Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things. I also note that Jeremy Corbyn had very prominent Jewish backers, Jewish friends and appointed Jews to senior positions.
Boris Johnson said stupid things, not racist things. Jeremy Corbyn supported Iran's campaign against Israel and Jews. There is no equivalence however hard you try and make one exist. You're projecting your own guilt at voting for an anti-Semite onto the rest of us.
Boris Johnson absolutely said racist things. But not from a position of being a closet racist as Jezbollah is, but from a position of arrogance and stupidity.
More importantly, Corbyn will not be leading the Labour Party at the next election, while Johnson will be (I agree with the header, albeit not tempted by the odds).
Wow, that’s quite a twist. Is that how @bigjohnowls salves his conscience over his new love for Johnson - gets him to defect to Labour and take over?
@bigjohnowls does rather seem to hate Starmer more than the Tories. It seems to be personal devotion to Corbyn that does it*. Why he has transferred his allegiance to one of the few people to the right of Starmer in the arch-Blairite Burnham has me rather scratching my head.
*Corbyn has some positive features. He enthused parts of the electorate that are rarely reached, speaks with passion from genuine heartfelt concerns, lived genuinely modestly and wanted to implement real change rather than just be "world king" as an ego trip. I couldn't vote for him because of his complicity in anti-semitism andcongenital disorganisation.
Boris's polling stays high because he told people that under him, there would be no attempts to evade the will of the people, no ever more ludicrous attempts to go for a second referendum or delay delay delay until the voters magically said "OK - lets forget about Brexit".
People didn't expect a perfect Brexit. The Europhiles had spent decades sewing us into the fabric of the EEC --> EU such that it was MEANT to be impossible for us to leave. But the voters gave the Government a single, simple instruction: get us out the EU regardless. Starmer said, er, no. Boris said righto - and did.
One of the candidates for PM next time has listened to the people and done as instructed. The other did everything he could, for years, to thwart them.
Look no further for the reason Boris will win next time out.
Sadly I think you may have nailed it with that post. People talk about how useless Starmer is, but he isn't Corbyn. On top of which is the golden rule that Govt lose elections, oppositions don't win them and Boris has certainly had enough events for that rule to be confirmed and it isn't happening at all.
I think Brexit has broken that rule.
Whether remainers or leavers, whether accepting the result or not most are either pro Boris or anti Boris based on what he did on Brexit still.
As a corollary to @MarqueeMark post and mine does that mean that if the Tories replace Boris at any time they will lose a lot of votes that they could never get under any other circumstances. If so it makes his position very strong.
The main, perhaps the only, thing Johnson understands is raw human power. How to get it and how to deploy it.
Consider his approach to getting a significant controversial tax rise to fund the NHS, sorry social care, OK let's be honest, the NHS, through. All done in a week, zero ministerial resignations, it's probably a bad plan but They Salute With Both Hands Now.
Or his approach to choosing a cabinet, where loyalty to King Boris is all.
So he'll be blooming hard to depose. He's made sure of that.
But, unlike other PMs, he's not really there to do things (Thatcher, Blair) or serve (Cameron, May). He's there to be King Boris and to be hailed. So what happens when "We hail King Boris" becomes "We hate King Boris"?
We don't know, because it hasn't happened yet.
But unless this time is different, it inevitably will, possibly quite soon if the money runs out.
All political careers end in failure, but Johnson's fall will be quite spectacular. He hasn't a real hinterland of friends in the party, even his closest ally famously knifed him in his first attempt at the leadership. As such he will cling on as hard as he can, and when he goes, nearly his entire cabinet will go with him, and they know it.
When he goes, it will be like a change in government, as when the Tories have regenerated before.
Not sure. The president of Uzbekistan went on for thirty years winning election after election and was only removed by eventually dying.
I never thought I’d see the day I read this on the BBC:
Prof Christina Pagel and Prof Martin McKee, both of whom are members of Independent Sage, a self-appointed group of experts which has been critical of the approach taken by the government, wrote in the Guardian this week about the benefits of the "vaccine-plus" approaches taken on mainland Europe.
The main, perhaps the only, thing Johnson understands is raw human power. How to get it and how to deploy it.
Consider his approach to getting a significant controversial tax rise to fund the NHS, sorry social care, OK let's be honest, the NHS, through. All done in a week, zero ministerial resignations, it's probably a bad plan but They Salute With Both Hands Now.
Or his approach to choosing a cabinet, where loyalty to King Boris is all.
So he'll be blooming hard to depose. He's made sure of that.
But, unlike other PMs, he's not really there to do things (Thatcher, Blair) or serve (Cameron, May). He's there to be King Boris and to be hailed. So what happens when "We hail King Boris" becomes "We hate King Boris"?
We don't know, because it hasn't happened yet.
But unless this time is different, it inevitably will, possibly quite soon if the money runs out.
All political careers end in failure, but Johnson's fall will be quite spectacular. He hasn't a real hinterland of friends in the party, even his closest ally famously knifed him in his first attempt at the leadership. As such he will cling on as hard as he can, and when he goes, nearly his entire cabinet will go with him, and they know it.
When he goes, it will be like a change in government, as when the Tories have regenerated before.
Not sure. The president of Uzbekistan went on for thirty years winning election after election and was only removed by eventually dying.
Bone in their brain, or just not very nosey people?
Did you see the research on using LEO satellites for positioning? With the full constellation it would be more accurate than anything planned.
No it wouldn't as the Starlink experiment had a 800+ second acquisition time and needs (as would any putative OW GNSS) a large Ka/Ku band antenna so it has no application in mobile devices.
It's also no use for any application where jamming is a concern. The new M Code on GPS uses MNSA encryption and CRPA antennae to mitigate against this. You also couldn't do selective availability or Blue Force Electronic Attack.
Basically OW is useful for GNSS in the way that a skateboard is useful for travelling from John O'Groats to Lands End; it's theoretically possible but nobody would.
I never thought I’d see the day I read this on the BBC:
Prof Christina Pagel and Prof Martin McKee, both of whom are members of Independent Sage, a self-appointed group of experts which has been critical of the approach taken by the government, wrote in the Guardian this week about the benefits of the "vaccine-plus" approaches taken on mainland Europe.
As a corollary to @MarqueeMark post and mine does that mean that if the Tories replace Boris at any time they will lose a lot of votes that they could never get under any other circumstances. If so it makes his position very strong.
The British pubic don't strike me as having enduring gratitude to their political leaders for anything. How long will the burning intensity of the gratitude the shitmunchers feel about Brexit endure?
Catching up with Question Time from Aldershot. Astonishing - an absolute pile-on both from right wing panelists like Nick Ferrari and from Tory and Brexit-voting members of the audience.
As they keep pointing out, if the changes are the plan then why hasn't anything been done to prepare for it? If we now have a point-based migration system to decide who we let in why isn't it being used as billed to bring people in we need? If the government cares about shortages and the impact of rising prices and cuts to UC why does it deny they are a problem and do nothing?
Yes, I watched #BBCQT last night. It was one of the most bruising in a long time, despite the hand picked Brexit audience.
There are other straws in the wind too. This poll which @Casino_Royale flagged up earlier in the week:
I never thought I’d see the day I read this on the BBC:
Prof Christina Pagel and Prof Martin McKee, both of whom are members of Independent Sage, a self-appointed group of experts which has been critical of the approach taken by the government, wrote in the Guardian this week about the benefits of the "vaccine-plus" approaches taken on mainland Europe.
I am about to move to New York where the kids - even 5 year olds - have to wear masks in school.
Bloody ridiculous.
We got our exit from covid restrictions totally spot on, in my opinion.
The only place I still see lots of mask wearing now is in a church.
In school I’ve seen one person wearing a mask - me, when I had a slight cold and wanted to avoid spreading it around (even though I probably caught the bloody thing at school to start with).
Catching up with Question Time from Aldershot. Astonishing - an absolute pile-on both from right wing panelists like Nick Ferrari and from Tory and Brexit-voting members of the audience.
As they keep pointing out, if the changes are the plan then why hasn't anything been done to prepare for it? If we now have a point-based migration system to decide who we let in why isn't it being used as billed to bring people in we need? If the government cares about shortages and the impact of rising prices and cuts to UC why does it deny they are a problem and do nothing?
Yes, I watched #BBCQT last night. It was one of the most bruising in a long time, despite the hand picked Brexit audience.
There are other straws in the wind too. This poll which @Casino_Royale flagged up earlier in the week:
Reading the thread Boris's opponents pile into him suggesting his speech was a car crash and he is a racist, notwithstanding the ethnic make up his cabinet
As far as I know there has not been a poll since the end of conference (I do not count Opinium post speech one as a genuine poll) but the importance of his speech was it has galvanised and cheered up his party which in these extremely difficult times is the positive for him and he looks unassailable as leader going into GE24
I recently read an article from a US journalist who said that Boris Johnson is a pop star prime minister, hugely popular with ordinary people who seek selfies and to shake his hand wherever he goes
His opponents underestimate just how his positively is infectious, compared to the negative doom and gloom we hear from labour and FBPE supporters and this underestimation could well see him win in 2024 and be PM until 2029
As I often say to @HYUFD 'a week is a long time in politics' when he is commenting on a poll and I would expect crossover in the polling but as has been said, it only becomes relevant in another 18 months or more so I would suggest the political class may need to take on board they could have upto another 8 years of Boris, even more who knows
Boris's polling stays high because he told people that under him, there would be no attempts to evade the will of the people, no ever more ludicrous attempts to go for a second referendum or delay delay delay until the voters magically said "OK - lets forget about Brexit".
People didn't expect a perfect Brexit. The Europhiles had spent decades sewing us into the fabric of the EEC --> EU such that it was MEANT to be impossible for us to leave. But the voters gave the Government a single, simple instruction: get us out the EU regardless. Starmer said, er, no. Boris said righto - and did.
One of the candidates for PM next time has listened to the people and done as instructed. The other did everything he could, for years, to thwart them.
Look no further for the reason Boris will win next time out.
Sadly I think you may have nailed it with that post. People talk about how useless Starmer is, but he isn't Corbyn. On top of which is the golden rule that Govt lose elections, oppositions don't win them and Boris has certainly had enough events for that rule to be confirmed and it isn't happening at all.
I think Brexit has broken that rule.
Whether remainers or leavers, whether accepting the result or not most are either pro Boris or anti Boris based on what he did on Brexit still.
As a corollary to @MarqueeMark post and mine does that mean that if the Tories replace Boris at any time they will lose a lot of votes that they could never get under any other circumstances. If so it makes his position very strong.
The Conservatives are now a brand, not a party. That brand is Boris. It's possible the Conservatives will reassert themselves as a party at some point, but that will take years. In the meantime Boris is completely safe. Without him the Conservatives are nothing.
Labour on the other hand is a party without a brand.
Mr. Walker, some of that is simply due to pandemic effects.
However, the Government actively choosing to tax gas heating when gas costs are already soaring would be courageous, in the Yes, Minister sense of the word.
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things.
That does make make me wonder why people invariably reference the same incidents and comments from in some cases a very long time ago.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
Sony pretty much confirm a JV with TSMC for a new foundry in Japan, $8bn state subsidy as well as significant investment from Sony.
That $8bn and lack of natural partners in the UK is why we're never going to be a player in silicon chips. Imagine the party that proposed giving £6bn to Intel instead of the NHS. PM ousted in days.
Catching up with Question Time from Aldershot. Astonishing - an absolute pile-on both from right wing panelists like Nick Ferrari and from Tory and Brexit-voting members of the audience.
As they keep pointing out, if the changes are the plan then why hasn't anything been done to prepare for it? If we now have a point-based migration system to decide who we let in why isn't it being used as billed to bring people in we need? If the government cares about shortages and the impact of rising prices and cuts to UC why does it deny they are a problem and do nothing?
Yes, I watched #BBCQT last night. It was one of the most bruising in a long time, despite the hand picked Brexit audience.
There are other straws in the wind too. This poll which @Casino_Royale flagged up earlier in the week:
I think everybody should be, not just here but across Europe and worldwide, and I include myself as being very concerned about the issues though I do not see any solutions being put forward by opposition parties other than to allow free unrestricted movement of labour again
Mr. Observer, if you weren't busy cherry-picking what you want to respond to you might have noticed that multiple times this thread (as well as consistently for years) I've said Boris Johnson is unworthy of holding high office. His opponent, however, was far left. In the same way I'd vote for Starmer if the alternative was an actual Nazi leading the Conservatives, voting against Corbyn entailed voting for someone unsuitable for high office but clearly less bad than the Labour leader.
Mr. Eagles, while the Conservatives aren't as good at axing leaders as once they were (pussyfooting about over May was a mistake) they'd surely take the opportunity in such a case to toss the leader overboard, no?
Boris Johnson is unworthy of holding high office. His opponent, however, was far left. In the same way I'd vote for Starmer if the alternative was an actual Nazi leading the Conservatives
Are you voting Lib Dem or reform at the next GE or staying home ?
Boris's polling stays high because he told people that under him, there would be no attempts to evade the will of the people, no ever more ludicrous attempts to go for a second referendum or delay delay delay until the voters magically said "OK - lets forget about Brexit".
People didn't expect a perfect Brexit. The Europhiles had spent decades sewing us into the fabric of the EEC --> EU such that it was MEANT to be impossible for us to leave. But the voters gave the Government a single, simple instruction: get us out the EU regardless. Starmer said, er, no. Boris said righto - and did.
One of the candidates for PM next time has listened to the people and done as instructed. The other did everything he could, for years, to thwart them.
Look no further for the reason Boris will win next time out.
Sadly I think you may have nailed it with that post. People talk about how useless Starmer is, but he isn't Corbyn. On top of which is the golden rule that Govt lose elections, oppositions don't win them and Boris has certainly had enough events for that rule to be confirmed and it isn't happening at all.
I think Brexit has broken that rule.
Whether remainers or leavers, whether accepting the result or not most are either pro Boris or anti Boris based on what he did on Brexit still.
As a corollary to @MarqueeMark post and mine does that mean that if the Tories replace Boris at any time they will lose a lot of votes that they could never get under any other circumstances. If so it makes his position very strong.
The Conservatives are now a brand, not a party. That brand is Boris. It's possible the Conservatives will reassert themselves as a party at some point, but that will take years. In the meantime Boris is completely safe. Without him the Conservatives are nothing.
Labour on the other hand is a party without a brand.
Which incidentally is why Johnson can give his standard £100 000 after dinner speech at the party conference. It's all about him. Nothing else, including government, matters. He's just insulting people now.
The main, perhaps the only, thing Johnson understands is raw human power. How to get it and how to deploy it.
Consider his approach to getting a significant controversial tax rise to fund the NHS, sorry social care, OK let's be honest, the NHS, through. All done in a week, zero ministerial resignations, it's probably a bad plan but They Salute With Both Hands Now.
Or his approach to choosing a cabinet, where loyalty to King Boris is all.
So he'll be blooming hard to depose. He's made sure of that.
But, unlike other PMs, he's not really there to do things (Thatcher, Blair) or serve (Cameron, May). He's there to be King Boris and to be hailed. So what happens when "We hail King Boris" becomes "We hate King Boris"?
We don't know, because it hasn't happened yet.
But unless this time is different, it inevitably will, possibly quite soon if the money runs out.
All political careers end in failure, but Johnson's fall will be quite spectacular. He hasn't a real hinterland of friends in the party, even his closest ally famously knifed him in his first attempt at the leadership. As such he will cling on as hard as he can, and when he goes, nearly his entire cabinet will go with him, and they know it.
When he goes, it will be like a change in government, as when the Tories have regenerated before.
Trump is proving unflushable. The GOP has not regenerated. Perhaps the same will happen to the Tory party this time. Either Boris’s ego will make him stick around (say to challenge Thatchers length in office or to not leave on a low) or the Tories will try to find another populist, or something more extreme like Truss.
Truss is more extreme? I'm still ylto understand why she stirs such passions in people.
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things.
That does make make me wonder why people invariably reference the same incidents and comments from in some cases a very long time ago.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
It is his refusal to apologise or retract his statements that keeps them current. It wouldn't be hard to say that his language using "flag waving piccaninies with watermelon smiles" or "tank topped bum boys" was inappropriate, and that he would not say such things again.
Boris is not under imminent threat. Sure, Any PM is potentially vulnerable at any moment but polls are ok, lots of MPs sachin as the only way to win their seats, and very few give a crap about ideological direction or competence of government.
Short of him deciding to spend more time with his 6th and 7th children he'll lead them to the next GE.
It appears that the Johnson administration is busy removing every process and weakening every institution that could place a check on its decisions, as Ms Cyclefree explained the other day.
This leaves the Conservative Party at liberty to receive "donations" from all kinds of foreign regimes and tax dodgers. Britain and British interests are being sold off or even given away to these foreigners.
So I am not so sure how the British people will react when they realise that their heritage has been sold off by Johnson's Conservatives.
Surely there can be no heritage left to sell off? You spent all those years telling us Thatcher had, er, already sold off our heritage?
Our "heritage" gets sold off at £80bn a year. And it will continue to be so for as long as we run a deficit. Those are the facts. Suggesting that Boris or anyone else is doing this out of self interest is simply delusional. If we want British assets to stop being sold off we need to cut consumption and increase investment. I am not really sure that Boris is up for the pain that would involve.
Mr. Pulpstar, highly likely to vote. Not sure for whom.
In all seriousness, right now I'm feeling like I might actually vote Lib Dem. Far from certain. But I really dislike the incumbent. Starmer's not offensive like Corbyn was but I'm not enthused by him.
Disagree with the Lib Dems on various things but quite pleased with their stance on vaccine passports. They don't have a communist underbelly, so far as I know, and their leader isn't a grade A cretin.
We'll see. If the Conservatives axe Boris Johnson I'd probably vote blue, unless the replacement was as bad.
I never thought I’d see the day I read this on the BBC:
Prof Christina Pagel and Prof Martin McKee, both of whom are members of Independent Sage, a self-appointed group of experts which has been critical of the approach taken by the government, wrote in the Guardian this week about the benefits of the "vaccine-plus" approaches taken on mainland Europe.
I am about to move to New York where the kids - even 5 year olds - have to wear masks in school.
Bloody ridiculous.
We got our exit from covid restrictions totally spot on, in my opinion.
The only place I still see lots of mask wearing now is in a church.
In school I’ve seen one person wearing a mask - me, when I had a slight cold and wanted to avoid spreading it around (even though I probably caught the bloody thing at school to start with).
1 in 14 English Secondary school pupils have covid at the moment according to the ONS:
The main, perhaps the only, thing Johnson understands is raw human power. How to get it and how to deploy it.
Consider his approach to getting a significant controversial tax rise to fund the NHS, sorry social care, OK let's be honest, the NHS, through. All done in a week, zero ministerial resignations, it's probably a bad plan but They Salute With Both Hands Now.
Or his approach to choosing a cabinet, where loyalty to King Boris is all.
So he'll be blooming hard to depose. He's made sure of that.
But, unlike other PMs, he's not really there to do things (Thatcher, Blair) or serve (Cameron, May). He's there to be King Boris and to be hailed. So what happens when "We hail King Boris" becomes "We hate King Boris"?
We don't know, because it hasn't happened yet.
But unless this time is different, it inevitably will, possibly quite soon if the money runs out.
All political careers end in failure, but Johnson's fall will be quite spectacular. He hasn't a real hinterland of friends in the party, even his closest ally famously knifed him in his first attempt at the leadership. As such he will cling on as hard as he can, and when he goes, nearly his entire cabinet will go with him, and they know it.
When he goes, it will be like a change in government, as when the Tories have regenerated before.
Trump is proving unflushable. The GOP has not regenerated. Perhaps the same will happen to the Tory party this time. Either Boris’s ego will make him stick around (say to challenge Thatchers length in office or to not leave on a low) or the Tories will try to find another populist, or something more extreme like Truss.
Truss is more extreme? I'm still ylto understand why she stirs such passions in people.
I kind of feel someone should take Truss aside and tell her you are making yourself look ridiculous. I think she might be OK then.
Thing is being ridiculous is great for her career path. She easily tops the Cons Pops table.
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things.
That does make make me wonder why people invariably reference the same incidents and comments from in some cases a very long time ago.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
It is his refusal to apologise or retract his statements that keeps them current. It wouldn't be hard to say that his language using "flag waving piccaninies with watermelon smiles" or "tank topped bum boys" was inappropriate, and that he would not say such things again.
Pretty sure he has said that he regrets some things he said as a journalist
The main, perhaps the only, thing Johnson understands is raw human power. How to get it and how to deploy it.
Consider his approach to getting a significant controversial tax rise to fund the NHS, sorry social care, OK let's be honest, the NHS, through. All done in a week, zero ministerial resignations, it's probably a bad plan but They Salute With Both Hands Now.
Or his approach to choosing a cabinet, where loyalty to King Boris is all.
So he'll be blooming hard to depose. He's made sure of that.
But, unlike other PMs, he's not really there to do things (Thatcher, Blair) or serve (Cameron, May). He's there to be King Boris and to be hailed. So what happens when "We hail King Boris" becomes "We hate King Boris"?
We don't know, because it hasn't happened yet.
But unless this time is different, it inevitably will, possibly quite soon if the money runs out.
All political careers end in failure, but Johnson's fall will be quite spectacular. He hasn't a real hinterland of friends in the party, even his closest ally famously knifed him in his first attempt at the leadership. As such he will cling on as hard as he can, and when he goes, nearly his entire cabinet will go with him, and they know it.
When he goes, it will be like a change in government, as when the Tories have regenerated before.
Trump is proving unflushable. The GOP has not regenerated. Perhaps the same will happen to the Tory party this time. Either Boris’s ego will make him stick around (say to challenge Thatchers length in office or to not leave on a low) or the Tories will try to find another populist, or something more extreme like Truss.
Truss is more extreme? I'm still ylto understand why she stirs such passions in people.
Mainly it’s the things she says and the things she does. The way she says things doesn’t help. She has very strong views on cheese.
Mr. Pulpstar, highly likely to vote. Not sure for whom.
I think this is a big difference between PBers and most other people. Others know who they want to vote for, but can't be sure if they'll actually make it to the ballot box.
I never thought I’d see the day I read this on the BBC:
Prof Christina Pagel and Prof Martin McKee, both of whom are members of Independent Sage, a self-appointed group of experts which has been critical of the approach taken by the government, wrote in the Guardian this week about the benefits of the "vaccine-plus" approaches taken on mainland Europe.
I am about to move to New York where the kids - even 5 year olds - have to wear masks in school.
Bloody ridiculous.
We got our exit from covid restrictions totally spot on, in my opinion.
We are back in Dundee after our trip around England. We stopped at a service station on the way back and made the mistake of doing so north of the border. For the first time in a week it was necessary to don masks indoors. It was every bit as unpleasant as I remembered, probably worse after enjoying the freedom that England has.
I never thought I’d see the day I read this on the BBC:
Prof Christina Pagel and Prof Martin McKee, both of whom are members of Independent Sage, a self-appointed group of experts which has been critical of the approach taken by the government, wrote in the Guardian this week about the benefits of the "vaccine-plus" approaches taken on mainland Europe.
I am about to move to New York where the kids - even 5 year olds - have to wear masks in school.
Bloody ridiculous.
We got our exit from covid restrictions totally spot on, in my opinion.
The only place I still see lots of mask wearing now is in a church.
In school I’ve seen one person wearing a mask - me, when I had a slight cold and wanted to avoid spreading it around (even though I probably caught the bloody thing at school to start with).
1 in 14 English Secondary school pupils have covid at the moment according to the ONS:
Which is probably a good thing overall, better for them to get it now while residual immunity in older people is still high and we have got a pretty rapid booster programme rolling out.
The best way to look at it is an immunity funnel, the more people who enter the funnel the better off we all are and the quicker we can get hospitals working on the backlog rather than COVID patients.
It will make no difference whatsoever to SPoTY. That said, it is a reminder of how volatile the women’s game is. I think this means she won’t make the season ending WTA finals. But no one here will know she’s not there because they won’t know they’re happening.
Question is whether she drifts in the betting on the back of her overnight defeat.
If she does, it'll be marginal.
Brit winning US Open = massive story. Brit losing a match at Indian Wells = wait, what's Indian Wells?
Emma’s tennis dress channelled the colourways of the Cape Verde flag. Probably no accident.
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things.
That does make make me wonder why people invariably reference the same incidents and comments from in some cases a very long time ago.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
It is his refusal to apologise or retract his statements that keeps them current. It wouldn't be hard to say that his language using "flag waving piccaninies with watermelon smiles" or "tank topped bum boys" was inappropriate, and that he would not say such things again.
Pretty sure he has said that he regrets some things he said as a journalist
...and then years/decades later along comes "bank robbers" and "letter boxes" dog whistle rhetoric.
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things.
That does make make me wonder why people invariably reference the same incidents and comments from in some cases a very long time ago.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
It is his refusal to apologise or retract his statements that keeps them current. It wouldn't be hard to say that his language using "flag waving piccaninies with watermelon smiles" or "tank topped bum boys" was inappropriate, and that he would not say such things again.
I think accusations need more than that to stick. Many people say things they shouldn't and stubbornly dont retract. The key is what people who dont already hate him think, and 'He hasn't apologised for things written 10 years ago' etc is not very compelling compared to 'He hasn't apologised for things written 10 years ago, and he still says writes things that show those comments are relevant'.
So I dont agree his refusal keeps them current. Wrong as some of his comments might be if there's nothing actually in the present to make them resonate theyll lose relevance every day - say he enacted some great scheme tackling racial inequality today, a newspaper column from ages ago would be eclipsed. If he hit caught making similar comments it would.
Past actions and comments of all politicians are relevant, but that's not to say all is of equal relevance. A pattern needs establishing to show why past thing X is important today, or it might embarrass but will be ignored.
Mr. Pulpstar, highly likely to vote. Not sure for whom.
In all seriousness, right now I'm feeling like I might actually vote Lib Dem. Far from certain. But I really dislike the incumbent. Starmer's not offensive like Corbyn was but I'm not enthused by him.
Disagree with the Lib Dems on various things but quite pleased with their stance on vaccine passports. They don't have a communist underbelly, so far as I know, and their leader isn't a grade A cretin.
We'll see. If the Conservatives axe Boris Johnson I'd probably vote blue, unless the replacement was as bad.
While I am pleased you may vote LD it is a sad state of affairs that a key factor is the leader isn't a grade A cretin. What has our politics come to.
It appears that the Johnson administration is busy removing every process and weakening every institution that could place a check on its decisions, as Ms Cyclefree explained the other day.
This leaves the Conservative Party at liberty to receive "donations" from all kinds of foreign regimes and tax dodgers. Britain and British interests are being sold off or even given away to these foreigners.
So I am not so sure how the British people will react when they realise that their heritage has been sold off by Johnson's Conservatives.
Surely there can be no heritage left to sell off? You spent all those years telling us Thatcher had, er, already sold off our heritage?
Suggesting that Boris or anyone else is doing this out of self interest is simply delusional. If we want British assets to stop being sold off we need to cut consumption and increase investment. I am not really sure that Boris is up for the pain that would involve.
It is rare to hear someone as distinguished as yourself contradict himself so quickly and thoroughly. Your final sentence completely explains why Johnson is doing it out of self interest.
Why do bookies think there is a 1 in 3 chance he doesn’t even fight the next election? (a) They know Johnson’s fondness for money, and know hat he could earn much more if not P.M.. (b) They think that Johnson knows his future reputation to be in decline, and that by way of his influence on who leads the Tories next, he can do something about this (which he wouldn’t be able to at a time when many in the electorate have become wise to the fact that he hasn’t been serving the nation well).
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things.
That does make make me wonder why people invariably reference the same incidents and comments from in some cases a very long time ago.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
I don't think Corbyn's racism was the reason he was so toxic. It was much more that he was seen as an extremist who did not like the country he wanted to lead. Johnson's racism is one reason why some people do not like him. Bigger ones are his general dishonesty, entitlement, flippancy and grift.
It appears that the Johnson administration is busy removing every process and weakening every institution that could place a check on its decisions, as Ms Cyclefree explained the other day.
This leaves the Conservative Party at liberty to receive "donations" from all kinds of foreign regimes and tax dodgers. Britain and British interests are being sold off or even given away to these foreigners.
So I am not so sure how the British people will react when they realise that their heritage has been sold off by Johnson's Conservatives.
Surely there can be no heritage left to sell off? You spent all those years telling us Thatcher had, er, already sold off our heritage?
Our "heritage" gets sold off at £80bn a year. And it will continue to be so for as long as we run a deficit. Those are the facts. Suggesting that Boris or anyone else is doing this out of self interest is simply delusional. If we want British assets to stop being sold off we need to cut consumption and increase investment. I am not really sure that Boris is up for the pain that would involve.
Cut consumption or investment, you mean. Increase savings. It's the savings-investment gap that drives the current account deficit and corresponding financial account surplus (capital inflows/selling assets, however you want to call it). Personally I am fairly relaxed about the current account deficit, a lot of it is just accounting.
Mr. kjh, alas, nothing new. There was a time when the Western and Eastern Empires were led by Honorius and Arcadius. And Stilicho paid for the crime of competence with his life.
Catching up with Question Time from Aldershot. Astonishing - an absolute pile-on both from right wing panelists like Nick Ferrari and from Tory and Brexit-voting members of the audience.
As they keep pointing out, if the changes are the plan then why hasn't anything been done to prepare for it? If we now have a point-based migration system to decide who we let in why isn't it being used as billed to bring people in we need? If the government cares about shortages and the impact of rising prices and cuts to UC why does it deny they are a problem and do nothing?
Yes, I watched #BBCQT last night. It was one of the most bruising in a long time, despite the hand picked Brexit audience.
There are other straws in the wind too. This poll which @Casino_Royale flagged up earlier in the week:
I think everybody should be, not just here but across Europe and worldwide, and I include myself as being very concerned about the issues though I do not see any solutions being put forward by opposition parties other than to allow free unrestricted movement of labour again
I don’t think that’s a fair characterisation of Labour’s approach, and it’s clear our issues are exacerbated by government policy.
Feels like you’re happy to follow the Tories over a bridge.
People who say this do not have an understanding of the different ways racism manifests. They are also the same people who think "but I have black friends" is a convincing argument.
It is certainly true having a diverse Cabinet does not preclude the possibility Boris is racist or has said racist things before (the two not necessarily being the same, depending on thoughtlessness), but it doesn't seem entirely irrelevant as a counterpoint even if it is not a blanket answer.
Such an accusation is very serious and there are plenty of people who believe it. But as much as I dont want him as PM the same 3-4 examples get used over and over again and not much else. Are they meaningless? No. But if that's all there is to the accusation is that enough?
One of the interesting wild cards for Boris is Carrie. For the first time in Boris’s career the private and the political are intimately entangled. What happens depends significantly on that relationship. If Boris can’t keep little Boris locked up that will have a double impact. Also Carrie’s political ambitions may well shape what Boris decides to do.
Header: I agree completely. Have been betting long on Johnson's exit date for months.
What would happen if the CP win another majority but Johnson loses his own seat?
You don't need to be an MP to be PM.
I suspect he'd ennoble himself and be PM from the Lords or someone will be forced to give up a very safe Tory seat like Mansfield to allow a by election to enable the PM to return to the House of Commons.
Self-enoblement is the best option says the ghost of Patrick Gordon Walker.
It will make no difference whatsoever to SPoTY. That said, it is a reminder of how volatile the women’s game is. I think this means she won’t make the season ending WTA finals. But no one here will know she’s not there because they won’t know they’re happening.
Question is whether she drifts in the betting on the back of her overnight defeat.
If she does, it'll be marginal.
Brit winning US Open = massive story. Brit losing a match at Indian Wells = wait, what's Indian Wells?
Emma’s tennis dress channelled the colourways of the Cape Verde flag. Probably no accident.
Perhaps, like in the Cold War, we need to keep an eye out for athletes who want to defect and provide MI5 minders for them?
I don't think Corbyn's racism was the reason he was so toxic. It was much more that he was seen as an extremist who did not like the country he wanted to lead. Johnson's racism is one reason why some people do not like him. Bigger ones are his general dishonesty, entitlement, flippancy and grift.
The sheer naked corruption of his regime is what's going to bring him down rather questions of policy, performance, competence, judgement or any shit he wrote in the Telegraph or Spectator decades ago. The British voter simply has not been acculturated to blatant malfeasance; they'll put up with and even expect a bit but not a lot.
Catching up with Question Time from Aldershot. Astonishing - an absolute pile-on both from right wing panelists like Nick Ferrari and from Tory and Brexit-voting members of the audience.
As they keep pointing out, if the changes are the plan then why hasn't anything been done to prepare for it? If we now have a point-based migration system to decide who we let in why isn't it being used as billed to bring people in we need? If the government cares about shortages and the impact of rising prices and cuts to UC why does it deny they are a problem and do nothing?
Yes, I watched #BBCQT last night. It was one of the most bruising in a long time, despite the hand picked Brexit audience.
There are other straws in the wind too. This poll which @Casino_Royale flagged up earlier in the week:
We will definitely see rising prices, indeed I expect inflation to top 5% for a time. We have already had rising taxes announced but there must be a concern that the state finances remain in a parlous state and the pressure to increase taxes further (or, more likely, restrict benefits such as pension tax relief) will remain. I think we will see a fairly generous settlement for benefits but it will not replace the £20 a week UC uplift. Interest rates will increase when we see that the inflation is not temporary or at least becomes self generating. I think that there is a good argument that this will in fact be a good thing because the distortions of a decade of extremely low interest rate are doing more harm than good. Supply shocks are certainly present at the moment but I think that they will diminish rather than increase as the world economy recovers from the disruption of Covid.
But despite acknowledging all of these factors I remain reasonably optimistic about our economy. We have had exceptional growth this year and I think that the momentum of that will bleed into at least the first half of next year. We are still generating jobs at a prodigious rate and the fact that labour is no longer so elastic will push employers into making more productive use of that labour increasing investment and training. Rishi's tax incentives will help here at the margins. I expect at least a couple, maybe 3-4 years of above average growth and expect the UK to grow faster than the EU average. What happens after that time will depend on whether the investment and training works.
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things.
That does make make me wonder why people invariably reference the same incidents and comments from in some cases a very long time ago.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
I don't think Corbyn's racism was the reason he was so toxic. It was much more that he was seen as an extremist who did not like the country he wanted to lead. Johnson's racism is one reason why some people do not like him. Bigger ones are his general dishonesty, entitlement, flippancy and grift.
In Corbyn I think you are right, and it's why it took a long time for people to start suggesting he was personally racist and many, most, did not and probably still dont think so. But my point was more around his past views and comments on many things were held against him, as an extremist, because they were still directly relevant.
On Boris I think you're right there are other reasons which are the main ones people dont like Boris, certainly why I dont, like his lack of care for standards. His actions in government make historic accusations of dishonesty or flippancy resonate. The newspaper comments from whenever, currently do not. If its routine, though, it would.
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Being defeated in an election does tend to help discredit people. Especially when those who were initially very heavy odds-on favourites like Ken are the ones who lose.
Not losing the election but not winning a majority was enough to help discredit May.
It appears that the Johnson administration is busy removing every process and weakening every institution that could place a check on its decisions, as Ms Cyclefree explained the other day.
This leaves the Conservative Party at liberty to receive "donations" from all kinds of foreign regimes and tax dodgers. Britain and British interests are being sold off or even given away to these foreigners.
So I am not so sure how the British people will react when they realise that their heritage has been sold off by Johnson's Conservatives.
Surely there can be no heritage left to sell off? You spent all those years telling us Thatcher had, er, already sold off our heritage?
Our "heritage" gets sold off at £80bn a year. And it will continue to be so for as long as we run a deficit. Those are the facts. Suggesting that Boris or anyone else is doing this out of self interest is simply delusional. If we want British assets to stop being sold off we need to cut consumption and increase investment. I am not really sure that Boris is up for the pain that would involve.
Cut consumption or investment, you mean. Increase savings. It's the savings-investment gap that drives the current account deficit and corresponding financial account surplus (capital inflows/selling assets, however you want to call it). Personally I am fairly relaxed about the current account deficit, a lot of it is just accounting.
That is the mistake that we have made over the last 20 years. Of course a short term deficit is no longer a problem in a world of floating exchange rates and mobile capital. What we have is a massive improvement on the old fixed exchange rates where foreign exchange was an extremely limited commodity.
But the cumulative effect of these deficits over the last 20 years are horrendous. We have gone from a country that ran a significant surplus in invisibles (the income generated by our foreign investments minus the income generated here) to a major deficit. That makes our country poorer with every passing year. It means less tax to support our public services, it means a lower standard of living than we would otherwise have. We con ourselves about this by borrowing for consumption and unsecured debt is back up beyond 2008 levels. It is by far our most serious economic challenge.
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
Boris's polling stays high because he told people that under him, there would be no attempts to evade the will of the people, no ever more ludicrous attempts to go for a second referendum or delay delay delay until the voters magically said "OK - lets forget about Brexit".
People didn't expect a perfect Brexit. The Europhiles had spent decades sewing us into the fabric of the EEC --> EU such that it was MEANT to be impossible for us to leave. But the voters gave the Government a single, simple instruction: get us out the EU regardless. Starmer said, er, no. Boris said righto - and did.
One of the candidates for PM next time has listened to the people and done as instructed. The other did everything he could, for years, to thwart them.
Look no further for the reason Boris will win next time out.
Sadly I think you may have nailed it with that post. People talk about how useless Starmer is, but he isn't Corbyn. On top of which is the golden rule that Govt lose elections, oppositions don't win them and Boris has certainly had enough events for that rule to be confirmed and it isn't happening at all.
I think Brexit has broken that rule.
Whether remainers or leavers, whether accepting the result or not most are either pro Boris or anti Boris based on what he did on Brexit still.
As a corollary to @MarqueeMark post and mine does that mean that if the Tories replace Boris at any time they will lose a lot of votes that they could never get under any other circumstances. If so it makes his position very strong.
The Conservatives are now a brand, not a party. That brand is Boris. It's possible the Conservatives will reassert themselves as a party at some point, but that will take years. In the meantime Boris is completely safe. Without him the Conservatives are nothing.
Labour on the other hand is a party without a brand.
Which incidentally is why Johnson can give his standard £100 000 after dinner speech at the party conference. It's all about him. Nothing else, including government, matters. He's just insulting people now.
Morning all .... another bash Boris day.. Cant you think.of anything else to say?
The Boris bashers just can't bear it that the Tories are in the lead in the polls by some way and Boris is PM.. Suck it up. Its going to be that way for some time to come. You should all be concentrating on getting a decent opposition. Its fragmented and it crap.
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Being defeated in an election does tend to help discredit people. Especially when those who were initially very heavy odds-on favourites like Ken are the ones who lose.
Not losing the election but not winning a majority was enough to help discredit May.
That had more to do with going three years early and losing the first Tory majority since Noah.
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things.
That does make make me wonder why people invariably reference the same incidents and comments from in some cases a very long time ago.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
I don't think Corbyn's racism was the reason he was so toxic. It was much more that he was seen as an extremist who did not like the country he wanted to lead. Johnson's racism is one reason why some people do not like him. Bigger ones are his general dishonesty, entitlement, flippancy and grift.
In Corbyn I think you are right, and it's why it took a long time for people to start suggesting he was personally racist and many, most, did not and probably still dont think so. But my point was more around his past views and comments on many things were held against him, as an extremist, because they were still directly relevant.
On Boris I think you're right there are other reasons which are the main ones people dont like Boris, certainly why I dont, like his lack of care for standards. His actions in government make historic accusations of dishonesty or flippancy resonate. The newspaper comments from whenever, currently do not. If its routine, though, it would.
Oh, I agree. The reasons that I dislike Johnson are so legion that I don't think his past racist utterances would even make the top ten.
I would see pretty much the entire Conservative party as complicit in enabling the great charleton.
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
All very sensible and reasonable from the EU side. Expect more histrionics from Frosty the no man.
Not really, it's essentially everything we've been asking for. The detail may say different so we can't be sure but if it is as currently advertised then it is the EU accepting the UK solution to the issue.
It appears that the Johnson administration is busy removing every process and weakening every institution that could place a check on its decisions, as Ms Cyclefree explained the other day.
This leaves the Conservative Party at liberty to receive "donations" from all kinds of foreign regimes and tax dodgers. Britain and British interests are being sold off or even given away to these foreigners.
So I am not so sure how the British people will react when they realise that their heritage has been sold off by Johnson's Conservatives.
Surely there can be no heritage left to sell off? You spent all those years telling us Thatcher had, er, already sold off our heritage?
Suggesting that Boris or anyone else is doing this out of self interest is simply delusional. If we want British assets to stop being sold off we need to cut consumption and increase investment. I am not really sure that Boris is up for the pain that would involve.
It is rare to hear someone as distinguished as yourself contradict himself so quickly and thoroughly. Your final sentence completely explains why Johnson is doing it out of self interest.
I am deeply flattered to be called distinguished but the point I am making (clearly not very well) is that these dodgy deals with foreigners are not because of some corruption or predilection on the part of Boris but an inevitable consequence of us living beyond our means. I think Boris as a populist who needs to be liked is very badly placed to address this structural problem but it trivialises it to claim that it is based on corruption rather than the simple consequence of our economic policies. Those who want to stop UK businesses being sold to foreigners need to address the very substantial changes that would follow and my belief is that they would not like them at all.
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things.
That does make make me wonder why people invariably reference the same incidents and comments from in some cases a very long time ago.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
It is his refusal to apologise or retract his statements that keeps them current. It wouldn't be hard to say that his language using "flag waving piccaninies with watermelon smiles" or "tank topped bum boys" was inappropriate, and that he would not say such things again.
Never apologise, never explain, never complain. Standard issue instructions for leadership. It isn't just Boris. The difference between leaders is how teflon their coating is.
(Also in the list: never answer a question straight, never say straight yes or no)
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things.
That does make make me wonder why people invariably reference the same incidents and comments from in some cases a very long time ago.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
It is his refusal to apologise or retract his statements that keeps them current. It wouldn't be hard to say that his language using "flag waving piccaninies with watermelon smiles" or "tank topped bum boys" was inappropriate, and that he would not say such things again.
I think accusations need more than that to stick. Many people say things they shouldn't and stubbornly dont retract. The key is what people who dont already hate him think, and 'He hasn't apologised for things written 10 years ago' etc is not very compelling compared to 'He hasn't apologised for things written 10 years ago, and he still says writes things that show those comments are relevant'.
So I dont agree his refusal keeps them current. Wrong as some of his comments might be if there's nothing actually in the present to make them resonate theyll lose relevance every day - say he enacted some great scheme tackling racial inequality today, a newspaper column from ages ago would be eclipsed. If he hit caught making similar comments it would.
Past actions and comments of all politicians are relevant, but that's not to say all is of equal relevance. A pattern needs establishing to show why past thing X is important today, or it might embarrass but will be ignored.
If its routine, it should not be hard to do that.
Without commenting on what you have said, I'd like to add something you haven't. There's a strong partisan element in some of those who dismiss his past comments too, and those same people are unwilling to look past things uttered by politicians whose views they don't share (e.g. "you ain't black"). If people are ready to defend Boris but happy to condemn others for similar actions, they are asking to be taken as partisans rather than as arbiters of who or what is racist.
Tribalism will definitely have an effect. The old 'would you condemn X if someone in your own side did it?' test is always a good one.
Personally I start from the point that current actions and words are more important than historic ones, but the significance of the latter is important.
It's why X said Y years ago (not necessarily racist things) as a 'story' can be such weak sauce. I think Keir comments from his 20s about being a Republican got brought up as if that was noteworthy.
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
No German Chancellor or French President would side with HMG putting a member state in such an untenable situation. The v purpose of Single Market is to eliminate barriers between members. If UK's actions call that into question, the EU's response could be much more forceful 8/
Not a silly micro line-by-line tariff retaliation, but the *suspension of the entire zero tariff/zero quota deal*. There's a termination clause in TCA that can be triggered unilaterally: many in Bxl think a big simple move like this would be needed for UK to finally understand 9/
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things.
That does make make me wonder why people invariably reference the same incidents and comments from in some cases a very long time ago.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
It is his refusal to apologise or retract his statements that keeps them current. It wouldn't be hard to say that his language using "flag waving piccaninies with watermelon smiles" or "tank topped bum boys" was inappropriate, and that he would not say such things again.
He made the comment in 2002 and apologised for it in 2008:
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
Mij_Europe is far from an impartial commentator on these matters, but if the border in the Irish Sea is done away with then that's very big progress. The detail will be key of course, simply spinning that it has gone away isn't enough if it hasn't.
But for years I've been saying there should be no Irish Sea border, no dynamic alignment and no island of Ireland border and been told that its impossible. For years we've had high-minded individuals snootily insisting that 'obviously' the border has to go 'somewhere' and that suggesting "no it doesn't" is ridiculous.
If its suddenly possible to do away with the Irish Sea border without a border in the island of Ireland or dynamic alignment then I wonder who will have the dignity and self-respect to admit they were wrong in insisting there must be a border somewhere?
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
All very sensible and reasonable from the EU side. Expect more histrionics from Frosty the no man.
Not really, it's essentially everything we've been asking for. The detail may say different so we can't be sure but if it is as currently advertised then it is the EU accepting the UK solution to the issue.
It's what the Irish have been asking for as well. They have always wanted a pragmatic enforcement of the protocol, not an absolute one. And therein lies the problem. If Dublin wants this, the Brexit loons will inevitably reject it. That means that the UK government will have to. Thus, the stand-off will continue.
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
No German Chancellor or French President would side with HMG putting a member state in such an untenable situation. The v purpose of Single Market is to eliminate barriers between members. If UK's actions call that into question, the EU's response could be much more forceful 8/
Not a silly micro line-by-line tariff retaliation, but the *suspension of the entire zero tariff/zero quota deal*. There's a termination clause in TCA that can be triggered unilaterally: many in Bxl think a big simple move like this would be needed for UK to finally understand 9/
Lol, if you believe that Germany would ever put the TCA on the chopping block then I've got a bridge to sell you.
Boris's polling stays high because he told people that under him, there would be no attempts to evade the will of the people, no ever more ludicrous attempts to go for a second referendum or delay delay delay until the voters magically said "OK - lets forget about Brexit".
People didn't expect a perfect Brexit. The Europhiles had spent decades sewing us into the fabric of the EEC --> EU such that it was MEANT to be impossible for us to leave. But the voters gave the Government a single, simple instruction: get us out the EU regardless. Starmer said, er, no. Boris said righto - and did.
One of the candidates for PM next time has listened to the people and done as instructed. The other did everything he could, for years, to thwart them.
Look no further for the reason Boris will win next time out.
Sadly I think you may have nailed it with that post. People talk about how useless Starmer is, but he isn't Corbyn. On top of which is the golden rule that Govt lose elections, oppositions don't win them and Boris has certainly had enough events for that rule to be confirmed and it isn't happening at all.
I think Brexit has broken that rule.
Whether remainers or leavers, whether accepting the result or not most are either pro Boris or anti Boris based on what he did on Brexit still.
As a corollary to @MarqueeMark post and mine does that mean that if the Tories replace Boris at any time they will lose a lot of votes that they could never get under any other circumstances. If so it makes his position very strong.
The Conservatives are now a brand, not a party. That brand is Boris. It's possible the Conservatives will reassert themselves as a party at some point, but that will take years. In the meantime Boris is completely safe. Without him the Conservatives are nothing.
Labour on the other hand is a party without a brand.
Which incidentally is why Johnson can give his standard £100 000 after dinner speech at the party conference. It's all about him. Nothing else, including government, matters. He's just insulting people now.
Morning all .... another bash Boris day.. Cant you think.of anything else to say?
The Boris bashers just can't bear it that the Tories are in the lead in the polls by some way and Boris is PM.. Suck it up. Its going to be that way for some time to come. You should all be concentrating on getting a decent opposition. Its fragmented and it crap.
Laters
Its fragmented
"It's fragmented". The possessive pronoun doesn't make sense here.
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
All very sensible and reasonable from the EU side. Expect more histrionics from Frosty the no man.
Not really, it's essentially everything we've been asking for. The detail may say different so we can't be sure but if it is as currently advertised then it is the EU accepting the UK solution to the issue.
Well, no.
The ECJ will still be in charge of ensuring no leakage into the EU via the land border, and there are interesting developments in giving Stormont representation when discussing Single Market issues.
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
All very sensible and reasonable from the EU side. Expect more histrionics from Frosty the no man.
Not really, it's essentially everything we've been asking for. The detail may say different so we can't be sure but if it is as currently advertised then it is the EU accepting the UK solution to the issue.
It's what the Irish have been asking for as well. They have always wanted a pragmatic enforcement of the protocol, not an absolute one. And therein lies the problem. If Dublin wants this, the Brexit loons will inevitably reject it. That means that the UK government will have to. Thus, the stand-off will continue.
No, the Irish haven't been asking for this. They've been very much on the side of "Brexit mean Brexit". Varadker came into power and effectively took this solution off the table. Now that he's gone and more pragmatic leaders are in charge it's back on the agenda. The UK has literally said this is the solution since day one. Finally it seems as though the EU agree. Let's wait for the detail.
It appears that the Johnson administration is busy removing every process and weakening every institution that could place a check on its decisions, as Ms Cyclefree explained the other day.
This leaves the Conservative Party at liberty to receive "donations" from all kinds of foreign regimes and tax dodgers. Britain and British interests are being sold off or even given away to these foreigners.
So I am not so sure how the British people will react when they realise that their heritage has been sold off by Johnson's Conservatives.
Surely there can be no heritage left to sell off? You spent all those years telling us Thatcher had, er, already sold off our heritage?
Our "heritage" gets sold off at £80bn a year. And it will continue to be so for as long as we run a deficit. Those are the facts. Suggesting that Boris or anyone else is doing this out of self interest is simply delusional. If we want British assets to stop being sold off we need to cut consumption and increase investment. I am not really sure that Boris is up for the pain that would involve.
Cut consumption or investment, you mean. Increase savings. It's the savings-investment gap that drives the current account deficit and corresponding financial account surplus (capital inflows/selling assets, however you want to call it). Personally I am fairly relaxed about the current account deficit, a lot of it is just accounting.
That is the mistake that we have made over the last 20 years. Of course a short term deficit is no longer a problem in a world of floating exchange rates and mobile capital. What we have is a massive improvement on the old fixed exchange rates where foreign exchange was an extremely limited commodity.
But the cumulative effect of these deficits over the last 20 years are horrendous. We have gone from a country that ran a significant surplus in invisibles (the income generated by our foreign investments minus the income generated here) to a major deficit. That makes our country poorer with every passing year. It means less tax to support our public services, it means a lower standard of living than we would otherwise have. We con ourselves about this by borrowing for consumption and unsecured debt is back up beyond 2008 levels. It is by far our most serious economic challenge.
I disagree. The current account deficit reflects the choices of people here and abroad to save and invest. I'm not convinced that there is a policy intervention that makes sense here. I.e. Why are these choices wrong? Plus there are accounting issues that probably make the deficit look worse than it is, eg earning returns on foreign investment via capital gains, which don't show up as a credit in the income account, rather than dividends, which do. I recall when I looked at this a few years ago that our Net International Investment Position has deteriorated a lot less than our accumulated current account deficits would suggest, which is a sign that the reported deficits are exaggerating the problem. (Although to be honest these data get revised so much - another problem - that perhaps that is no longer true). Our biggest economic problem in my view is the long tail of unproductive firms. Since more productive firms are more likely to export, then solving that problem may also "fix" the problem you see with the current account deficit, of course. Raising barriers to exporting, as Brexit has done, will tend to make the problem of low productivity firms worse.
Catching up with Question Time from Aldershot. Astonishing - an absolute pile-on both from right wing panelists like Nick Ferrari and from Tory and Brexit-voting members of the audience.
As they keep pointing out, if the changes are the plan then why hasn't anything been done to prepare for it? If we now have a point-based migration system to decide who we let in why isn't it being used as billed to bring people in we need? If the government cares about shortages and the impact of rising prices and cuts to UC why does it deny they are a problem and do nothing?
Yes, I watched #BBCQT last night. It was one of the most bruising in a long time, despite the hand picked Brexit audience.
There are other straws in the wind too. This poll which @Casino_Royale flagged up earlier in the week:
I think everybody should be, not just here but across Europe and worldwide, and I include myself as being very concerned about the issues though I do not see any solutions being put forward by opposition parties other than to allow free unrestricted movement of labour again
I don’t think that’s a fair characterisation of Labour’s approach, and it’s clear our issues are exacerbated by government policy.
Feels like you’re happy to follow the Tories over a bridge.
Then the opposition need to make their offer one I can accept
I would have far more respect for the lib dems if they declared they would rejoin the EU as that would be honest, but they too are dishonest by not declaring their objective and which I would suggest would be quite popular in their target seats
Labour have not put forward an alternative other than to commit to 170 billion without any idea how it is paid for, will not affirm they would reinstate the £20 UC uplift and would open unrestricted free movement of labour into the UK
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things.
That does make make me wonder why people invariably reference the same incidents and comments from in some cases a very long time ago.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
It is his refusal to apologise or retract his statements that keeps them current. It wouldn't be hard to say that his language using "flag waving piccaninies with watermelon smiles" or "tank topped bum boys" was inappropriate, and that he would not say such things again.
He made the comment in 2002 and apologised for it in 2008:
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
Mij_Europe is far from an impartial commentator on these matters, but if the border in the Irish Sea is done away with then that's very big progress. The detail will be key of course, simply spinning that it has gone away isn't enough if it hasn't.
But for years I've been saying there should be no Irish Sea border, no dynamic alignment and no island of Ireland border and been told that its impossible. For years we've had high-minded individuals snootily insisting that 'obviously' the border has to go 'somewhere' and that suggesting "no it doesn't" is ridiculous.
If its suddenly possible to do away with the Irish Sea border without a border in the island of Ireland or dynamic alignment then I wonder who will have the dignity and self-respect to admit they were wrong in insisting there must be a border somewhere?
They're going down swinging this morning, apparently the proposal from the UK all along is now an EU idea. I guess if it helps them sleep at night then let them have the victory?
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
All very sensible and reasonable from the EU side. Expect more histrionics from Frosty the no man.
Not really, it's essentially everything we've been asking for. The detail may say different so we can't be sure but if it is as currently advertised then it is the EU accepting the UK solution to the issue.
Well, no.
The ECJ will still be in charge of ensuring no leakage into the EU via the land border, and there are interesting developments in giving Stormont representation when discussing Single Market issues.
So the border has effectively been shifted from the Irish sea to the channel, in that case. Victory for Frost.
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
Mij_Europe is far from an impartial commentator on these matters, but if the border in the Irish Sea is done away with then that's very big progress. The detail will be key of course, simply spinning that it has gone away isn't enough if it hasn't.
But for years I've been saying there should be no Irish Sea border, no dynamic alignment and no island of Ireland border and been told that its impossible. For years we've had high-minded individuals snootily insisting that 'obviously' the border has to go 'somewhere' and that suggesting "no it doesn't" is ridiculous.
If its suddenly possible to do away with the Irish Sea border without a border in the island of Ireland or dynamic alignment then I wonder who will have the dignity and self-respect to admit they were wrong in insisting there must be a border somewhere?
They're going down swinging this morning, apparently the proposal from the UK all along is now an EU idea. I guess if it helps them sleep at night then let them have the victory?
Whatever. Let's just get it done and move onto important stuff.
It appears that the Johnson administration is busy removing every process and weakening every institution that could place a check on its decisions, as Ms Cyclefree explained the other day.
This leaves the Conservative Party at liberty to receive "donations" from all kinds of foreign regimes and tax dodgers. Britain and British interests are being sold off or even given away to these foreigners.
So I am not so sure how the British people will react when they realise that their heritage has been sold off by Johnson's Conservatives.
Surely there can be no heritage left to sell off? You spent all those years telling us Thatcher had, er, already sold off our heritage?
Suggesting that Boris or anyone else is doing this out of self interest is simply delusional. If we want British assets to stop being sold off we need to cut consumption and increase investment. I am not really sure that Boris is up for the pain that would involve.
It is rare to hear someone as distinguished as yourself contradict himself so quickly and thoroughly. Your final sentence completely explains why Johnson is doing it out of self interest.
What exactly is Boris doing out of self interest?
Someone here the other day was complaining about Morrisons being 'sold off'. Morrisons isn't owned by the state, it wasn't Boris's or anyone else in the governments decision to 'sell it off'.
The Chancellor has put in place tax incentives to boost investment but there's only so much the government can do if people don't wish to invest or wish to over consume. That's individual people making their own choices.
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
All very sensible and reasonable from the EU side. Expect more histrionics from Frosty the no man.
Not really, it's essentially everything we've been asking for. The detail may say different so we can't be sure but if it is as currently advertised then it is the EU accepting the UK solution to the issue.
It's what the Irish have been asking for as well. They have always wanted a pragmatic enforcement of the protocol, not an absolute one. And therein lies the problem. If Dublin wants this, the Brexit loons will inevitably reject it. That means that the UK government will have to. Thus, the stand-off will continue.
No, the Irish haven't been asking for this. They've been very much on the side of "Brexit mean Brexit". Varadker came into power and effectively took this solution off the table. Now that he's gone and more pragmatic leaders are in charge it's back on the agenda. The UK has literally said this is the solution since day one. Finally it seems as though the EU agree. Let's wait for the detail.
No, the Irish government of which Varadker is still a key part - as leader of one of the two parties in the coalition, the deputy PM and minister of trade - has been consistent in seeking a pragmatic implementation of the protocol. They will be very happy with these proposals, which is why the UK will reject them.
Catching up with Question Time from Aldershot. Astonishing - an absolute pile-on both from right wing panelists like Nick Ferrari and from Tory and Brexit-voting members of the audience.
As they keep pointing out, if the changes are the plan then why hasn't anything been done to prepare for it? If we now have a point-based migration system to decide who we let in why isn't it being used as billed to bring people in we need? If the government cares about shortages and the impact of rising prices and cuts to UC why does it deny they are a problem and do nothing?
Yes, I watched #BBCQT last night. It was one of the most bruising in a long time, despite the hand picked Brexit audience.
There are other straws in the wind too. This poll which @Casino_Royale flagged up earlier in the week:
I think everybody should be, not just here but across Europe and worldwide, and I include myself as being very concerned about the issues though I do not see any solutions being put forward by opposition parties other than to allow free unrestricted movement of labour again
I don’t think that’s a fair characterisation of Labour’s approach, and it’s clear our issues are exacerbated by government policy.
Feels like you’re happy to follow the Tories over a bridge.
Then the opposition need to make their offer one I can accept
I would have far more respect for the lib dems if they declared they would rejoin the EU as that would be honest, but they too are dishonest by not declaring their objective and which I would suggest would be quite popular in their target seats
Labour have not put forward an alternative other than to commit to 170 billion without any idea how it is paid for, will not affirm they would reinstate the £20 UC uplift and would open unrestricted free movement of labour into the UK
As I have told you before LD policy is explicit and open. Closer alignment to the SM, including FOM, with the long term objective of Rejoin, when there is evidence that that is supported by the electorate. I am not sure why you think this dishonest or mysterious:
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
Mij_Europe is far from an impartial commentator on these matters, but if the border in the Irish Sea is done away with then that's very big progress. The detail will be key of course, simply spinning that it has gone away isn't enough if it hasn't.
But for years I've been saying there should be no Irish Sea border, no dynamic alignment and no island of Ireland border and been told that its impossible. For years we've had high-minded individuals snootily insisting that 'obviously' the border has to go 'somewhere' and that suggesting "no it doesn't" is ridiculous.
If its suddenly possible to do away with the Irish Sea border without a border in the island of Ireland or dynamic alignment then I wonder who will have the dignity and self-respect to admit they were wrong in insisting there must be a border somewhere?
They're going down swinging this morning, apparently the proposal from the UK all along is now an EU idea. I guess if it helps them sleep at night then let them have the victory?
Well great. If you are right then the UK side will quickly agree and stop whinging about the oven ready deal that they signed up to so enthusiastically two years ago.
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
Mij_Europe is far from an impartial commentator on these matters, but if the border in the Irish Sea is done away with then that's very big progress. The detail will be key of course, simply spinning that it has gone away isn't enough if it hasn't.
But for years I've been saying there should be no Irish Sea border, no dynamic alignment and no island of Ireland border and been told that its impossible. For years we've had high-minded individuals snootily insisting that 'obviously' the border has to go 'somewhere' and that suggesting "no it doesn't" is ridiculous.
If its suddenly possible to do away with the Irish Sea border without a border in the island of Ireland or dynamic alignment then I wonder who will have the dignity and self-respect to admit they were wrong in insisting there must be a border somewhere?
They're going down swinging this morning, apparently the proposal from the UK all along is now an EU idea. I guess if it helps them sleep at night then let them have the victory?
Well great. If you are right then the UK side will quickly agree and stop whinging about the oven ready deal that they signed up to so enthusiastically two years ago.
Indeed - if the EU has surrendered, the UK will accept the proposals and we can start building a better relationship with Brussels. Let's see what happens!
It appears that the Johnson administration is busy removing every process and weakening every institution that could place a check on its decisions, as Ms Cyclefree explained the other day.
This leaves the Conservative Party at liberty to receive "donations" from all kinds of foreign regimes and tax dodgers. Britain and British interests are being sold off or even given away to these foreigners.
So I am not so sure how the British people will react when they realise that their heritage has been sold off by Johnson's Conservatives.
Surely there can be no heritage left to sell off? You spent all those years telling us Thatcher had, er, already sold off our heritage?
Suggesting that Boris or anyone else is doing this out of self interest is simply delusional. If we want British assets to stop being sold off we need to cut consumption and increase investment. I am not really sure that Boris is up for the pain that would involve.
It is rare to hear someone as distinguished as yourself contradict himself so quickly and thoroughly. Your final sentence completely explains why Johnson is doing it out of self interest.
What exactly is Boris doing out of self interest?
Someone here the other day was complaining about Morrisons being 'sold off'. Morrisons isn't owned by the state, it wasn't Boris's or anyone else in the governments decision to 'sell it off'.
The Chancellor has put in place tax incentives to boost investment but there's only so much the government can do if people don't wish to invest or wish to over consume. That's individual people making their own choices.
Failing to address the current account deficit.
Currently that is being financed by sales of British assets, such as houses and London flats to foreign investors. I thought that you opposed that sort of thing?
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things.
That does make make me wonder why people invariably reference the same incidents and comments from in some cases a very long time ago.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
It is his refusal to apologise or retract his statements that keeps them current. It wouldn't be hard to say that his language using "flag waving piccaninies with watermelon smiles" or "tank topped bum boys" was inappropriate, and that he would not say such things again.
He made the comment in 2002 and apologised for it in 2008:
It appears that the Johnson administration is busy removing every process and weakening every institution that could place a check on its decisions, as Ms Cyclefree explained the other day.
This leaves the Conservative Party at liberty to receive "donations" from all kinds of foreign regimes and tax dodgers. Britain and British interests are being sold off or even given away to these foreigners.
So I am not so sure how the British people will react when they realise that their heritage has been sold off by Johnson's Conservatives.
Surely there can be no heritage left to sell off? You spent all those years telling us Thatcher had, er, already sold off our heritage?
Our "heritage" gets sold off at £80bn a year. And it will continue to be so for as long as we run a deficit. Those are the facts. Suggesting that Boris or anyone else is doing this out of self interest is simply delusional. If we want British assets to stop being sold off we need to cut consumption and increase investment. I am not really sure that Boris is up for the pain that would involve.
Cut consumption or investment, you mean. Increase savings. It's the savings-investment gap that drives the current account deficit and corresponding financial account surplus (capital inflows/selling assets, however you want to call it). Personally I am fairly relaxed about the current account deficit, a lot of it is just accounting.
That is the mistake that we have made over the last 20 years. Of course a short term deficit is no longer a problem in a world of floating exchange rates and mobile capital. What we have is a massive improvement on the old fixed exchange rates where foreign exchange was an extremely limited commodity.
But the cumulative effect of these deficits over the last 20 years are horrendous. We have gone from a country that ran a significant surplus in invisibles (the income generated by our foreign investments minus the income generated here) to a major deficit. That makes our country poorer with every passing year. It means less tax to support our public services, it means a lower standard of living than we would otherwise have. We con ourselves about this by borrowing for consumption and unsecured debt is back up beyond 2008 levels. It is by far our most serious economic challenge.
I disagree. The current account deficit reflects the choices of people here and abroad to save and invest. I'm not convinced that there is a policy intervention that makes sense here. I.e. Why are these choices wrong? Plus there are accounting issues that probably make the deficit look worse than it is, eg earning returns on foreign investment via capital gains, which don't show up as a credit in the income account, rather than dividends, which do. I recall when I looked at this a few years ago that our Net International Investment Position has deteriorated a lot less than our accumulated current account deficits would suggest, which is a sign that the reported deficits are exaggerating the problem. (Although to be honest these data get revised so much - another problem - that perhaps that is no longer true). Our biggest economic problem in my view is the long tail of unproductive firms. Since more productive firms are more likely to export, then solving that problem may also "fix" the problem you see with the current account deficit, of course. Raising barriers to exporting, as Brexit has done, will tend to make the problem of low productivity firms worse.
I could choose to spend £1000 a week on high class wine. But there would be consequences as my assets diminished and the money for everything else was no longer available. Choices have consequences, that is a basic fact of life.
The policy mix needed to improve our balance of payments is quite complicated but it is necessary. We need to encourage saving, we need to discourage consumption, we need to eliminate (over time) the deficit run by the government on public spending, we need to encourage domestic substitution and build mutually supportive industries and businesses in the way that London has done so spectacularly in services. We need to encourage growth outside London by reducing bottlenecks and disincentives generated by poor infrastructure. We need to focus our education more on employability. We need to massively increase apprenticeships and boost productivity. We see strands of much of this in government policy and indeed in Boris's speech but the urgency and scale seem to me to be lacking.
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
Mij_Europe is far from an impartial commentator on these matters, but if the border in the Irish Sea is done away with then that's very big progress. The detail will be key of course, simply spinning that it has gone away isn't enough if it hasn't.
But for years I've been saying there should be no Irish Sea border, no dynamic alignment and no island of Ireland border and been told that its impossible. For years we've had high-minded individuals snootily insisting that 'obviously' the border has to go 'somewhere' and that suggesting "no it doesn't" is ridiculous.
If its suddenly possible to do away with the Irish Sea border without a border in the island of Ireland or dynamic alignment then I wonder who will have the dignity and self-respect to admit they were wrong in insisting there must be a border somewhere?
They're going down swinging this morning, apparently the proposal from the UK all along is now an EU idea. I guess if it helps them sleep at night then let them have the victory?
Well great. If you are right then the UK side will quickly agree and stop whinging about the oven ready deal that they signed up to so enthusiastically two years ago.
The devil is in the detail. Just because Mij_Europe is spinning that the EU proposal is dropping the Irish Sea border is not a reason to believe that the EU's opening proposal really is doing so. The government needs to hold their toes to the fire in the subsequent negotiations to ensure that really does happen.
Besides there's almost never in negotiations a reason to "quickly agree" to the opening proposals that your counterparty offers. Even when the counterparty is doing so based upon your demands. Negotiations are about both parties trying to get as much as they can so the EU's opening proposals will be based upon that themselves - and they won't expect the UK to "quickly agree" to it either, not when three weeks of intense negotiations are already booked in.
Robbins and May "quickly agreeing" to all of the EU's proposals on day one of the negotiations is what led to this mess in the first place.
i really like Quincel's tips - credible, not hedged by getout clauses and lucidly explained. This one looks totally convincing.
Couple of non-partisan questions that affect some private arrangements: I gather from one passing remark that traders think bank rate will rise soon from 0.1% to 0.75%. Is that indeed what's expected, and when is it likely to happen? And what do we think Rishi is going to come with?
The main, perhaps the only, thing Johnson understands is raw human power. How to get it and how to deploy it.
Consider his approach to getting a significant controversial tax rise to fund the NHS, sorry social care, OK let's be honest, the NHS, through. All done in a week, zero ministerial resignations, it's probably a bad plan but They Salute With Both Hands Now.
Or his approach to choosing a cabinet, where loyalty to King Boris is all.
So he'll be blooming hard to depose. He's made sure of that.
But, unlike other PMs, he's not really there to do things (Thatcher, Blair) or serve (Cameron, May). He's there to be King Boris and to be hailed. So what happens when "We hail King Boris" becomes "We hate King Boris"?
We don't know, because it hasn't happened yet.
But unless this time is different, it inevitably will, possibly quite soon if the money runs out.
All political careers end in failure, but Johnson's fall will be quite spectacular. He hasn't a real hinterland of friends in the party, even his closest ally famously knifed him in his first attempt at the leadership. As such he will cling on as hard as he can, and when he goes, nearly his entire cabinet will go with him, and they know it.
When he goes, it will be like a change in government, as when the Tories have regenerated before.
All this is true. What is difficult is how to attach probabilities to the timing - which effectively is the only issue. Quincel's interesting article is headed: "BJ isn't under threat." Wrong, in the sense that PMs are always under threat, there being several people who would sell their grannies to take over his job not just tomorrow but today.
Also wrong in the sense that the number of issues that don't have solutions, of which inflation, NHS, skill/labour shortage and climate disaster and energy are only five, is mounting.
Two things can be said for Boris: he wants to go at his timing, no-one else's. And if he wants to stay he won't go quietly.
if you want to back a horse that will give you a run, and if you conclude that he wants to do more than 5 years, then back Boris. The rest is guesswork. I put it at less than 33%, more than Quincel's 10%.
PS Who do we want as PM if and when China/Taiwan gets violent?
It appears that the Johnson administration is busy removing every process and weakening every institution that could place a check on its decisions, as Ms Cyclefree explained the other day.
This leaves the Conservative Party at liberty to receive "donations" from all kinds of foreign regimes and tax dodgers. Britain and British interests are being sold off or even given away to these foreigners.
So I am not so sure how the British people will react when they realise that their heritage has been sold off by Johnson's Conservatives.
Surely there can be no heritage left to sell off? You spent all those years telling us Thatcher had, er, already sold off our heritage?
Suggesting that Boris or anyone else is doing this out of self interest is simply delusional. If we want British assets to stop being sold off we need to cut consumption and increase investment. I am not really sure that Boris is up for the pain that would involve.
It is rare to hear someone as distinguished as yourself contradict himself so quickly and thoroughly. Your final sentence completely explains why Johnson is doing it out of self interest.
What exactly is Boris doing out of self interest?
Someone here the other day was complaining about Morrisons being 'sold off'. Morrisons isn't owned by the state, it wasn't Boris's or anyone else in the governments decision to 'sell it off'.
The Chancellor has put in place tax incentives to boost investment but there's only so much the government can do if people don't wish to invest or wish to over consume. That's individual people making their own choices.
Failing to address the current account deficit.
Currently that is being financed by sales of British assets, such as houses and London flats to foreign investors. I thought that you opposed that sort of thing?
The government for many years has been increasing taxes and closing loopholes to ensure such property investment faces taxes to discourage it. They need to do more IMO but its one thing that's been going in the right direction.
There isn't a single switch to close the current account deficit in one go, nor is the government entirely responsible for doing so. People need to take responsibility for their own choices too.
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Probably true, but then again they wouldn’t have voted for Corbyn, either.
Absolutely. And the flag-waving racist will always beat the flag-burning one. What does stick in the throat a bit is the sheer hypocrisy you see on both sides that denies the racism of the one while deploring the racism of the other. It's almost as if racism isn't really that big a deal when your side does it.
What was all that nonsense you were posting on Twitter yesterday about below the line big shifts in the polling? Surely you’d look at previous polls before declaring non existent ‘big changes’
I never thought I’d see the day I read this on the BBC:
Prof Christina Pagel and Prof Martin McKee, both of whom are members of Independent Sage, a self-appointed group of experts which has been critical of the approach taken by the government, wrote in the Guardian this week about the benefits of the "vaccine-plus" approaches taken on mainland Europe.
Despite Leon's earlier hyperbole, yesterday's Germany numbers outturned at new cases 9,742 (UK 36,060) and new deaths 78 (UK 124), with the German population being 25% larger than ours.
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Probably true, but then again they wouldn’t have voted for Corbyn, either.
Absolutely. And the flag-waving racist will always beat the flag-burning one. What does stick in the throat a bit is the sheer hypocrisy you see on both sides that denies the racism of the one while deploring the racism of the other. It's almost as if racism isn't really that big a deal when your side does it.
What was all that nonsense you were posting on Twitter yesterday about below the line big shifts in the polling? Surely you’d look at previous polls before declaring non existent ‘big changes’
The EU's proposals for addressing the problems in NI are substantive & far reaching. They will effectively do away with all paperwork for goods destined for NI - instead of a border in Irish Sea, think of a “green” (NI-bound) & “red” (Single Market) lane 1/
All very sensible and reasonable from the EU side. Expect more histrionics from Frosty the no man.
The EU are coming to their senses as a direct result of Frosts hardline
Thank God the brilliant Lord Frost is here to save us from the terrible deal negotiated by that idiot Lord Frost.
The brilliant Lord Frost is able to win these negotiations because of the wisdom of his predecessor Lord Frost in negotiating in Article 16 into the Protocol.
He put the trap in and the EU walked blindly into it. Fantastic negotiations.
i really like Quincel's tips - credible, not hedged by getout clauses and lucidly explained. This one looks totally convincing.
Couple of non-partisan questions that affect some private arrangements: I gather from one passing remark that traders think bank rate will rise soon from 0.1% to 0.75%. Is that indeed what's expected, and when is it likely to happen? And what do we think Rishi is going to come with?
I don’t know but what I do know is saving rates are increasing, admittedly from pretty dire levels. Atom bank one year fixed is now 1.22%. It was 0.6% a few months ago
Morning all. I agree 100% with this excellent betting header. Johnson leads into the GE - it's nailed on he does - so the 2/5 or 1/2 is great. It was even better value at the quite ridiculous odds available a few months ago, since it was (imo) just as nailed on then. The next GE will be Johnson v Starmer. There's really very little chance of either man going. Much betting value on a variety of UK politics markets has been available with this view as your platform and some of it remains. Not for much longer, though, so do not delay.
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Yes, because the party that has got British Indians as Chancellor and Home secretary, British Pakistanis as Health Secretary and Education Secretary and A British Ghanaian as Business Secretary is a racist party. This is why no one in the country takes Labour seriously on racial issues. You see all of the above as an race traitors and not really Indian, Pakistani or Ghanaian.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
No, I see Boris Johnson as a racist because he routinely says racist things.
That does make make me wonder why people invariably reference the same incidents and comments from in some cases a very long time ago.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
It is his refusal to apologise or retract his statements that keeps them current. It wouldn't be hard to say that his language using "flag waving piccaninies with watermelon smiles" or "tank topped bum boys" was inappropriate, and that he would not say such things again.
He made the comment in 2002 and apologised for it in 2008:
For "Johnson is a racist" is this the best you've got?
There are more recent comments. Muslim women looking like bank robbers and letter boxes etc.
But as I said, his racism doesn't even reach the top 10 reasons that I think him unfit for public office.
A comment made in a not so serious article, comments made in a jocular manner.
I’m no fan of the PM or the Shambles of a govt but I don’t think he’s a racist and there really is little concrete to say he is.
I don't think Boris is a racist (mind you, I don't think Corbyn is either). Boris's article (2018 - so not back in the mists of time) was actually supporting the right of Muslim women to dress as they wished.
But typically, he threw it away for the giggles. Why did he choose to use the 'jocular' reference to women looking like 'letterboxes' and 'bank robbers'? For laughs, that's why. But some Muslim women found it offensive, and there was evidence of the debate provoking some racists to ridicule Muslim women in the street.
So no, Boris isn't a racist; but in 2018 some dog whistle jocularity had a real world impact. I don't think he would repeat it.
Good point although BoJo has only ever been tested when fighting Labour figures who subsequently have been discredited - Ken & Jezza
Jezza was very much known to be, shall we say, soft on anti-Semitism when certain LibDems lent him their vote. No "I didn't know at the time" about that decision...
No-one who genuinely cared about preventing racists taking positions of power and responsibility would have voted Tory in December 2019.
Probably true, but then again they wouldn’t have voted for Corbyn, either.
Absolutely. And the flag-waving racist will always beat the flag-burning one. What does stick in the throat a bit is the sheer hypocrisy you see on both sides that denies the racism of the one while deploring the racism of the other. It's almost as if racism isn't really that big a deal when your side does it.
What was all that nonsense you were posting on Twitter yesterday about below the line big shifts in the polling? Surely you’d look at previous polls before declaring non existent ‘big changes’
i really like Quincel's tips - credible, not hedged by getout clauses and lucidly explained. This one looks totally convincing.
Couple of non-partisan questions that affect some private arrangements: I gather from one passing remark that traders think bank rate will rise soon from 0.1% to 0.75%. Is that indeed what's expected, and when is it likely to happen? And what do we think Rishi is going to come with?
I think interest rates have to rise, and will do so, albeit slowly at first. Currently we have negative real interest rates because of inflation. To prevent that gap from increasing they need to go up, even before we get to the need for a positive return on savings. The government can only claim that the spike is temporary for a few months, not forever.
The combination of sub inflationary wage growth (with real pay cuts across many sectors), rising energy and food bills, increased NI, and fiscal drag on income tax thresholds is going to be quite some financial squeeze, even before we get rising interest rates.
I never thought I’d see the day I read this on the BBC:
Prof Christina Pagel and Prof Martin McKee, both of whom are members of Independent Sage, a self-appointed group of experts which has been critical of the approach taken by the government, wrote in the Guardian this week about the benefits of the "vaccine-plus" approaches taken on mainland Europe.
Despite Leon's earlier hyperbole, yesterday's Germany numbers outturned at new cases 9,742 (UK 36,060) and new deaths 78 (UK 124), with the German population being 25% larger than ours.
And the absence of testing probably explains all of the discrepancy.
Since case numbers have been fairly consistent for a while its reasonable to look at the ratio of deaths to cases. In Germany its 0.8%, in the UK its 0.3%, literally half the deaths per case than Germany are seeing.
Why? Because the UK is finding more cases and Germany aren't bothering to do so. And since its "deaths within 28 days" that means more deaths simply happening in the subsequent 28 days since you've got a larger pool to potentially die. In Germany people within 28 days of the virus could be dying but not counted since they're not being detected in the first place.
Comments
*Corbyn has some positive features. He enthused parts of the electorate that are rarely reached, speaks with passion from genuine heartfelt concerns, lived genuinely modestly and wanted to implement real change rather than just be "world king" as an ego trip. I couldn't vote for him because of his complicity in anti-semitism andcongenital disorganisation.
Prof Christina Pagel and Prof Martin McKee, both of whom are members of Independent Sage, a self-appointed group of experts which has been critical of the approach taken by the government, wrote in the Guardian this week about the benefits of the "vaccine-plus" approaches taken on mainland Europe.
That’s rather acid.
Covid: The UK is Europe's virus hotspot - does it matter?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58849024
It's also no use for any application where jamming is a concern. The new M Code on GPS uses MNSA encryption and CRPA antennae to mitigate against this. You also couldn't do selective availability or Blue Force Electronic Attack.
Basically OW is useful for GNSS in the way that a skateboard is useful for travelling from John O'Groats to Lands End; it's theoretically possible but nobody would.
Bloody ridiculous.
We got our exit from covid restrictions totally spot on, in my opinion.
There are other straws in the wind too. This poll which @Casino_Royale flagged up earlier in the week:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/10/07/most-britons-now-say-government-are-handling-econo?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=adam_tories_tax
And this one from a poster formerly of this site;
https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1446431513168564236?t=EIIY8sVjv3J0gYu7nBwFpg&s=19
Tories behind Labour on tax, and barely ahead on immigration? It looks like the shine is coming off.
In school I’ve seen one person wearing a mask - me, when I had a slight cold and wanted to avoid spreading it around (even though I probably caught the bloody thing at school to start with).
Rising prices
Rising taxes
Lower benefits
Higher interest rates (likely)
Supply shocks (labour, energy, distribution)
Reading the thread Boris's opponents pile into him suggesting his speech was a car crash and he is a racist, notwithstanding the ethnic make up his cabinet
As far as I know there has not been a poll since the end of conference (I do not count Opinium post speech one as a genuine poll) but the importance of his speech was it has galvanised and cheered up his party which in these extremely difficult times is the positive for him and he looks unassailable as leader going into GE24
I recently read an article from a US journalist who said that Boris Johnson is a pop star prime minister, hugely popular with ordinary people who seek selfies and to shake his hand wherever he goes
His opponents underestimate just how his positively is infectious, compared to the negative doom and gloom we hear from labour and FBPE supporters and this underestimation could well see him win in 2024 and be PM until 2029
As I often say to @HYUFD 'a week is a long time in politics' when he is commenting on a poll and I would expect crossover in the polling but as has been said, it only becomes relevant in another 18 months or more so I would suggest the political class may need to take on board they could have upto another 8 years of Boris, even more who knows
Labour on the other hand is a party without a brand.
However, the Government actively choosing to tax gas heating when gas costs are already soaring would be courageous, in the Yes, Minister sense of the word.
Boris is certainly not racist in his appointments. If he is racist in his politics or personally I think the 'routinely' bit needs to be demonstrated with more effort - in the Corbyn example there were lots of past things he was criticised for, but also stuff he said in the present which accusers said showed the past comments as reflective of his current views and behaviour.
It took years of that before even many who hated Corbyn accused him directly, and even then most wouldn't go that far. For those who are persuadable that Boris is racist the argument needs up to date examples to get raised in addition to historic stuff.
That $8bn and lack of natural partners in the UK is why we're never going to be a player in silicon chips. Imagine the party that proposed giving £6bn to Intel instead of the NHS. PM ousted in days.
In the same way I'd vote for Starmer if the alternative was an actual Nazi leading the Conservatives
Are you voting Lib Dem or reform at the next GE or staying home ?
Short of him deciding to spend more time with his 6th and 7th children he'll lead them to the next GE.
In all seriousness, right now I'm feeling like I might actually vote Lib Dem. Far from certain. But I really dislike the incumbent. Starmer's not offensive like Corbyn was but I'm not enthused by him.
Disagree with the Lib Dems on various things but quite pleased with their stance on vaccine passports. They don't have a communist underbelly, so far as I know, and their leader isn't a grade A cretin.
We'll see. If the Conservatives axe Boris Johnson I'd probably vote blue, unless the replacement was as bad.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/08/covid-rates-rising-in-secondary-schools-in-england-ons-data-shows
Thing is being ridiculous is great for her career path. She easily tops the Cons Pops table.
The best way to look at it is an immunity funnel, the more people who enter the funnel the better off we all are and the quicker we can get hospitals working on the backlog rather than COVID patients.
Oh but it was just satire...
...satire, my a***!
So I dont agree his refusal keeps them current. Wrong as some of his comments might be if there's nothing actually in the present to make them resonate theyll lose relevance every day - say he enacted some great scheme tackling racial inequality today, a newspaper column from ages ago would be eclipsed. If he hit caught making similar comments it would.
Past actions and comments of all politicians are relevant, but that's not to say all is of equal relevance. A pattern needs establishing to show why past thing X is important today, or it might embarrass but will be ignored.
If its routine, it should not be hard to do that.
(a) They know Johnson’s fondness for money, and know hat he could earn much more if not P.M..
(b) They think that Johnson knows his future reputation to be in decline, and that by way of his influence on who leads the Tories next, he can do something about this (which he wouldn’t be able to at a time when many in the electorate have become wise to the fact that he hasn’t been serving the nation well).
https://twitter.com/autosport/status/1446521776431828996
Could be good for the race.
Personally I am fairly relaxed about the current account deficit, a lot of it is just accounting.
Feels like you’re happy to follow the Tories over a bridge.
Such an accusation is very serious and there are plenty of people who believe it. But as much as I dont want him as PM the same 3-4 examples get used over and over again and not much else. Are they meaningless? No. But if that's all there is to the accusation is that enough?
Sorry what soap opera is this?
But despite acknowledging all of these factors I remain reasonably optimistic about our economy. We have had exceptional growth this year and I think that the momentum of that will bleed into at least the first half of next year. We are still generating jobs at a prodigious rate and the fact that labour is no longer so elastic will push employers into making more productive use of that labour increasing investment and training. Rishi's tax incentives will help here at the margins. I expect at least a couple, maybe 3-4 years of above average growth and expect the UK to grow faster than the EU average. What happens after that time will depend on whether the investment and training works.
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1446748866812989442?s=20
On Boris I think you're right there are other reasons which are the main ones people dont like Boris, certainly why I dont, like his lack of care for standards. His actions in government make historic accusations of dishonesty or flippancy resonate. The newspaper comments from whenever, currently do not. If its routine, though, it would.
Not losing the election but not winning a majority was enough to help discredit May.
But the cumulative effect of these deficits over the last 20 years are horrendous. We have gone from a country that ran a significant surplus in invisibles (the income generated by our foreign investments minus the income generated here) to a major deficit. That makes our country poorer with every passing year. It means less tax to support our public services, it means a lower standard of living than we would otherwise have. We con ourselves about this by borrowing for consumption and unsecured debt is back up beyond 2008 levels. It is by far our most serious economic challenge.
The Boris bashers just can't bear it that the Tories are in the lead in the polls by some way and Boris is PM.. Suck it up. Its going to be that way for some time to come. You should all be concentrating on getting a decent opposition. Its fragmented and it crap.
Laters
I would see pretty much the entire Conservative party as complicit in enabling the great charleton.
(Also in the list: never answer a question straight, never say straight yes or no)
Personally I start from the point that current actions and words are more important than historic ones, but the significance of the latter is important.
It's why X said Y years ago (not necessarily racist things) as a 'story' can be such weak sauce. I think Keir comments from his 20s about being a Republican got brought up as if that was noteworthy.
No German Chancellor or French President would side with HMG putting a member state in such an untenable situation. The v purpose of Single Market is to eliminate barriers between members. If UK's actions call that into question, the EU's response could be much more forceful 8/
Not a silly micro line-by-line tariff retaliation, but the *suspension of the entire zero tariff/zero quota deal*. There's a termination clause in TCA that can be triggered unilaterally: many in Bxl think a big simple move like this would be needed for UK to finally understand 9/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/jan/23/london.race
For "Johnson is a racist" is this the best you've got?
But for years I've been saying there should be no Irish Sea border, no dynamic alignment and no island of Ireland border and been told that its impossible. For years we've had high-minded individuals snootily insisting that 'obviously' the border has to go 'somewhere' and that suggesting "no it doesn't" is ridiculous.
If its suddenly possible to do away with the Irish Sea border without a border in the island of Ireland or dynamic alignment then I wonder who will have the dignity and self-respect to admit they were wrong in insisting there must be a border somewhere?
"It's fragmented". The possessive pronoun doesn't make sense here.
The ECJ will still be in charge of ensuring no leakage into the EU via the land border, and there are interesting developments in giving Stormont representation when discussing Single Market issues.
Our biggest economic problem in my view is the long tail of unproductive firms. Since more productive firms are more likely to export, then solving that problem may also "fix" the problem you see with the current account deficit, of course. Raising barriers to exporting, as Brexit has done, will tend to make the problem of low productivity firms worse.
I would have far more respect for the lib dems if they declared they would rejoin the EU as that would be honest, but they too are dishonest by not declaring their objective and which I would suggest would be quite popular in their target seats
Labour have not put forward an alternative other than to commit to 170 billion without any idea how it is paid for, will not affirm they would reinstate the £20 UC uplift and would open unrestricted free movement of labour into the UK
But as I said, his racism doesn't even reach the top 10 reasons that I think him unfit for public office.
Someone here the other day was complaining about Morrisons being 'sold off'. Morrisons isn't owned by the state, it wasn't Boris's or anyone else in the governments decision to 'sell it off'.
The Chancellor has put in place tax incentives to boost investment but there's only so much the government can do if people don't wish to invest or wish to over consume. That's individual people making their own choices.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/eu-relationship
Currently that is being financed by sales of British assets, such as houses and London flats to foreign investors. I thought that you opposed that sort of thing?
I’m no fan of the PM or the Shambles of a govt but I don’t think he’s a racist and there really is little concrete to say he is.
The policy mix needed to improve our balance of payments is quite complicated but it is necessary. We need to encourage saving, we need to discourage consumption, we need to eliminate (over time) the deficit run by the government on public spending, we need to encourage domestic substitution and build mutually supportive industries and businesses in the way that London has done so spectacularly in services. We need to encourage growth outside London by reducing bottlenecks and disincentives generated by poor infrastructure. We need to focus our education more on employability. We need to massively increase apprenticeships and boost productivity. We see strands of much of this in government policy and indeed in Boris's speech but the urgency and scale seem to me to be lacking.
Besides there's almost never in negotiations a reason to "quickly agree" to the opening proposals that your counterparty offers. Even when the counterparty is doing so based upon your demands. Negotiations are about both parties trying to get as much as they can so the EU's opening proposals will be based upon that themselves - and they won't expect the UK to "quickly agree" to it either, not when three weeks of intense negotiations are already booked in.
Robbins and May "quickly agreeing" to all of the EU's proposals on day one of the negotiations is what led to this mess in the first place.
Couple of non-partisan questions that affect some private arrangements: I gather from one passing remark that traders think bank rate will rise soon from 0.1% to 0.75%. Is that indeed what's expected, and when is it likely to happen? And what do we think Rishi is going to come with?
There isn't a single switch to close the current account deficit in one go, nor is the government entirely responsible for doing so. People need to take responsibility for their own choices too.
https://twitter.com/spajw/status/1446437405607792640?s=21
He put the trap in and the EU walked blindly into it. Fantastic negotiations.
But typically, he threw it away for the giggles. Why did he choose to use the 'jocular' reference to women looking like 'letterboxes' and 'bank robbers'? For laughs, that's why. But some Muslim women found it offensive, and there was evidence of the debate provoking some racists to ridicule Muslim women in the street.
So no, Boris isn't a racist; but in 2018 some dog whistle jocularity had a real world impact. I don't think he would repeat it.
It’s hilarious! Not sure about the selfies but they’re not as bad as the takes!
‘These are big changes’
🤣
The combination of sub inflationary wage growth (with real pay cuts across many sectors), rising energy and food bills, increased NI, and fiscal drag on income tax thresholds is going to be quite some financial squeeze, even before we get rising interest rates.
Since case numbers have been fairly consistent for a while its reasonable to look at the ratio of deaths to cases. In Germany its 0.8%, in the UK its 0.3%, literally half the deaths per case than Germany are seeing.
Why? Because the UK is finding more cases and Germany aren't bothering to do so. And since its "deaths within 28 days" that means more deaths simply happening in the subsequent 28 days since you've got a larger pool to potentially die. In Germany people within 28 days of the virus could be dying but not counted since they're not being detected in the first place.