politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Analysing the best Prime Minister polling

Gardenwalker said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Gardenwalker said:

Gallowgate said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

Why must our welfare system change if we have 'hard' Brexit?

As Hammond says, we will need to regain competitiveness. The only way to do that is to reduce taxation. In turn this implies further cuts in government spending.

See also, Trump's emerging economic policy.

Yep, the next step in the process of globalisation is Brexit and Trump demolishing the welfare state.

Possibly a good thing, and for Tories not an issue, but it may well be for the Red, Purple and Tartan CDE's.

In what sense a good thing?
(Do you mean in terms of a wake up call for a complacent electorate)?

I don't think that a welfare state is sustainable with an ageing population, with high levels of chronic disease.

Gardenwalker said:

Gallowgate said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

Why must our welfare system change if we have 'hard' Brexit?

As Hammond says, we will need to regain competitiveness. The only way to do that is to reduce taxation. In turn this implies further cuts in government spending.

See also, Trump's emerging economic policy.

Hammond says the opposite.

We have to reduce taxation to attract more business paying a reduced rate but increasing the total tax take to allow us to maintain out social infrastructure.

foxinsoxuk said:

Gardenwalker said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Gardenwalker said:

Gallowgate said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

Why must our welfare system change if we have 'hard' Brexit?

As Hammond says, we will need to regain competitiveness. The only way to do that is to reduce taxation. In turn this implies further cuts in government spending.

See also, Trump's emerging economic policy.

Yep, the next step in the process of globalisation is Brexit and Trump demolishing the welfare state.

Possibly a good thing, and for Tories not an issue, but it may well be for the Red, Purple and Tartan CDE's.

In what sense a good thing?
(Do you mean in terms of a wake up call for a complacent electorate)?

I don't think that a welfare state is sustainable with an ageing population, with high levels of chronic disease.

Don't be daft. It's the only thing compatible with an aging population.

I've got to wonder whether the policy of allowing "businessmen with unclear sources of wealth" ("oligarchs") from Russia not just to reside and invest in Britain but to develop cosy relationships with British politicians, ministers, the royal family, intelligence officers, the media, Oxford and Cambridge universities, and headmasters of leading private schools, isn't going to return and give certain individuals and institutions in Britain an almighty bite on the arse.

There are two ways of looking at it regarding Boris Johnson.

One of these is to say poor old Boris: it was difficult for him as mayor of a city with an enormously influential and wealthy "Russian oligarch" presence.

Which political party comes out smelling least bad? It's not the Tories. It's not UKIP.

Funny how with all the xenophobia insistence on British independence, no political party in Britain has ever directed any criticism towards these Kremlin-connected criminals self-sacrificing men who have provided much-needed investment to an ailing island country.

Putin has enough information to............

But wait! The Tories are doing well in the polls! And they will be for at least five minutes!

Tip: don't expect to read heroically unbiased editorials about this area of British life in newspapers such as the Independent and the Evening Standard.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/820571269976432641

All part of negotiating and why not

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

Theresa May " I want a hard Brexit " = " I am shit at negotiating and we'll get nothing"

You really haven't a fvcking clue about negotiating, have you?

If as Brexiteers say that rule 1 of negotiating is to threaten to walk away if you don't get what you want, then why are they so keen to sign up to a pig in a poke offered by the Donald? surely we should be threatening him and NZ with no deal too?

CornishBlue said:

Gardenwalker said:

CornishBlue said:

Scott_P said:

@PaulBrandITV: Corbyn says Chancellor is threatening 'some kind of trade war' with the EU if we don't get the access to single market we want, with low tax

Can the Brexiteers sustain the myth that we voted for "trade war" ?

What's wrong with a trade war (which is hyperbole - we're talking about ordinary tax/tariff/currency policy)? It's competition. It's healthy. How do you think the world outside the EU works? Indeed the EU itself conducts a 'trade war' with the rest of the planet. Ask the African farmers.

It's not hyperbole, it's garbage.
By this logic the whole world is already in a "trade war".

Exactly. It is. It's the normal way of doing things. The alternative is a One World Government and stagnation.

Surely the penny of 'being a normal country' will drop with remoaners sooner or later.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/820571269976432641

All part of negotiating and why not

I think the 'why not' is because it's a horrendous distortion of what Hammond actually said.

If we're not in the Single Market, we'll be less attractive as a destination for foreign investment. The UK has other attributes that may compensate for that lack, but equally, they may not.

Therefore we have to be prepared to take other measures that do attempt to compensate, whether that's corporate tax rates or whatever.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Gardenwalker said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Gardenwalker said:

Gallowgate said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

Why must our welfare system change if we have 'hard' Brexit?

As Hammond says, we will need to regain competitiveness. The only way to do that is to reduce taxation. In turn this implies further cuts in government spending.

See also, Trump's emerging economic policy.

Yep, the next step in the process of globalisation is Brexit and Trump demolishing the welfare state.

Possibly a good thing, and for Tories not an issue, but it may well be for the Red, Purple and Tartan CDE's.

In what sense a good thing?
(Do you mean in terms of a wake up call for a complacent electorate)?

I don't think that a welfare state is sustainable with an ageing population, with high levels of chronic disease.

Don't be daft. It's the only thing compatible with an aging population.

Its not compatible as it is presently constructed and funded

An aging population is a good thing. A product of medicine and science, which will continue to improve quality of life as we age. We are not turning back.

Unless we're advocating general euthanasia, care will still have to be paid for whether it's done by the state of private means.

If the state steps out, then a comfortable old age will become an exclusive privilege of the rich.

That is not ok.

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

Theresa May " I want a hard Brexit " = " I am shit at negotiating and we'll get nothing"

You really haven't a fvcking clue about negotiating, have you?

If as Brexiteers say that rule 1 of negotiating is to threaten to walk away if you don't get what you want, then why are they so keen to sign up to a pig in a poke offered by the Donald? surely we should be threatening him and NZ with no deal too?

Thank you for your logic/content free contribution.

50 MPs, including those in areas served by Southern Trains, to back private members' bill later his month restricting strikes on critical infrastructure unless declared proportionate by a judge, and forcing unions to commit to running 50% service on strike days.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/14/fifty-mps-demand-anti-strike-laws-stop-misery-transport-unions/

Anyone here affected by the Southern dispute, from stories in the press it's been a completely nightmare for the best part of a year now?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

Theresa May " I want a hard Brexit " = " I am shit at negotiating and we'll get nothing"

You really haven't a fvcking clue about negotiating, have you?

If as Brexiteers say that rule 1 of negotiating is to threaten to walk away if you don't get what you want, then why are they so keen to sign up to a pig in a poke offered by the Donald? surely we should be threatening him and NZ with no deal too?

Has Trump offered us a deal already. Theresa May is telling the EU her bottom line - shame that David Cameron didn't do the same but we know Ivan Rogers, his adviser, was not up to it

Hopefully she sticks to it and does not do a Cameron. Issue is the paucity of talent in the UK team negotiating , those bufoons will be unlikely to be able to get a good deal.

Ally_B said:

old_labour said:

Looks like she is using her political capital for Brexit rather than a fake one.

Yep, she'll be toast by the time the next election comes round.

She will win the next election comfortably and be PM for the best part of the next decade

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

Theresa May " I want a hard Brexit " = " I am shit at negotiating and we'll get nothing"

You really haven't a fvcking clue about negotiating, have you?

If as Brexiteers say that rule 1 of negotiating is to threaten to walk away if you don't get what you want, then why are they so keen to sign up to a pig in a poke offered by the Donald? surely we should be threatening him and NZ with no deal too?

The UK already has trade agreements with the US (via GATT). They're already our #1 export partner (per ONS). I agree that we need to sup with a very long spoon - ISDS doesn't sound like our kind of thing.

The New Zealand deal is an example of where 'my' side makes me roll my eyes; the overall value of an FTA with NZ is approximately the square root of fuck all.

philiph said:

Gardenwalker said:

Gallowgate said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

Why must our welfare system change if we have 'hard' Brexit?

As Hammond says, we will need to regain competitiveness. The only way to do that is to reduce taxation. In turn this implies further cuts in government spending.

See also, Trump's emerging economic policy.

Hammond says the opposite.

We have to reduce taxation to attract more business paying a reduced rate but increasing the total tax take to allow us to maintain out social infrastructure.

What rubbish.
If it were that easy, why haven't we done it already,

Hammond is saying that hard Brexit will force us to become more competitive. There are only a few policy options available to us, but the obvious and easiest one is taxation rates.

It shouldn't be a surprise. This is in effect what "Singapore of the North Atlantic" means.

daodao said:

CarlottaVance said:

daodao said:

Ally_B said:

old_labour said:

Looks like she is using her political capital for Brexit rather than a fake one.

Yep, she'll be toast by the time the next election comes round.

I agree. The economic catastrophe that is likely to occur in the UK in the 12 months post Brexit in April 2019

Just like the economic catastrophe that happened in the 12 months post the vote?

As ever, Mr Meeks' glass is half empty. But I guess we should be grateful its only half.....

In the longer term, England may be better off as an independent state outside the EU. However, the short-term pain after actual Brexit (it hasn't happened yet) is likely to be significant. NZ took more than 20 years to recover after Commonwealth trade links were disrupted post the UK joining the (then) EEC.

I am less convinced about the benefits of leaving the EU for the Celtic fringe. The whole of Ireland would probably be better economically as a united 32-county republic within the EU; a hard border across Ulster (isolating 6 of its 9 counties) is likely to cause major problems. Wales is likely to suffer marked loss of funding post withdrawal from the EU. Scotland won't stay indefinitely within the UK given the level of support for the nationalists there - it will be gone if another 5% of its population change their view to favour independence .

Wales voted Leave, both Scotland and NI put controlling free movement ahead of full single market access in the latest Opinium poll today

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Gardenwalker said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Gardenwalker said:

Gallowgate said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

Why must our welfare system change if we have 'hard' Brexit?

As Hammond says, we will need to regain competitiveness. The only way to do that is to reduce taxation. In turn this implies further cuts in government spending.

See also, Trump's emerging economic policy.

Yep, the next step in the process of globalisation is Brexit and Trump demolishing the welfare state.

Possibly a good thing, and for Tories not an issue, but it may well be for the Red, Purple and Tartan CDE's.

In what sense a good thing?
(Do you mean in terms of a wake up call for a complacent electorate)?

I don't think that a welfare state is sustainable with an ageing population, with high levels of chronic disease.

Don't be daft. It's the only thing compatible with an aging population.

Its not compatible as it is presently constructed and funded

An aging population is a good thing. A product of medicine and science, which will continue to improve quality of life as we age. We are not turning back.

Unless we're advocating general euthanasia, care will still have to be paid for whether it's done by the state of private means.

If the state steps out, then a comfortable old age will become an exclusive privilege of the rich.

That is not ok.

The state cannot walk away but the burden of costs between state and private contribution is a very complex issue and needs general consensus.

Surprised that today's poll shows Theresa May and the Government more trusted on the NHS than Corbyn and Labour

Surprised you are surprised , Labour have lost the plot. Labour in Scotland are more right wing than the Tories and spend all their time supporting them , you could not make it up.

foxinsoxuk said:

Gardenwalker said:

Gallowgate said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

Why must our welfare system change if we have 'hard' Brexit?

As Hammond says, we will need to regain competitiveness. The only way to do that is to reduce taxation. In turn this implies further cuts in government spending.

See also, Trump's emerging economic policy.

Yep, the next step in the process of globalisation is Brexit and Trump demolishing the welfare state.

Possibly a good thing, and for Tories not an issue, but it may well be for the Red, Purple and Tartan CDE's.

Trump has a large number of spending priorities, he is no Rand Paul small stater

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

Theresa May " I want a hard Brexit " = " I am shit at negotiating and we'll get nothing"

Nope, she is simply recognising the British people voted Leave to regain sovereignty and control of their borders and while she wants the best trading relationship possible with the EU that is non negotiable

We saw a year ago what the alternative approach to dealing with the EU achieved, when Cameron was told to grasp his ankles and assume the position. May's approach has at least learnt from that.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

Theresa May " I want a hard Brexit " = " I am shit at negotiating and we'll get nothing"

You really haven't a fvcking clue about negotiating, have you?

If as Brexiteers say that rule 1 of negotiating is to threaten to walk away if you don't get what you want, then why are they so keen to sign up to a pig in a poke offered by the Donald? surely we should be threatening him and NZ with no deal too?

Has Trump offered us a deal already. Theresa May is telling the EU her bottom line - shame that David Cameron didn't do the same but we know Ivan Rogers, his adviser, was not up to it

Hopefully she sticks to it and does not do a Cameron. Issue is the paucity of talent in the UK team negotiating , those bufoons will be unlikely to be able to get a good deal.

Are you hinting that you may not be quite so anti Theresa May?

No , just that I see no alternative in a UK scenario. As I hav esaid often , Scotland would be better on its own following a centre left path but we will be tied to right wing as long as we are in the UK. I don't see Labour being an effective opposition for a long time in England, or ever in Scotland.

Dromedary said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Surely the penny of 'being a normal country' will drop with remoaners sooner or later.

Can you list some countries that you consider "normal"? Ones with a population between say 40 million and 100 million, and with an economy in the world's top 20 that is based around a sky-high Singapore-type financial centre preferred.

Well just to answer the 40m-100m population and top-20 economy part - I exclude EU members:

Turkey
Argentina
South Korea*
(the UK)*

Of course, if we expand the population threshold to 20m-200m we can also add:

Saudi Arabia*
Japan*
Brazil
Canada
Russia*
Australia*
Mexico

I have asterisked those that use currency/tariff/tax policy in a particularly robust manner to make their way in the world.

As you can see, plenty of normal countries out there for us to join.

TOPPING said:

So we have one option which is continue as is but with control over immigration and free from the ECJ. I would put that as a low probability.

Everything else looks likely to involve a huge structural societal change, together with dislocation and disruption.

Quite a set of unintended if wholly predictable consequences.

But that is what people voted for.
Painful as it is.

tyson said:

Gardenwalker said:

philiph said:

Gardenwalker said:

Gallowgate said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

Why must our welfare system change if we have 'hard' Brexit?

As Hammond says, we will need to regain competitiveness. The only way to do that is to reduce taxation. In turn this implies further cuts in government spending.

See also, Trump's emerging economic policy.

Hammond says the opposite.

We have to reduce taxation to attract more business paying a reduced rate but increasing the total tax take to allow us to maintain out social infrastructure.

What rubbish.
If it were that easy, why haven't we done it already,

Hammond is saying that hard Brexit will force us to become more competitive. There are only a few policy options available to us, but the obvious and easiest one is taxation rates.

It shouldn't be a surprise. This is in effect what "Singapore of the North Atlantic" means.

The Singapore of the Atlantic, yes.....except the fact that Singapore has an educated, literate motivated workforce, and excellent productivity and capital investment.

The part of our workforce that is educated, literate and motivated. i.e. European migrants will be precluded or just hacked off from coming here, and our productivity and capital investment is shit. Tax cuts will just make our rich elites wealthier.

To use John M's lovely metaphor.......we'll be left with the square root of fuck all.....

The part of our workforce that is educated, literate and motivated. i.e. European migrants

so all that education education education was a complete failure

tyson said:

Gardenwalker said:

philiph said:

Gardenwalker said:

Gallowgate said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

Why must our welfare system change if we have 'hard' Brexit?

As Hammond says, we will need to regain competitiveness. The only way to do that is to reduce taxation. In turn this implies further cuts in government spending.

See also, Trump's emerging economic policy.

Hammond says the opposite.

We have to reduce taxation to attract more business paying a reduced rate but increasing the total tax take to allow us to maintain out social infrastructure.

What rubbish.
If it were that easy, why haven't we done it already,

Hammond is saying that hard Brexit will force us to become more competitive. There are only a few policy options available to us, but the obvious and easiest one is taxation rates.

It shouldn't be a surprise. This is in effect what "Singapore of the North Atlantic" means.

The Singapore of the Atlantic, yes.....except the fact that Singapore has an educated, literate motivated workforce, and excellent productivity and capital investment.

The part of our workforce that is educated, literate and motivated. i.e. European migrants will be precluded or just hacked off from coming here, and our productivity and capital investment is shit. Tax cuts will just make our rich elites wealthier.

To use John M's lovely metaphor.......we'll be left with the square root of fuck all.....

Wow. You must hate your fellow Brits. Yes, many are useless, but there are millions of native Britons who are "educated, literate and motivated". Your answer - seemingly shared by the political elite - is to import people to displace our own. That's exactly why there is a Brexit and Trump democratic ("populist") revolt.

Alanbrooke said:

tyson said:

Gardenwalker said:

philiph said:

Gardenwalker said:

Gallowgate said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

Why must our welfare system change if we have 'hard' Brexit?

As Hammond says, we will need to regain competitiveness. The only way to do that is to reduce taxation. In turn this implies further cuts in government spending.

See also, Trump's emerging economic policy.

Hammond says the opposite.

We have to reduce taxation to attract more business paying a reduced rate but increasing the total tax take to allow us to maintain out social infrastructure.

What rubbish.
If it were that easy, why haven't we done it already,

Hammond is saying that hard Brexit will force us to become more competitive. There are only a few policy options available to us, but the obvious and easiest one is taxation rates.

It shouldn't be a surprise. This is in effect what "Singapore of the North Atlantic" means.

The Singapore of the Atlantic, yes.....except the fact that Singapore has an educated, literate motivated workforce, and excellent productivity and capital investment.

The part of our workforce that is educated, literate and motivated. i.e. European migrants will be precluded or just hacked off from coming here, and our productivity and capital investment is shit. Tax cuts will just make our rich elites wealthier.

To use John M's lovely metaphor.......we'll be left with the square root of fuck all.....

The part of our workforce that is educated, literate and motivated. i.e. European migrants

so all that education education education was a complete failure

All Brits are stupid, lazy morons, didn't you get the memo? All our migrants are from Europe - those Americans, Anzacs and Asians are all a figment of our imagination. Mark Carney is actually Portugese.

nielh said:

Sandpit said:

50 MPs, including those in areas served by Southern Trains, to back private members' bill later his month restricting strikes on critical infrastructure unless declared proportionate by a judge, and forcing unions to commit to running 50% service on strike days.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/14/fifty-mps-demand-anti-strike-laws-stop-misery-transport-unions/

Anyone here affected by the Southern dispute, from stories in the press it's been a completely nightmare for the best part of a year now?

9 months of hell for long distance commuters. Anyone commuting to a job wth regular hours in london has either been fired, quit, or at their wits end. The anger however is primarily with southern and not the trade unions in my experience

They would have a far better life not commuting for hours a day, it is their choice whether to do it or not. The company cannot allow the tail to wag the dog.

HYUFD said:

tyson said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

There was a great what if scenario if the channel winds had not prevailed against the Amada. Britain would be an insignificant, poor Catholic outpost where the locals enjoy getting drunk.

May's Brexit vision is truly dystopic for the UK. A dislocated part of Europe, desperately trying to curry favour with the tyrants of the world, cap in hand, and getting poorer.......

It was more nimble English ships and the fireships which destroyed the Armada

That's why your Brexit, and I'm not. You see the world through those tinted glasses.

CornishBlue said:

tyson said:

Gardenwalker said:

philiph said:

Gardenwalker said:

Gallowgate said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

Why must our welfare system change if we have 'hard' Brexit?

As Hammond says, we will need to regain competitiveness. The only way to do that is to reduce taxation. In turn this implies further cuts in government spending.

See also, Trump's emerging economic policy.

Hammond says the opposite.

We have to reduce taxation to attract more business paying a reduced rate but increasing the total tax take to allow us to maintain out social infrastructure.

What rubbish.
If it were that easy, why haven't we done it already,

Hammond is saying that hard Brexit will force us to become more competitive. There are only a few policy options available to us, but the obvious and easiest one is taxation rates.

It shouldn't be a surprise. This is in effect what "Singapore of the North Atlantic" means.

The Singapore of the Atlantic, yes.....except the fact that Singapore has an educated, literate motivated workforce, and excellent productivity and capital investment.

The part of our workforce that is educated, literate and motivated. i.e. European migrants will be precluded or just hacked off from coming here, and our productivity and capital investment is shit. Tax cuts will just make our rich elites wealthier.

To use John M's lovely metaphor.......we'll be left with the square root of fuck all.....

Wow. You must hate your fellow Brits. Yes, many are useless, but there are millions of native Britons who are "educated, literate and motivated". Your answer - seemingly shared by the political elite - is to import people to displace our own. That's exactly why there is a Brexit and Trump democratic ("populist") revolt.

Equally funny is he spouts it from Italy

HYUFD said:

tyson said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

There was a great what if scenario if the channel winds had not prevailed against the Amada. Britain would be an insignificant, poor Catholic outpost where the locals enjoy getting drunk.

May's Brexit vision is truly dystopic for the UK. A dislocated part of Europe, desperately trying to curry favour with the tyrants of the world, cap in hand, and getting poorer.......

It was more nimble English ships and the fireships which destroyed the Armada

There you go, Theresa May's critics were saying everything was just drifting around and catching fire, but it turns out there was a grand plan all along.

tyson said:

HYUFD said:

tyson said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

There was a great what if scenario if the channel winds had not prevailed against the Amada. Britain would be an insignificant, poor Catholic outpost where the locals enjoy getting drunk.

May's Brexit vision is truly dystopic for the UK. A dislocated part of Europe, desperately trying to curry favour with the tyrants of the world, cap in hand, and getting poorer.......

It was more nimble English ships and the fireships which destroyed the Armada

That's why your Brexit, and I'm not. You see the world through those tinted glasses.

True though and for the record I voted Remain (as indeed did Theresa May) but am now behind Brexit and making the best of it

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

Theresa May " I want a hard Brexit " = " I am shit at negotiating and we'll get nothing"

Nope, she is simply recognising the British people voted Leave to regain sovereignty and control of their borders and while she wants the best trading relationship possible with the EU that is non negotiable

We saw a year ago what the alternative approach to dealing with the EU achieved, when Cameron was told to grasp his ankles and assume the position. May's approach has at least learnt from that.

Yes, it was Cameron's very poor renegotiation which led to the Leave vote

This can't be said often enough. It was the key element in my decision to switch from unhappy Remainer to unhappy Leaver.

HYUFD said:

tyson said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

There was a great what if scenario if the channel winds had not prevailed against the Amada. Britain would be an insignificant, poor Catholic outpost where the locals enjoy getting drunk.

May's Brexit vision is truly dystopic for the UK. A dislocated part of Europe, desperately trying to curry favour with the tyrants of the world, cap in hand, and getting poorer.......

It was more nimble English ships and the fireships which destroyed the Armada

I'm far from being an expert on events, but surely the Armada was not *destroyed* off the Flanders coast; very few of their ships were sunk. Instead, the Spanish / French fleet were thrown into disarray after Gravelines. Weather did most of the damage to the Spanish fleet.

Though the actions did prevent the invasion by stopping Parma's men from boarding the Spanish ships.

It's interesting to consider what would have happened if Parma's army had embarked the barges and joined the fleet to attempt an invasion. With the Dutch onside with the English, it might not have ended well for the Spanish.

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

I don't think Hammond's interview was about destroying the NHS etc and of course a programme of austerity has been under way for some time, more it was about cutting corporation tax etc to a level more competitive than the EU average

Our corporation tax rate is already very low.
We could go further of course, but logically the next step is income tax for the wealthiest.

Ireland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Slovenia, Romania and Poland and Malta are all EU members with lower corporation tax than the UK. Finland has the same rate, the French rate starts 5% below the UK rate, the Dutch rate starts at the UK rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

Of course the 45% top rate of income tax is higher now than the 40% rate it was for the entirety of the Blair years

John_M said:

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

Theresa May " I want a hard Brexit " = " I am shit at negotiating and we'll get nothing"

Nope, she is simply recognising the British people voted Leave to regain sovereignty and control of their borders and while she wants the best trading relationship possible with the EU that is non negotiable

We saw a year ago what the alternative approach to dealing with the EU achieved, when Cameron was told to grasp his ankles and assume the position. May's approach has at least learnt from that.

Yes, it was Cameron's very poor renegotiation which led to the Leave vote

This can't be said often enough. It was the key element in my decision to switch from unhappy Remainer to unhappy Leaver.

May will not make the same mistake

John_M said:

edmundintokyo said:

MarqueeMark said:

Want the best health service in the world? Then get another 100,000 oligarchs to live here - and tax them. Get the Fortune 500 companies lured here by world beating corporation tax rates. Set up enterprise zones for world-beating new technologies, with slashed tax rates for the first 10 years.

Do all the stuff where we'll no longer need to go to Brussels to ask for permission.

Since when did Britain need to ask Brussels permission to cut its corporate tax rates?

EU corporate tax harmonisation is on the cards; Schauble supports it, and Ireland is presumably shitting itself. See:

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_taxud_006_ccctb_rm_en.pdf

No need for anybody to shit themselves, if the Irish don't like whatever the Commission comes up with then they'll vote against it, and it won't happen.

Gardenwalker said:

chestnut said:

TOPPING said:

Excellent so now we're adding reform of the housing benefit system as one of the ex-post reasons we voted Leave.

Not at all, but it is an obvious source of daft spending that should be turned to whether In or Out.

It's difficult to see the justification for long term, expensive housing subsidies for people just because they live in London.

London accounts for a quarter of the UK's total housing benefits' subsidy.

And probably more of its GDP. So what?

And burns up a lot more of its money as well to the detriment of the remainder of the UK. High time there was some joined up thinking for the UK and not just London.

malcolmg said:

CornishBlue said:

tyson said:

The part of our workforce that is educated, literate and motivated. i.e. European migrants will be precluded or just hacked off from coming here, and our productivity and capital investment is shit. Tax cuts will just make our rich elites wealthier.

To use John M's lovely metaphor.......we'll be left with the square root of fuck all.....

Wow. You must hate your fellow Brits. Yes, many are useless, but there are millions of native Britons who are "educated, literate and motivated". Your answer - seemingly shared by the political elite - is to import people to displace our own. That's exactly why there is a Brexit and Trump democratic ("populist") revolt.

Equally funny is he spouts it from Italy

Many British expats give as one of their main reasons for being expats that there are so many native prole scum in Britain, a country run by left-wing "luvvies" who dole them out free television sets, let them walk the streets without wearing neckbands controlled by whip-bearing alumni of boarding schools, and even allow them to get medical care that is free at the point of use, so that they can continue to haul their fat bellies from the council estates to Aldi's and back again. You used the right word, CornishBlue: "hate". The hatred for the lower orders may be higher in Britain than in any other country. The whole way the social elite sticks together rests on that hatred.

Now the "aging population" is becoming an issue, especially elderly people who aren't well-heeled.

isam said:

If Cameroons are so horrified by the PMs take on Brexit, all they have to do is vote Lib Dem at the next GE.

As many did in Richmond

edmundintokyo said:

John_M said:

edmundintokyo said:

MarqueeMark said:

Want the best health service in the world? Then get another 100,000 oligarchs to live here - and tax them. Get the Fortune 500 companies lured here by world beating corporation tax rates. Set up enterprise zones for world-beating new technologies, with slashed tax rates for the first 10 years.

Do all the stuff where we'll no longer need to go to Brussels to ask for permission.

Since when did Britain need to ask Brussels permission to cut its corporate tax rates?

EU corporate tax harmonisation is on the cards; Schauble supports it, and Ireland is presumably shitting itself. See:

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_taxud_006_ccctb_rm_en.pdf

No need for anybody to shit themselves, if the Irish don't like whatever the Commission comes up with then they'll vote against it, and it won't happen.

the Irish rolled over in the financial crisis, they'll do it again on tax when the time comes.

All Brits are stupid, lazy morons, didn't you get the memo? All our migrants are from Europe - those Americans, Anzacs and Asians are all a figment of our imagination. Mark Carney is actually Portugese.


@Above


I was using polemic to illustrate a point.....you do not need to take every word literally.
On a serious point though I do genuinely feel that the best part of the EU was free movement, even more so than the single market. How I met my wife, enabled my wife to move to England when we were just starting out our relationship, and for me to live in Italy hassle free,....my parents worked in Poland post retiring etc......

Now with Brexit we are forced to move back to England before the end of March. My Italian wife has ailing parents in Italy but will have to ration how much time she can see them because she has to now apply for permanent residency which severely restricts her time abroad (she has to go abroad too with work); either that or we bring her parents across to the UK at a huge cost to the NHS.

I am a natural liberal.....for people like me Brexit is imposing such restrictions on where and how I live my life in ways that I would have considered unthinkable a couple of years ago.

When people say Brexit is about bringing back control when I and my family are severely having ours restricted as a result makes me laugh.

Scott_P said:

SeanT said:

The EU will blink.

No, they really won't.

Quelle Jour! I agree with Scott about something. The EU is a political project, and I sometimes think we really don't understand how powerful that project is, or the degree to which the continent has bought into the idea.

Sophie Ridge to Farage "you failed to become an MP"

Farage "Thank goodness"

Why would he bother ever trying again? I just can't see the upside for him

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

In the future if Independant UK becomes a successful International free trading Nation how long before EU countries break away to do deals direct with the UK .

You are right, your bout of flu is making you hallucinate.

It has been dreadful. My wife and I have been laid low and I believe it is common across the UK. Indeed I would not be surprised if it accounted for some of the recent NHS pressures.

And yes it was one of my tongue in cheek comments

philiph said:

Gardenwalker said:

Gallowgate said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

Why must our welfare system change if we have 'hard' Brexit?

As Hammond says, we will need to regain competitiveness. The only way to do that is to reduce taxation. In turn this implies further cuts in government spending.

See also, Trump's emerging economic policy.

Hammond says the opposite.

We have to reduce taxation to attract more business paying a reduced rate but increasing the total tax take to allow us to maintain out social infrastructure.

Hammond is being clever.

He's saying we'd to be a European-style economy with corresponding tax and regulation systems (i.e. aligned with you and the EU and on your side) but if you act like vindictive children, and shut us out, we'll do something very different and slash corporation tax and regulations - i.e. be like Singapore.

We know the EU is already very worried about this, and the fact much of their corporate tax base might migrate to London, so it's a good tactic to use.

I think the other analogy of May (bad cop) and Hammond (good cop) is a good one to use.

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Gardenwalker said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Gardenwalker said:

Gallowgate said:

Gardenwalker said:

It's a fair and clear appraisal from Hammond.

He continues to impress, or perhaps is flattered by comparison with his cabinet colleagues.

If we do indeed have a hard Brexit, with the economic dislocation Hammond implies, what is going to give? The country did not vote Brexit in order to dismantle the social welfare system, but logic says it must follow.

Why must our welfare system change if we have 'hard' Brexit?

As Hammond says, we will need to regain competitiveness. The only way to do that is to reduce taxation. In turn this implies further cuts in government spending.

See also, Trump's emerging economic policy.

Yep, the next step in the process of globalisation is Brexit and Trump demolishing the welfare state.

Possibly a good thing, and for Tories not an issue, but it may well be for the Red, Purple and Tartan CDE's.

In what sense a good thing?
(Do you mean in terms of a wake up call for a complacent electorate)?

I don't think that a welfare state is sustainable with an ageing population, with high levels of chronic disease.

Don't be daft. It's the only thing compatible with an aging population.

Its not compatible as it is presently constructed and funded

An aging population is a good thing. A product of medicine and science, which will continue to improve quality of life as we age. We are not turning back.

Unless we're advocating general euthanasia, care will still have to be paid for whether it's done by the state of private means.

If the state steps out, then a comfortable old age will become an exclusive privilege of the rich.

That is not ok.

An aging population is a good thing.

What isn't a good thing (economically) is a forever aging population that expects not to work, and therefore has to be supported by an ever smaller proportion of working age people.

If we all lived to 100, say, and worked until 85 with pensions and benefits all aligned to that, there'd be no problem at all.