't approve of lying , Philip, which is why I do not approve of Johnson, an habitual liar whom you seem to be so in love with. I am sure it is not unrequited because he loves the gullible.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Although objectionable to me the Brexit party was not a Fascist party. (I've no idea of its current state.) To label it as such is frankly ludicrous.
Philip seems to accept now that it is a fascist party, but still voted for it. I am of teh centre right so I am not an hysterical lefty engaging in hyperbole. I think there are definite parallels between Faragists and certainly Francoism, though obviously Farage hasn't killed anyone. Alan Sked who was the founder of UKIP says Farage is a racist. I am not aware Farage has attempted to deny it. The Brexit Party used fake news/propaganda to promote it's ideas and drive division. It was very much a form of British Nationalism with an undercurrent of racism with a few fig leaves to cover up the accusation. I would call them crypto-fascists
I do not accept that the Brexit Party is a Fascist Party and I would not have voted for it if I did.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
Mate that's fine but as AA Gill said of people who watch TOWIE or any of those shows, there isn't a button to press to show that you're watching it ironically. It adds to audience numbers and lo, the series is renewed for another season.
You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.
Comments
We know how referenda are won. Heart. Feel. Pride. The facts, especially when its "facts" are much lower down the list of considerations. If the Union is to be retained then positive arguments need to be made, not Project Fear 2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_prices/counties/html/county91.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_prices/counties/html/county39.stm
I personally don't care whether Scotland stays or goes. My gut feeling is that they would bottle it again by a fairly similar margin as last time because letting go of English taxpayer money would impoverish them and losing Sterling would mean 20 years of very, very hard graft to build an entirely new economy.
The Party is not just a party for authoritarian Jackboot wearers like yourself and Nigel.
Equally from memory younger scottish voters are in favour of independence so it's inevitable unless other things change.
It would also struggle to raise capital in it's new currency so would need to sell sterling, euro or dollar denominated debt which would bind an independent Scotland to many years of austerity similar to Greece to bring the budget into balance and keep the currency strong enough to purchase foreign currency to service existing sterling debts and new sterling/euro/dollar denominated debt.
These are some very basic day one things an independent nation needs to deal with, the world will keep turning though and they will just muddle through for 20 or so years.
Chapter 17: Economic and monetary policy
43. Which reforms may be needed in order to comply with the relevant Treaty provisions and a possible timetable for adoption?
...rules regarding fiscal accountability have been included and they are aimed at ensuring long-term sustainability of the system of public finances in Serbia. The Law defines general and specific fiscal rules. The objective behind implementation of fiscal rules is to reduce fiscal deficit on the general state level from 4.75% of GDP in 2010 to 1% of GDP in 2015, primarily by reducing current expenditure... The general fiscal rules also lay down that the public debt (excluding obligations arising from restitution) must not exceed 45% of GDP. Amendments to the Law also involve introduction of fiscal rules for the local level of government and they set out that fiscal deficit of the local level of government must not exceed 10% of their revenues that year. Specific fiscal rules set out that the reduction of fiscal deficit in relation to GDP will be achieved primarily by reducing current public expenditure, namely by regulating the level of adjustment of salaries in the public sector as well as pensions. These rules define the manner of indexing salaries in the public sector and pensions whose aim is to reduce expenditure on pensions from approximately 13% to 10% of GDP, and expenditure on salaries in the public sector from almost 10% to 8% of GDP.
No libertarian would have introduced Section 28 as Thatcher did either.
Cameron maybe and certainly Osborne and Truss but libertarians are only a relatively small wing of the party now.
The Treaty does not specify a particular timetable for joining the euro area, but leaves it to member states to develop their own strategies for meeting the condition for euro adoption.
There's no way these millionaire footballers are paying 50% of their headline wages in tax.
I have been a supporter of the Conservative Party almost all my life and a member of the Party for almost all of the last two decades of my adult life. The exception being while the authoritarian xenophobe Theresa May was in office, but I can understand why far right anti-democratic authoritarians like yourself and HYUFD were in the less than 10 percent of the country who chose to vote for her in 2019.
I've also made it abundantly clear that I despise Farage and I have never voted for him or any of his supporters to represent us at Parliament. I voted to expel him from the European Parliament.
So what do I have to repent?
I believe most players also don't even actually get the salary portion in one year. Their contract might be reported as £x million per year, but it is actually an agreement to be paid a wage over 5-10 years into the future. That is why you hear of these weird situations during a transfer when it is reported they are negotiating over unpaid salary. It isn't the club has been defaulting on payments, it is all how it will now be paid out into the future.
There was talk about Messi new contract actually even not been any pay for quite a few years, more a guarantee of a salary for basically the rest of his life once he stopped playing.
We also seen how many relatives also become employees of clubs e.g. Saracens rugby players, in order to get around salary caps, also in football you amazingly find their dad, brother etc are "scouts" for the club.
And this is before we get to things like image rights.
However FPTP forces big tent politics and I support FPTP because I support big tent compromises. I just want to see authoritarians like them constrained to a minor part of the party and if they come to the fore I'm prepared to quit the party as I did when authoritarian May was in charge.
It's a great way to win an election, but not a great way to succeed in government.
I've never once been enthusiastic in voting for the Brexit Party. I have only ever been enthusiastic in voting for David Cameron and Boris Johnson's Conservatives.
Voting in a protest vote against what has always been my own party was done in sorrow and regret at what May was turning our party into and that she needed to go. Mission accomplished.
As for gay rights you misrepresent Thatcher. Section 28 is illiberal and I'm glad its gone, but don't forget that when Thatcher was elected to Parliament homosexuality was criminalised - and she voted for it to be legalised. Thanks in part to her votes she left Parliament with gay rights much more liberalised than they were when she was elected to Parliament.
I heard from a financial person once that they had dealings with a Premier League footballer who had to rearrange his money setup to make up for gambling losses. Seemed utterly bizarre to me. But there we are.
Peter Crouch described how confused he was when he retired....he was so used to simply going into training, all meals provided, all his clothes for the day etc etc etc. On foreign away games, all he took was his washbag, they already had his passport and everything single thing for the next two days was provided.
And then they get all the sponsors freebies etc etc etc.
Even things they pay for, there is a person for that. Many have personal chefs, if they want tickets for something, there is a person for that, holiday, person for that.
As for you voting Brexit Party, if we accept your very weak excuse, and seeing as you now seem to accept they are a fascist party, would you have voted BNP if they were the best vehicle to get "mission accomplished"? The truth is you voted for a fascist party and you know it. Your pretence now that you are some kind of moderate really does not wash, and it doesn't help that you are getting angry about it. You are a frothing right winger, and at one stage you seemed pretty proud of that. If you were American you would be voting Trump and driving around in a pickup.
Wish he'd focus on practicing penalties, if he hadn't let down England I think people would care a lot less about what he gets up to off the pitch.
Not always reliable to be fair but Wikipedia even lists libertarianism in the United Kingdom as 'part of the politics series on Thatcherism' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Relationship_with_the_Conservative_Party
Of course Theresa May attacked Libertarianism. That just verified how unfit to be leader of the Party she was.
Libertarianism is essentially the combination of social liberalism and economic conservativism, the complete opposite of Faragism, and absolutely does fit in with the Conservative Party. At least elements of it like myself and the MPs and PMs past and present mentioned.
Your vote for Farage gave support to him specifically. In all that he does and did. And therefore when he comes to other escapades, such as his one many offshore patrolling regimen, he can point to your vote and say: people support me.
After the "lets attack taking the knee" play backfired so badly you'd think the collective braincell would be engaged before a pile on of Rashford.
Unless of course Gove and Cummings are lining up behind a new puppet. One wonders if they have enough dirt on a Raab or a Patel to offer them the same Faustian pact made with Boris.
Either way, the Conservative Party are going to have to work an awful lot harder to regain my vote than that.
There are elements in the Conservative party that may have libertarian leanings on some matters. This does not make them libertarian.
Here endeth the lesson Wiki boy!
As an aside, a Championship footballer (*) has moved into the village some of my relatives live in. He has bought three properties, two of which he rents out, and the third he lives in. He has apparently worked very hard to ingratiate himself into the village, helping out with lots of local causes, which meant things like some planning permission to move his garage (now a gym) so it was no longer visible from the road. There's also a fair amount of protection for him locally, even though he's lived there for only a few years. He and his family are apparently very liked.
I don't know what Championship players earn, especially not in top clubs, but he must be on a fair amount.
(*) Not Derby ...
The thing about having a good public image and then getting brand deals....well that isn't exactly a secret, that is RocNations exact business model, they want to take their athletes build a positive image, enact "change" via political (with a small p) campaigns, both because they are an activisitic PR group and because they believe it also makes good business sense.
It doesn't make Rashford dishonest in his cause, but it also isn't false to say there is also a carefully crafted PR side to it because they think it will ultimately financially benefit Rashford and RocNation, because the feeling is brands today want to work more with those who have a strong positive public image, not just are the best.
Personally I think the Prime Minister should be paid considerably more than he is. Someone running the country and earning less than a Premiership footballer or unique talent actor or musician is one thing. Earning less than the Principal of an academy school, the CE of a local authority, or an NHS Trust is another matter. They are generally not unique talents, just fortunate to win at a job interview.
TIA.
https://twitter.com/footyawayday/status/1220080879982333952/photo/1
And net pay is almost exactly 50 per cent of gross.
Or you are one of those Sea Shanty blokes who has listened to some of the criticisms.
Or perhaps you are or are not Bradley Wiggins on the same assumptions.
I certainly wish HY well in getting rid of all those fake Tories - its just a shame he cannot work on it full time.
Bye Rishi!
And Johnson now almost as unpopular as Starmer
I'm not sure if I am missing an obvious reference in your post, I feel rather foolish
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/21/uk-substantially-rewrite-northern-ireland-brexit-protocol
All customers and about half to three quarters of the staff masked up. Lots of gaps on the shelves, as if they've not had a delivery since last week. (And as B&M has just opened in the same block, you'd have thought they'd have pulled their finger out this week.) More than half my shopping list was out of stock. Two of the recycling bins are overflowing.
Apologies for the source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/cycling/15459278/bradley-wiggins-instagram-cycling-conor-mcgregor/
And glad to hear all going well.
Rishi Sunak: 0 (down 16)
Boris Johnson: -23 (down 8)
Keir Starmer: -26 (up 3)
Dominic Cummings: -74 (down 2)
It mentions the three most important politicians in the country... and Keir Starmer.
So yes, reopen negotiations. We have a working base until we find a way forward in that (a) UK and EU standards are aligned and (b) UK isn't about to sign any new agreements with anyone else that would threaten that.
I think the Brexit Party, at the time of 2019, was an empty void protest party. Their claims, their party political broadcasts etc were entirely of a "send a message" sort and not racist or fascist. If there was anything racist there I wouldn't have voted for it.
I voted for it despite Farage, but since the Tories were also led by an authoritarian xenophobe that was a miserable draw as far as that was concerned. So it purely came down to more of the same, or a protest, and I went for the protest.
May is no better than Farage.
Priti doing very, very badly in Committee re: Napier Barracks.
Again, if you think the right having a pop at Marcus Rashford is going to play well then please do pay attention as this implodes rapidly just as attacking the knee did.
You gave Farage what he craves most, by voting for his party you gave him political legitimacy and influence. You can't do that and then say but I don't like the other stuff. The horse has bolted.