politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Life comes at you fast these days doesn’t it Mrs May?
Options
Comments
-
Careful, we don't know whether the current MP for Thanet South is actually guilty of anything yet...Pulpstar said:
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.Tykejohnno said:Osborne is making me feel sorry for may and have contempt for him.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/874008544630190081
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.0 -
If soft Brexit is now back on the agenda, why not get the Lib Dems back on board at some point? After all, their leader and the DUP have a lot in common on some issues...Pulpstar said:
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.Tykejohnno said:Osborne is making me feel sorry for may and have contempt for him.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/874008544630190081
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.
0 -
Shame she didn't "tear it up" before the launch.Scott_P said: 0 -
You don't remember British Leyland do you?williamglenn said:
If only Aston Martin were nationalised it would be able to meet the demand, and provide much more employment.AlastairMeeks said:0 -
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.stevef said:I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
0 -
Well she needs people in there who live in the real world for the next Tory manifesto.Scott_P said:0 -
If the choice is presented as soft Brexit versus Corbyn that should help the cause.SouthamObserver said:Yep - I have seen that. It's a very big opportunity for a clever Tory party. A soft Brexit would win them back a lot of support, I'd guess. Not sure the Tories are all that clever though. Too many anti-EU zealots in too many important places - and a PM who dare not cross the right wing press.
0 -
LOL!Mortimer said:
Absolutely tremendous post.rcs1000 said:
It really isn't.foxinsoxuk said:
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.another_richard said:Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.0 -
I don't think so. At least in the cabinet Gove seemed to be genuinely guided by making policy based on what was right (or what he thought was right) rather than what would be electorally popular. Osborne's entire time at the Treasury was based on trying to make electorally popular moves under the cover of "long term economic plan". Of course he instigated unpopular cuts as well, but of course the blame for those fell on the departments.SouthamObserver said:
Sounds like Gove.Casino_Royale said:
Here's the problem: he's massively unpopular.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.Tykejohnno said:Osborne is making me feel sorry for may and have contempt for him.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/874008544630190081
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
What was it? Only 2% of the electorate liked him?
He's a clever guy, talented, and very capable. But, he's also got a reputation as someone who revels in deception and manipulation that he hasn't done much to shake.
0 -
Hold that thought...SouthamObserver said:Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
@OwenJones84: We now know that Labour didn't lose in 2015 for being too left-wing. Labour lost for not being radical enough.0 -
I reckon a by election in Scotland, and George will win.Pulpstar said:
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.Tykejohnno said:Osborne is making me feel sorry for may and have contempt for him.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/874008544630190081
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.
George would make a fine MP for Glasgow or Dundee.
Sir Winston Churchill was an MP for Dundee too.0 -
Ha.williamglenn said:
If only Aston Martin were nationalised it would be able to meet the demand, and provide much more employment.AlastairMeeks said:0 -
Ah good, I was wondering what Diana had been up to recently.Scott_P said:0 -
Why did they lose in 2017?Scott_P said:
Hold that thought...SouthamObserver said:Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
@OwenJones84: We now know that Labour didn't lose in 2015 for being too left-wing. Labour lost for not being radical enough.0 -
It clearly keeps you happy! I didn't get the astroturfing bit, by the way.Mortimer said:
Like ScottP's hilarious response to the Monty Hall problem, IOS' 'ground game', Mr Eagles' red shoes, I'm guessing now my slathering over the prospects of Mrs May in this election, and many other humourous events, Bobajob is known for having had several dozen* accounts in the past year or so.Chameleon said:
Okay, sorry about that then! I'm just painfully aware that Bobajob and myself overlap on a number of areas.Mortimer said:
No - not aimed at you at all Mr Chameleon.Chameleon said:
I'm not sure whether this is pointed at me or not, but I'm sure that any PB mod would be glad to vouch that I'm not Bobajob. Perhaps the reason why multiple young people on this site fight the same cause on here... is because that's what the young are like in real life as well.Mortimer said:Mr Meeks has won post of the day at least 3 times in the last half an hour.
Amazed to see Mr Shillingajob still with the same username as last week. Same old boring astroturfing, mind...
*I am of course exaggerating, but not much.0 -
Why the f*** didn't she tear it up BEFORE it was released? She'd be sitting on a solid majority, queen of the world .... aaaarrrrgghhhh!Tykejohnno said:
Well she needs people in there who live in the real world for the next Tory manifesto.Scott_P said:0 -
Mike's holiday starts in just over a fortnight.
I can relax and put my feet up can't I?0 -
0
-
Labour correctly calculated there were votes to be profitably gained from middle-class households here.AlastairMeeks said:
Only because I haven't got angry enough.atia2 said:
The public will is also settled on Aston Martins.AlastairMeeks said:
I didn't make any implicit assumption. I explicitly stated: "both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place".atia2 said:
I never said they had, nor was your point reliant on that irrelevant fact.AlastairMeeks said:
Not too subtle, too stupid.atia2 said:
TooAlastairMeeks said:
It must be non sequitur Sunday.atia2 said:
Or your cancer treatment?AlastairMeeks said:The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.
If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?
Care and support services have never been free under the NHS.
My point is that you can replace Aston Martin in your example with cancer treatment, or indeed anything. It sounds ludicrous if the thing is a luxury good, and not so ludicrous if it resembles a public service. The fundamental question we have to answer is whether we should consider university education and dementia care things which should be collectivised as public services, or not. You facetious remark contained an implicit assumption that we should not, and yet I assume you agree that we should consider cancer treatment as such.
Your "fundamental question" was precisely the one I was getting at. People always love free stuff. I see no compelling reason why those who are likely to have the best earning ability should be completely subsidised by those who are likely to have lesser earning ability and I see no compelling reason why those with substantial assets should be completely subsidised for a cost that relates to them personally, in the absence of any real evidence that the public want the risks collectivised for the asset rich.
Raising cancer treatment is a complete non sequitur, given that the public will on this is long-settled.
The idea that it's every codger's God-given right to pass on their house as an inheritance is very adventurous, but that seems to be current Labour party policy.0 -
TheTelegraph has had its worldview comprehensively trashed and is still at the denial stage of the change curve. None of today's comment articles came anywhere close to appreciating what has happened or why.rottenborough said:0 -
calmer heads not much in evidence at the momentSouthamObserver said:
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.stevef said:I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
0 -
It's really sad isn't it. France has much wrong with it, but their respect for politicians seemsan awful lot better than ours. I'm wishing Macron very well.rcs1000 said:
LOL!Mortimer said:
Absolutely tremendous post.rcs1000 said:
It really isn't.foxinsoxuk said:
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.another_richard said:Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.
0 -
Rather, we do know he's not guilty of anything (yet or otherwise).GIN1138 said:
Careful, we don't know whether the current MP for Thanet South is actually guilty of anything yet...Pulpstar said:
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.Tykejohnno said:Osborne is making me feel sorry for may and have contempt for him.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/874008544630190081
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.0 -
And here is why there is such a dearth of talent in the cabinet in a nutshell.rcs1000 said:
LOL!Mortimer said:
Absolutely tremendous post.rcs1000 said:
It really isn't.foxinsoxuk said:
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.another_richard said:Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.0 -
If there's one thing (with the exception of that LVT....silly mistake I made there) that I've learned over the last seven years, it's to not pay attention to the Telegraph. They've totally lost the plot ever since the Conservatives decided to go into coalition with the Liberal Democrats.rottenborough said:0 -
I've realised that the Conservative Party did me a huge favour by rejecting my application to get on the candidates' list. I would have hated being a candidate or MP.rcs1000 said:
LOL!Mortimer said:
Absolutely tremendous post.rcs1000 said:
It really isn't.foxinsoxuk said:
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.another_richard said:Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.0 -
We should be so lucky. When Churchill was MP here he fell out with DC Thomson who then refused to mention him in the Courier and he subsequently lost his seat. After he died biographers found that DC Thomson had one of the best archives of Churchill in the country.TheScreamingEagles said:
I reckon a by election in Scotland, and George will win.Pulpstar said:
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.Tykejohnno said:Osborne is making me feel sorry for may and have contempt for him.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/874008544630190081
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.
George would make a fine MP for Glasgow or Dundee.
Sir Winston Churchill was an MP for Dundee too.0 -
Doubt that's true. What were Hollande's approval ratings at the end?Mortimer said:
It's really sad isn't it. France has much wrong with it, but their respect for politicians seemsan awful lot better than ours.rcs1000 said:
LOL!Mortimer said:
Absolutely tremendous post.rcs1000 said:
It really isn't.foxinsoxuk said:
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.another_richard said:Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.
0 -
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.ReggieCide said:
calmer heads not much in evidence at the momentSouthamObserver said:
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.stevef said:I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
0 -
Seconded. And there are tens of thousands like you.rcs1000 said:
LOL!Mortimer said:
Absolutely tremendous post.rcs1000 said:
It really isn't.foxinsoxuk said:
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.another_richard said:Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.
And people wonder why the pool of talent in politics is so low.0 -
I said the same on day one. It was terrible.Tykejohnno said:
Did you see Nigel Evans rant about it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlWBrBK9bsA0 -
You've jinxed it now. May will resign within hours......TheScreamingEagles said:Mike's holiday starts in just over a fortnight.
I can relax and put my feet up can't I?0 -
It's pure Trumponomics (except the top 5% taxes). My only hope is that unlike with Brexit and Trump, the voters will get a second chance to confirm that that's really the path they want to go down before it happens...glw said:
It's madness. Very generous tax breaks, very high spending plans, huge borrowing, some very anti-business policies, and the barmy idea that all of this can be sorted out by taxing the top 5% and most mobile part of the population. Does anybody here think this could actually work?AlastairMeeks said:Only because I haven't got angry enough.
The idea that it's every codger's God-given right to pass on their house as an inheritance is very adventurous, but that seems to be current Labour party policy.0 -
lolStereotomy said:
Ah good, I was wondering what Diana had been up to recently.Scott_P said:0 -
Out of interest, did they give a reason? Was it because you had principles?Sean_F said:
I've realised that the Conservative Party did me a huge favour by rejecting my application to get on the candidates' list. I would have hated being a candidate or MP.rcs1000 said:
LOL!Mortimer said:
Absolutely tremendous post.rcs1000 said:
It really isn't.foxinsoxuk said:
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.another_richard said:Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.0 -
In my limited experience, big budget infrastructure projects rarely cost out as projected within the planning horizon, but they deliver benefits far beyond those horizons. We are still benefiting from the investment decisions of those that built the first London Underground lines more than one hundred years ago.
Unless we decide never to take on ambitious capital projects, we only go ahead on projects that have unrealistic projections. How do you sensibly decide which projects to take on? In practice it's those that make it through the hoops, at each one of which the project could be canned. It doesn't seem the best way of setting priorities but I guess it works after a fashion.0 -
The longer Tmay can carry on (until summer recess perhaps and Tory leadership change before conference?) and make corbyns claims to be ready to form a Govt seem ever more preposterous that might help slow labours momentum. I think many corbynistas do think theyve won and Yes they massively beat expectations but they still lost heavily and for the 3rd time in a GE.0
-
UK net contributions to the EU are about 0.4% of GDP.glw said:
Trident annualised cost is about 0.15% of GDP, scrapping it wouldn't even produce a noticeable improvement in say the NHS.Pulpstar said:There are some big wastes of cash in this country:
HS2, Trident, Hinkley point. Nuclear weapons make us a target in any future world war, reasonably convinced of that.0 -
North Korea is bound to do something really stupid sooner or later.TheScreamingEagles said:Mike's holiday starts in just over a fortnight.
I can relax and put my feet up can't I?0 -
What the National or this front page?Theuniondivvie said:See these smart lads..
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/8739075305897656330 -
Anyhoo, I'm glad Mrs May took my advice about bringing Gove back into the cabinet.
Hopefully she'll take the rest of my advice.0 -
Ha, ha.Scott_P said:
Hold that thought...SouthamObserver said:Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
@OwenJones84: We now know that Labour didn't lose in 2015 for being too left-wing. Labour lost for not being radical enough.
Reports are that Labour is heading towards having one million members (800,000 and counting, 150,000 new members since the GE). I think that at some stage the numbers get too big for the far left to dominate in the way they do now. If you were a dyed in the wool Corbynista you would already be a Labour member, after all.
0 -
Well the law says he is innocent at this time and will remain so until such time he is proved guilty.Drutt said:
Rather, we do know he's not guilty of anything (yet or otherwise).GIN1138 said:
Careful, we don't know whether the current MP for Thanet South is actually guilty of anything yet...Pulpstar said:
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.Tykejohnno said:Osborne is making me feel sorry for may and have contempt for him.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/874008544630190081
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.0 -
Tens of thousands like Robert?Casino_Royale said:
Seconded. And there are tens of thousands like you.rcs1000 said:
LOL!Mortimer said:
Absolutely tremendous post.rcs1000 said:
It really isn't.foxinsoxuk said:
The biggest problem...another_richard said:Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.
And people wonder why the pool of talent in politics is so low.
Firstly, can we make sure they're the 'tens of thousands' that come to live here post Brexit?
Secondly, Minister, implying that the web guru of your favourite politics site is far from unique is a 'brave choice'... 0 -
Lack of media skills.Chameleon said:
Out of interest, did they give a reason? Was it because you had principles?Sean_F said:
I've realised that the Conservative Party did me a huge favour by rejecting my application to get on the candidates' list. I would have hated being a candidate or MP.rcs1000 said:
LOL!Mortimer said:
Absolutely tremendous post.rcs1000 said:
It really isn't.foxinsoxuk said:
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.another_richard said:Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.0 -
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/874015290643943425
LOL,Have we here another labour and numbers problem ;-)
https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon/status/8736504411245486080 -
-
they weren't radical enough! Please try to keep up.alex. said:
Why did they lose in 2017?Scott_P said:
Hold that thought...SouthamObserver said:Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
@OwenJones84: We now know that Labour didn't lose in 2015 for being too left-wing. Labour lost for not being radical enough.0 -
I don't think anything can kill them off inside Labour, not for a while at least. As I said previously, Labour'smanifesto necessitates a much harder Brexit than whatever the Tories were going to deliver before the election.SouthamObserver said:
They lost the election. Neither Corbyn nor McDonnell will ever support a no deal Brexit or a Tory hard Brexit. It would kill them off inside Labour.Scott_P said:
Ummm, both Corbyn and McDonnel this morning on live TV said they want to walk away from the single marketSouthamObserver said:me and many others genuinely believe that the kind of Brexit strategy being discussed by the Tories in the lead up to the 8th June - one which saw the EU27 as our enemies and the negotiations a confrontation, and which we were seriously saying we might walk away from - would be deeply damaging to the UK's interests and the living standards of many millions of its citizens. To see the chances of that kind of Brexit recede so significantly was a massive relief and a deep joy.
0 -
That is cheap for what it gets us !Barnesian said:
UK net contributions to the EU are about 0.4% of GDP.glw said:
Trident annualised cost is about 0.15% of GDP, scrapping it wouldn't even produce a noticeable improvement in say the NHS.Pulpstar said:There are some big wastes of cash in this country:
HS2, Trident, Hinkley point. Nuclear weapons make us a target in any future world war, reasonably convinced of that.0 -
DebunkedSouthamObserver said:Reports are that Labour is heading towards having one million members (800,000 and counting, 150,000 new members since the GE). I think that at some stage the numbers get too big for the far left to dominate in the way they do now. If you were a dyed in the wool Corbynista you would already be a Labour member, after all.
https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/8740152906439434250 -
Nationalize the banks.ReggieCide said:
they weren't radical enough! Please try to keep up.alex. said:
Why did they lose in 2017?Scott_P said:
Hold that thought...SouthamObserver said:Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
@OwenJones84: We now know that Labour didn't lose in 2015 for being too left-wing. Labour lost for not being radical enough.0 -
-
That reading was floated by Matthew Parris on Newsnight, and I think that analysis doesn't work for several reasons:rottenborough said:
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.ReggieCide said:
calmer heads not much in evidence at the momentSouthamObserver said:
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.stevef said:I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
- Corbyn actually became MORE popular over the course of the campaign, with the ratings rising (are continuing to rise) as May's crashed. If voters were voting for Labour despite Corbyn, this wouldn't have happened.
- It was made clear by certain polls/models publicised by the press that the Tories were unlikely to win a landslide (due to narrowing lead), and I think polling over the course of the campaign showed the public were becoming less confident in the Tories winning a large majority.
- In the recent Survation poll - post-election - Labour have taken a 6% lead. If voters, having seen the result voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wasn't going to become PM, they wouldn't still be sticking with Labour.0 -
Nigel Evans for Tory leader! Eloquent, passionate, not a moron - sold!GIN1138 said:
I said the same on day one. It was terrible.Tykejohnno said:
Did you see Nigel Evans rant about it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlWBrBK9bsA0 -
On that basis the Gover is too stupid to recognise a parody of a parody. You'd have thought the MI5 & UF on the side of the van might have been a hint.DavidL said:
What the National or this front page?Theuniondivvie said:See these smart lads..
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/873907530589765633
Of course he was the sharp mind that assured us that Scotland would vote for Brexit.0 -
Can I just say that the post election analysis on here is second to none. So much better than the pre election tensions. Thanks to all involved, and especially OGH, OGH Jnr and TSE.
Oh, and the jokes are funnier too.0 -
Of course, no doubt we will get a thread on it's merits before we reach the next leadership contest (Swinson will almost certainly be one the candidates and probably the favourite in my opinion assuming that she would want the job)Pulpstar said:
Whats the voting system ?Quincel said:
Complete anecdote, but the members of my local party who I know seem to really like her. I don't actually know much about her, but they talk about her like she walks on water. So if the other members in my area and other areas are the same then she'll walk the next leadership election.Andy_Cooke said:
Jo Swinson is a name that's being bandied about.rcs1000 said:
Sure.another_richard said:
Although Southport showed that when an LibDem retires they struggle to hold the seat.rcs1000 said:
They also increased their number of seats by 50%, and came within about four hundred votes of doubling their representation. Another election might well see them capture St Ives, Richmond Park, Fife NE and Cheltenham.dr_spyn said:LD candidates lost 375 deposits, Farron must be wary of a push for another General Election.
While things obviously didn't play out as well for them as they'd hoped at the beginning of the campaign, I suspect senior LibDems feel they've done OK.
Which means they'll now have problems getting back Ceredigion, Leeds NW and Hallam and also suggests that we need to keep a track of how old the LibDem MPs are.
But the seats they gained this time were all ex-LD seats - Edinburgh West, OxWAb, Bath, CS&ER, Twickenham, Kingston, Eastbourne. And of those, the first four were all with new candidates.
Frankly, the LDs need a new leader and a bit of luck. If they get that, they can be back at 20-odd seats next time around.
Which is rather what the odds suggest too, with Cable also favoured.
I try not to bet on leadership elections though, barring good polling (rare) it's too hard to get a representative sense of the electorate.
Is AV used ?
0 -
-
Yeah Corbyn and Trump are both channelling legitimate public grievances, and both of them propose nonsensical solutions.blueblue said:
It's pure Trumponomics (except the top 5% taxes). My only hope is that unlike with Brexit and Trump, the voters will get a second chance to confirm that that's really the path they want to go down before it happens...glw said:
It's madness. Very generous tax breaks, very high spending plans, huge borrowing, some very anti-business policies, and the barmy idea that all of this can be sorted out by taxing the top 5% and most mobile part of the population. Does anybody here think this could actually work?AlastairMeeks said:Only because I haven't got angry enough.
The idea that it's every codger's God-given right to pass on their house as an inheritance is very adventurous, but that seems to be current Labour party policy.0 -
Beware of extrapolating from small datasets.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Probably right. Probably also right that a lot of people voted leave because remain were going to win anyway, so it was a safe protest against gay marriage/Osborne being a prat.rottenborough said:
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.ReggieCide said:
calmer heads not much in evidence at the momentSouthamObserver said:
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.stevef said:I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
I think we should follow the Swiss in having so many bloody referendums that people get bored of twatting about and actually answer the question the referendum/election is asking them.0 -
Yeah! We get to pay money AND be slapped down.Pulpstar said:
That is cheap for what it gets us !Barnesian said:
UK net contributions to the EU are about 0.4% of GDP.glw said:
Trident annualised cost is about 0.15% of GDP, scrapping it wouldn't even produce a noticeable improvement in say the NHS.Pulpstar said:There are some big wastes of cash in this country:
HS2, Trident, Hinkley point. Nuclear weapons make us a target in any future world war, reasonably convinced of that.
I have a friend in the BSDM "community", and the going rate is normally more like 2% of income.0 -
-
Yes, we agree. I say he's not guilty, and I add "yet or otherwise" because if I said "yet", or explicitly didn't, it might be seen to be taking a punt at the outcome of the trial.GIN1138 said:
Well the law says he is innocent at this time and will remain so until such time he is proved guilty.Drutt said:
Rather, we do know he's not guilty of anything (yet or otherwise).GIN1138 said:
Careful, we don't know whether the current MP for Thanet South is actually guilty of anything yet...Pulpstar said:
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.Tykejohnno said:Osborne is making me feel sorry for may and have contempt for him.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/874008544630190081
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.
And I wouldn't take a punt at the outcome of a trial; not after this week. There's no NOM market to recover my 10.01 losses...0 -
He was campaigning for Brexit, what was he supposed to say? "Oh, we've got no chance up here." It is as ridiculous as Nicola claiming she couldn't win a second referendum.Theuniondivvie said:
On that basis the Gover is too stupid to recognise a parody of a parody. You'd have thought the MI5 & UF on the side of the van might have been a hint.DavidL said:
What the National or this front page?Theuniondivvie said:See these smart lads..
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/873907530589765633
Of course he was the sharp mind that assured us that Scotland would vote for Brexit.0 -
Nigel Evans is good and right.GIN1138 said:
I said the same on day one. It was terrible.Tykejohnno said:
Did you see Nigel Evans rant about it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlWBrBK9bsA0 -
That may or may not be the case and if it was then that may or may not be the future. The passage of time may or may not tell us more. There, that's decisive for you.rottenborough said:
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.ReggieCide said:
calmer heads not much in evidence at the momentSouthamObserver said:
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.stevef said:I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?0 -
Happy birthday to the Atlas rocket: first launched sixty years ago today. The first launch was not a success:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WP0wbeSce8
But the current version is still going strong0 -
After seeing what hubris did to May you'd hoe he'd be more circumspect. Having said that I thought May would limp on. Bringing back Gove tells me beyond doubt she's now finished. A beached whaleScott_P said:0 -
I wonder if Nicola will be out before May...
@Ben_Wray1989: Curtice: "90% of yes voters in the 2014 referendum voted SNP in the 2015 General Election - only 75% of yes voters backed SNP in #GE2017."0 -
Don't mention DCThomson again. The family is nice. Their choice of spouses is not.DavidL said:
We should be so lucky. When Churchill was MP here he fell out with DC Thomson who then refused to mention him in the Courier and he subsequently lost his seat. After he died biographers found that DC Thomson had one of the best archives of Churchill in the country.TheScreamingEagles said:
I reckon a by election in Scotland, and George will win.Pulpstar said:
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.Tykejohnno said:Osborne is making me feel sorry for may and have contempt for him.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/874008544630190081
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.
George would make a fine MP for Glasgow or Dundee.
Sir Winston Churchill was an MP for Dundee too.0 -
The robots, weirdos and clowns in the cabinet have failed to earn any respectMortimer said:
It's really sad isn't it. France has much wrong with it, but their respect for politicians seemsan awful lot better than ours. I'm wishing Macron very well.rcs1000 said:
LOL!Mortimer said:
Absolutely tremendous post.rcs1000 said:
It really isn't.foxinsoxuk said:
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.another_richard said:Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.0 -
I'm not sure most of the public will have noticed these details.The_Apocalypse said:
That reading was floated by Matthew Parris on Newsnight, and I think that analysis doesn't work for several reasons:rottenborough said:
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.ReggieCide said:
calmer heads not much in evidence at the momentSouthamObserver said:
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.stevef said:I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
- Corbyn actually became MORE popular over the course of the campaign, with the ratings rising (are continuing to rise) as May's crashed. If voters were voting for Labour despite Corbyn, this wouldn't have happened.
- It was made clear by certain polls/models publicised by the press that the Tories were unlikely to win a landslide (due to narrowing lead), and I think polling over the course of the campaign showed the public were becoming less confident in the Tories winning a large majority.
- In the recent Survation poll - post-election - Labour have taken a 6% lead. If voters, having seen the result voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wasn't going to become PM, they wouldn't still be sticking with Labour.0 -
If she was doing that would she still be trying to put together a cabinet? At least one she was still a member of?TheScreamingEagles said:Anyhoo, I'm glad Mrs May took my advice about bringing Gove back into the cabinet.
Hopefully she'll take the rest of my advice.0 -
Corbyn is on 45% with Survation, with May on 39%. I expect the Yougov will show similiarly.rcs1000 said:
Beware of extrapolating from small datasets.TheScreamingEagles said:
He is ahead, and would win 0 -
What does this mean? Status quo I assume given that they're never going to be admitted.nunu said:0 -
Re Owen Jones' comments.
50% of his tweet is true, the other 50%....not so much. He's right that Labour did not lose in 2015 because they were 'too left-wing'. Toby Young tried to argue that literally hours after the GE. Ed M's loss was more rooted in failed triangulation than anything else.0 -
You jest, but I suspect that Corbyn and McDonnell would like to nationalise a lot more than they let on. Their reasoning would apply to certainly all utilities and any industry where monopolies or oligopolies can arise. In other-words a very large chunk of UK business.rottenborough said:Nationalize the banks.
0 -
always on call to prove a point! Cheers Mr Job!Bobajob_PB said:
The robots, weirdos and clowns in the cabinet have failed to earn any respectMortimer said:
It's really sad isn't it. France has much wrong with it, but their respect for politicians seemsan awful lot better than ours. I'm wishing Macron very well.rcs1000 said:
LOL!Mortimer said:
Absolutely tremendous post.rcs1000 said:
It really isn't.foxinsoxuk said:
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.another_richard said:Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else. 0 -
A curious remark. Care to elucidate?Charles said:
Don't mention DCThomson again. The family is nice. Their choice of spouses is not.DavidL said:
We should be so lucky. When Churchill was MP here he fell out with DC Thomson who then refused to mention him in the Courier and he subsequently lost his seat. After he died biographers found that DC Thomson had one of the best archives of Churchill in the country.TheScreamingEagles said:
I reckon a by election in Scotland, and George will win.Pulpstar said:
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.Tykejohnno said:Osborne is making me feel sorry for may and have contempt for him.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/874008544630190081
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.
George would make a fine MP for Glasgow or Dundee.
Sir Winston Churchill was an MP for Dundee too.0 -
Eastbourne's reputation for old people is a bit out of date. I think the result there was much more about a very hard working local candidate.foxinsoxuk said:
I hadn't spotted that as a particular feature. Are all the LD seats in areas with older than average populations? It would make sense of where they won, and where they lost to Labour.MaxPB said:
The Tories lost too many of those seats due to the dementia tax policy. OxWAb, Bath, Twickenham and Eastbourne all have high value property anda fairly large number of older voters.rcs1000 said:
Sure.another_richard said:
Although Southport showed that when an LibDem retires they struggle to hold the seat.rcs1000 said:
They also increased their number of seats by 50%, and came within about four hundred votes of doubling their representation. Another election might well see them capture St Ives, Richmond Park, Fife NE and Cheltenham.dr_spyn said:LD candidates lost 375 deposits, Farron must be wary of a push for another General Election.
While things obviously didn't play out as well for them as they'd hoped at the beginning of the campaign, I suspect senior LibDems feel they've done OK.
Which means they'll now have problems getting back Ceredigion, Leeds NW and Hallam and also suggests that we need to keep a track of how old the LibDem MPs are.
But the seats they gained this time were all ex-LD seats - Edinburgh West, OxWAb, Bath, CS&ER, Twickenham, Kingston, Eastbourne. And of those, the first four were all with new candidates.
Frankly, the LDs need a new leader and a bit of luck. If they get that, they can be back at 20-odd seats next time around.0 -
SeanT and the other bed wetters were right though.Mortimer said:Can I just say that the post election analysis on here is second to none. So much better than the pre election tensions. Thanks to all involved, and especially OGH, OGH Jnr and TSE.
Oh, and the jokes are funnier too.0 -
Are the Tories still be going to be able to push through the boundary changes in 2018 they were planning for the next election -boundary changes which would benefit them? Will the DUP support the Tories on this, given that it might reduce their numbers?0
-
Did the Labour manifesto actually say anything about the Bank of England? Because it seems inconceivable that they wouldn't want to reverse the Independence of said institution from the Government. Given all their plans to borrow from it, and all?glw said:
You jest, but I suspect that Corbyn and McDonnell would like to nationalise a lot more than they let on. Their reasoning would apply to certainly all utilities and any industry where monopolies or oligopolies can arise. In other-words a very large chunk of UK business.rottenborough said:Nationalize the banks.
0 -
What the LibDems need to do is complete their detoxification with the youth vote - Clegg going was hugely popular with the students, a shame for such a good politician, but to the party's benefit. Jo Swinson as leaders would be a very positive step forward.Saltire said:
Of course, no doubt we will get a thread on it's merits before we reach the next leadership contest (Swinson will almost certainly be one the candidates and probably the favourite in my opinion assuming that she would want the job)Pulpstar said:
Whats the voting system ?Quincel said:
Complete anecdote, but the members of my local party who I know seem to really like her. I don't actually know much about her, but they talk about her like she walks on water. So if the other members in my area and other areas are the same then she'll walk the next leadership election.Andy_Cooke said:
Jo Swinson is a name that's being bandied about.rcs1000 said:
Sure.another_richard said:
Although Southport showed that when an LibDem retires they struggle to hold the seat.rcs1000 said:
They also increased their number of seats by 50%, and came within about four hundred votes of doubling their representation. Another election might well see them capture St Ives, Richmond Park, Fife NE and Cheltenham.
While things obviously didn't play out as well for them as they'd hoped at the beginning of the campaign, I suspect senior LibDems feel they've done OK.
Which means they'll now have problems getting back Ceredigion, Leeds NW and Hallam and also suggests that we need to keep a track of how old the LibDem MPs are.
But the seats they gained this time were all ex-LD seats - Edinburgh West, OxWAb, Bath, CS&ER, Twickenham, Kingston, Eastbourne. And of those, the first four were all with new candidates.
Frankly, the LDs need a new leader and a bit of luck. If they get that, they can be back at 20-odd seats next time around.
Which is rather what the odds suggest too, with Cable also favoured.
I try not to bet on leadership elections though, barring good polling (rare) it's too hard to get a representative sense of the electorate.
Is AV used ?
Tim Farron was a good stop-gap (from a poor choice) after GE2015, but unfortunately he just isn't a leader to be taken seriously. He deserves credit for steadying the ship - but frankly his personal beliefs on homosexuality, which should in theory should be his own private views and no-one else's business, are - in practice - so out of touch with the zeitgeist and the youth vote that he really has to step aside.0 -
Attlee lost the 1951 election because the electorate had had enough of austerity.TheScreamingEagles said:
Out of curiosity, how many seats Attlee won, compared to Corbyn?volcanopete said:All in all a great victory for Jeremy Corbyn on a par with Attlee in performance.The nation is in static paralysis and impatiently waits for Mr Corbyn to take over.
People get fed up of it after a while.
0 -
Excellent post.The_Apocalypse said:
That reading was floated by Matthew Parris on Newsnight, and I think that analysis doesn't work for several reasons:rottenborough said:
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.ReggieCide said:
calmer heads not much in evidence at the momentSouthamObserver said:
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.stevef said:I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
- Corbyn actually became MORE popular over the course of the campaign, with the ratings rising (are continuing to rise) as May's crashed. If voters were voting for Labour despite Corbyn, this wouldn't have happened.
- It was made clear by certain polls/models publicised by the press that the Tories were unlikely to win a landslide (due to narrowing lead), and I think polling over the course of the campaign showed the public were becoming less confident in the Tories winning a large majority.
- In the recent Survation poll - post-election - Labour have taken a 6% lead. If voters, having seen the result voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wasn't going to become PM, they wouldn't still be sticking with Labour.
The final point is perhaps the strongest one. It will be interesting to see where the polls go now Corbyn is openly floating the idea of his becoming PM in short order. I dunno where they will go. But the Tories just look broken, and utterly exhausted.0 -
That point could only really apply to the publicised poll leads. The idea the public hasn't noticed the GE result....well, it's quite unlikely. As I said previously, now they know that Corbyn *could* win the next GE because 262 MPs isn't a long way from 326. That Labour has gone to take a 6% lead says that the voters have not walked away from Labour when faced with the possibility Corbyn could be in Downing Street.rottenborough said:
I'm not sure most of the public will have noticed these details.The_Apocalypse said:
That reading was floated by Matthew Parris on Newsnight, and I think that analysis doesn't work for several reasons:rottenborough said:
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.ReggieCide said:
calmer heads not much in evidence at the momentSouthamObserver said:
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.stevef said:I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
- Corbyn actually became MORE popular over the course of the campaign, with the ratings rising (are continuing to rise) as May's crashed. If voters were voting for Labour despite Corbyn, this wouldn't have happened.
- It was made clear by certain polls/models publicised by the press that the Tories were unlikely to win a landslide (due to narrowing lead), and I think polling over the course of the campaign showed the public were becoming less confident in the Tories winning a large majority.
- In the recent Survation poll - post-election - Labour have taken a 6% lead. If voters, having seen the result voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wasn't going to become PM, they wouldn't still be sticking with Labour.
I also doubt that voters won't know whether their opinion of Corbyn has improved or not!0 -
On this evidence Gullible Govey said it because he believed it.DavidL said:
He was campaigning for Brexit, what was he supposed to say? "Oh, we've got no chance up here." It is as ridiculous as Nicola claiming she couldn't win a second referendum.Theuniondivvie said:
On that basis the Gover is too stupid to recognise a parody of a parody. You'd have thought the MI5 & UF on the side of the van might have been a hint.DavidL said:
What the National or this front page?Theuniondivvie said:See these smart lads..
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/873907530589765633
Of course he was the sharp mind that assured us that Scotland would vote for Brexit.0 -
One of them does, not all of them.Bobajob_PB said:
Excellent post.The_Apocalypse said:
That reading was floated by Matthew Parris on Newsnight, and I think that analysis doesn't work for several reasons:rottenborough said:
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.ReggieCide said:
calmer heads not much in evidence at the momentSouthamObserver said:
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.stevef said:I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
- Corbyn actually became MORE popular over the course of the campaign, with the ratings rising (are continuing to rise) as May's crashed. If voters were voting for Labour despite Corbyn, this wouldn't have happened.
- It was made clear by certain polls/models publicised by the press that the Tories were unlikely to win a landslide (due to narrowing lead), and I think polling over the course of the campaign showed the public were becoming less confident in the Tories winning a large majority.
- In the recent Survation poll - post-election - Labour have taken a 6% lead. If voters, having seen the result voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wasn't going to become PM, they wouldn't still be sticking with Labour.
The final point is perhaps the strongest one. It will be interesting to see where the polls go now Corbyn is openly floating the idea of his becoming PM in short order. I dunno where they will go. But the Tories just look broken, and utterly exhausted.0 -
Yup, true, though Sean can often point to being right because he changes his mind 19* times during each campaign...rottenborough said:
SeanT and the other bed wetters were right though.Mortimer said:Can I just say that the post election analysis on here is second to none. So much better than the pre election tensions. Thanks to all involved, and especially OGH, OGH Jnr and TSE.
Oh, and the jokes are funnier too.
*This is an exaggeration, but not much of one!
0 -
I think there is a huge difference between Labour taking the lead in the polls after an election, and at a time when the Tories have had a lot of bad press and Corbyn good press, and Labour and Corbyn being able to win a general election in the next year.rottenborough said:
I'm not sure most of the public will have noticed these details.The_Apocalypse said:
That reading was floated by Matthew Parris on Newsnight, and I think that analysis doesn't work for several reasons:rottenborough said:
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.ReggieCide said:
calmer heads not much in evidence at the momentSouthamObserver said:
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.stevef said:I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
- Corbyn actually became MORE popular over the course of the campaign, with the ratings rising (are continuing to rise) as May's crashed. If voters were voting for Labour despite Corbyn, this wouldn't have happened.
- It was made clear by certain polls/models publicised by the press that the Tories were unlikely to win a landslide (due to narrowing lead), and I think polling over the course of the campaign showed the public were becoming less confident in the Tories winning a large majority.
- In the recent Survation poll - post-election - Labour have taken a 6% lead. If voters, having seen the result voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wasn't going to become PM, they wouldn't still be sticking with Labour.
0 -
Although it's been tried before it's worth another go and would buck up the City's prospects no endrottenborough said:
Nationalize the banks.ReggieCide said:
they weren't radical enough! Please try to keep up.alex. said:
Why did they lose in 2017?Scott_P said:
Hold that thought...SouthamObserver said:Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
@OwenJones84: We now know that Labour didn't lose in 2015 for being too left-wing. Labour lost for not being radical enough.0
This discussion has been closed.