politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay drops to new ratings low & comes under fire for not meeti
Options
Comments
-
The Tories have got to nail this lie about Labour's manifesto being 'fully costed'. It is fully costed...by the Labour party. It's what I said earlier about there being no serious scrutiny about their economic prospectus.foxinsoxuk said:Emily Thornberry thriving on BBC QT. Labour need look no further for their next leader.
And as for Thornberry, she said that Labour had a 'clear vision for Britain'. Yes - fucking BANKRUPTCY.0 -
-
High fives all roundfoxinsoxuk said:Emily Thornberry thriving on BBC QT. Labour need look no further for their next leader.
0 -
She is the most capable of the Labour front bench, with only Gardiner running her close.Jason said:
The Tories have got to nail this lie about Labour's manifesto being 'fully costed'. It is fully costed...by the Labour party. It's what I said earlier about there being no serious scrutiny about their economic prospectus.foxinsoxuk said:Emily Thornberry thriving on BBC QT. Labour need look no further for their next leader.
And as for Thornberry, she said that Labour had a 'clear vision for Britain'. Yes - fucking BANKRUPTCY.0 -
Tax is either universal or useless. I don't have to want to be the only person paying extra tax to want to be a member of a society that is paying more tax. The two are entirely different propositions (and the first proposition is futile because I'm not the Duke of Westminster). But I think you know this.another_richard said:
OGH is Mike Smithson - the bloke who owns this website. OGH stands for Our Genial Host.atia2 said:
It's a very poor rhetorical gambit to request that anyone proposing greater society-wide redistribution make a non-compulsory non-society-wide contribution. Rather misses the point.another_richard said:
Not willing to do so on your own, I am surprised.atia2 said:
Very happy to, if you meet me there.another_richard said:
That's okay then - perhaps you'd like to get your own cheque book out.atia2 said:
And an obsession with not giving people too much "free stuff" paid for by "somebody else".foxinsoxuk said:
Sovereignty.isam said:
How come we have different safety standards to Germany?Nigelb said:
Note the reported extra cost of specifying fire resistant panels for the building - a few thousand pounds.TheScreamingEagles said:
Just head down to your local tax office / local government finance dept / hospital / school - they'll happily take your donation.
But I'll tell you what if OGH puts up the donate button I'll stick £100 in it and you can do likewise.
OGH can then transfer our combined monies to somewhere suitable.
I don't know what OGH is, but I'm happy to match your £100 donation, perhaps to the Grenfell Tower fund?
After previous elections he has installed a donate button so that grateful PBers can make a contribution to his costs.
I'm quite happy to therefore donate £100 to Mike with a request that he donates it to something suitable, Bedford hospital for example.
My general point is extremely valid - its easy to demand extra government spending on X, Y or Z. I see a lot less enthusiasm to actually pay more to achieve that spending. And if people aren't willing to pay more themselves then their extra spending demands tend to be little more than ways of benefiting themselves at the expense of others. This applies to me as well - I'm very willing for other people to pay more tax for things which I believe would benefit society as a whole.
I shall await the button of our genial host.0 -
edit0
-
At least there was a macroeconomic policy. You may choose to judge it as fantasy, but it was there. It could not be attacked, because the Cons didn't have one. It was platitudes. Any attack could be countered by what would you do? The fact is with the Brexit battles the Tories didn't know. They could not say because they did not know.Jason said:
My point is it wasn't fought on traditional economic grounds. There was nothing about job creation, or business growth, or investor confidence. There was a startling lack of macro economic scrutiny, partly because nobody but nobody took Labour's fantasy manifesto seriously.dixiedean said:
Which is the economy. Your point?Jason said:
It wasn't the economy in this election. It was Dementia tax, triple lock and WFP.dixiedean said:
This election was not fought on Brexit. Neither will the next one. It's the economy, my friend.nunuone said:If there is going to be another election soon then
1) May must not under any circumstances fight it
2) ofTories should fight it on soft brexit, because that is what most people want.
Boris cannot be the soft brexit leader therefore that leaves Hammond, whilst he had a bad budget he is allowed one mistake and he will be more believable as a soft brexiteer.
The Tory manifesto was atrocious politics rather than bad economics.
Are we going for a Singapore-style low tax offshore economy? Or not? Which is the CCHQ policy? Is the deficit an existential threat or not? The Tories don't know. At least Labour knew.0 -
It'll probably be Lamb vs Swinson.foxinsoxuk said:Norman Lamb says he is thinking of standing for leader.
0 -
Read what I said below.Philip_Thompson said:
Tax, pension expenditure and benefit expenditure.Jason said:
It wasn't the economy in this election. It was Dementia tax, triple lock and WFP.dixiedean said:
This election was not fought on Brexit. Neither will the next one. It's the economy, my friend.nunuone said:If there is going to be another election soon then
1) May must not under any circumstances fight it
2) ofTories should fight it on soft brexit, because that is what most people want.
Boris cannot be the soft brexit leader therefore that leaves Hammond, whilst he had a bad budget he is allowed one mistake and he will be more believable as a soft brexiteer.
If that's not the economy what is?0 -
Maybe it was earlier than 1961.isam said:
Enoch Powell banned it in the U.K in 1961AndyJS said:
Reminds me a bit of the brilliant decision of this Canadian female scientist to ban thalidomide in the United States in 1962 while European governments continued to allow it to be prescribed.TheScreamingEagles said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey0 -
Not turning the UK into Venezuela without the sunshine as would happen under Corbyn got them 42% despite the most electorally toxic manifesto the Tories have ever producedfoxinsoxuk said:
Not yet. Tories need to learn to win on policy though, playing the (wo) man did not win them any votes last week.kjohnw said:
has she mentioned England flags or white vans yet?foxinsoxuk said:Emily Thornberry thriving on BBC QT. Labour need look no further for their next leader.
Tories need to think of something positive to offer, but cannot.0 -
Cable and Davey have not ruled themselves out yet eitherAndyJS said:
It'll probably be Lamb vs Swinson.foxinsoxuk said:Norman Lamb says he is thinking of standing for leader.
0 -
Seems it was 1962. She got it banned in the US despite it being available in Canada.AndyJS said:
Maybe it was earlier than 1961.isam said:
Enoch Powell banned it in the U.K in 1961AndyJS said:
Reminds me a bit of the brilliant decision of this Canadian female scientist to ban thalidomide in the United States in 1962 while European governments continued to allow it to be prescribed.TheScreamingEagles said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-doctor-averted-disaster-by-keeping-thalidomide-out-of-the-us/article21721337/?service=amp0 -
I don't think any Tory suggests a Singapore-style economy is likely now, we have more chance of becoming a Cuba-style economy at the momentdixiedean said:
At least there was a macroeconomic policy. You may choose to judge it as fantasy, but it was there. It could not be attacked, because the Cons didn't have one. It was platitudes. Any attack could be countered by what would you do? The fact is with the Brexit battles the Tories didn't know. They could not say because they did not know.Jason said:
My point is it wasn't fought on traditional economic grounds. There was nothing about job creation, or business growth, or investor confidence. There was a startling lack of macro economic scrutiny, partly because nobody but nobody took Labour's fantasy manifesto seriously.dixiedean said:
Which is the economy. Your point?Jason said:
It wasn't the economy in this election. It was Dementia tax, triple lock and WFP.dixiedean said:
This election was not fought on Brexit. Neither will the next one. It's the economy, my friend.nunuone said:If there is going to be another election soon then
1) May must not under any circumstances fight it
2) ofTories should fight it on soft brexit, because that is what most people want.
Boris cannot be the soft brexit leader therefore that leaves Hammond, whilst he had a bad budget he is allowed one mistake and he will be more believable as a soft brexiteer.
The Tory manifesto was atrocious politics rather than bad economics.
Are we going for a Singapore-style low tax offshore economy? Or not? Which is the CCHQ policy? Is the deficit an existential threat or not? The Tories don't know. At least Labour knew.0 -
I don't think it was ever approved for use in the US.isam said:
Seems it was 1962. She got it banned in the US despite it being available in Canada.AndyJS said:
Maybe it was earlier than 1961.isam said:
Enoch Powell banned it in the U.K in 1961AndyJS said:
Reminds me a bit of the brilliant decision of this Canadian female scientist to ban thalidomide in the United States in 1962 while European governments continued to allow it to be prescribed.TheScreamingEagles said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-doctor-averted-disaster-by-keeping-thalidomide-out-of-the-us/article21721337/?service=amp0 -
Labour don't know a thing about it. They put forward a barking mad manifesto full of lunatic promises and massively uncosted policies, and like I said, nobody took it seriously, hence the lack of scrutiny.dixiedean said:
At least there was a macroeconomic policy. You may choose to judge it as fantasy, but it was there. It could not be attacked, because the Cons didn't have one. It was platitudes. Any attack could be countered by what would you do? The fact is with the Brexit battles the Tories didn't know. They could not say because they did not know.Jason said:
My point is it wasn't fought on traditional economic grounds. There was nothing about job creation, or business growth, or investor confidence. There was a startling lack of macro economic scrutiny, partly because nobody but nobody took Labour's fantasy manifesto seriously.dixiedean said:
Which is the economy. Your point?Jason said:
It wasn't the economy in this election. It was Dementia tax, triple lock and WFP.dixiedean said:
This election was not fought on Brexit. Neither will the next one. It's the economy, my friend.nunuone said:If there is going to be another election soon then
1) May must not under any circumstances fight it
2) ofTories should fight it on soft brexit, because that is what most people want.
Boris cannot be the soft brexit leader therefore that leaves Hammond, whilst he had a bad budget he is allowed one mistake and he will be more believable as a soft brexiteer.
The Tory manifesto was atrocious politics rather than bad economics.
Are we going for a Singapore-style low tax offshore economy? Or not? Which is the CCHQ policy? Is the deficit an existential threat or not? The Tories don't know. At least Labour knew.
The costs of the fantasy nationalisations weren't even in the manifesto, and normally, that would have sunk any party in an election campaign. As it is, the Tories gave Corbyn a gigantic break with their own disastrous manifesto, and the rest is history.
0 -
We can all say we're willing to pay more tax but there's only one way of proving it.atia2 said:
Tax is either universal or useless. I don't have to want to be the only person paying extra tax to want to be a member of a society that is paying more tax. The two are entirely different propositions (and the first proposition is futile because I'm not the Duke of Westminster). But I think you know this.another_richard said:
OGH is Mike Smithson - the bloke who owns this website. OGH stands for Our Genial Host.atia2 said:
It's a very poor rhetorical gambit to request that anyone proposing greater society-wide redistribution make a non-compulsory non-society-wide contribution. Rather misses the point.another_richard said:
Not willing to do so on your own, I am surprised.atia2 said:
Very happy to, if you meet me there.another_richard said:
That's okay then - perhaps you'd like to get your own cheque book out.atia2 said:
And an obsession with not giving people too much "free stuff" paid for by "somebody else".
Just head down to your local tax office / local government finance dept / hospital / school - they'll happily take your donation.
But I'll tell you what if OGH puts up the donate button I'll stick £100 in it and you can do likewise.
OGH can then transfer our combined monies to somewhere suitable.
I don't know what OGH is, but I'm happy to match your £100 donation, perhaps to the Grenfell Tower fund?
After previous elections he has installed a donate button so that grateful PBers can make a contribution to his costs.
I'm quite happy to therefore donate £100 to Mike with a request that he donates it to something suitable, Bedford hospital for example.
My general point is extremely valid - its easy to demand extra government spending on X, Y or Z. I see a lot less enthusiasm to actually pay more to achieve that spending. And if people aren't willing to pay more themselves then their extra spending demands tend to be little more than ways of benefiting themselves at the expense of others. This applies to me as well - I'm very willing for other people to pay more tax for things which I believe would benefit society as a whole.
I shall await the button of our genial host.
Once we have shown we are willing to do that then we can with justification say that it would be good for others to do likewise.
If Mike or Robert are reading this conversation could I please ask you to install the donate button once again.
0 -
Although I don't like Cable and favour Swinson, I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Cable. He's a heavyweight that will see us through the next couple of important years while Jo Swinson gets more experience. I suspect she will enter her name very shortly for the position of deputy leader.HYUFD said:
Cable and Davey have not ruled themselves out yet eitherAndyJS said:
It'll probably be Lamb vs Swinson.foxinsoxuk said:Norman Lamb says he is thinking of standing for leader.
0 -
Ah there you goAndyJS said:
I don't think it was ever approved for use in the US.isam said:
Seems it was 1962. She got it banned in the US despite it being available in Canada.AndyJS said:
Maybe it was earlier than 1961.isam said:
Enoch Powell banned it in the U.K in 1961AndyJS said:
Reminds me a bit of the brilliant decision of this Canadian female scientist to ban thalidomide in the United States in 1962 while European governments continued to allow it to be prescribed.TheScreamingEagles said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-doctor-averted-disaster-by-keeping-thalidomide-out-of-the-us/article21721337/?service=amp0 -
Agreed, Cable is the leader the LDs need know with Brexit on the horizonBarnesian said:
Although I don't like Cable and favour Swinson, I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Cable. He's a heavyweight that will see us through the next couple of important years while Jo Swinson gets more experience. I suspect she will enter her name very shortly for the position of deputy leader.HYUFD said:
Cable and Davey have not ruled themselves out yet eitherAndyJS said:
It'll probably be Lamb vs Swinson.foxinsoxuk said:Norman Lamb says he is thinking of standing for leader.
0 -
Portillo declares Hard Brexit is dead post election and May will likely have gone by the conference on This Week and that Corbyn will now have to be scrutinised over a potential Corbyn premiership0
-
Portillo says Tories don't have any winners on the bench, other than Ruth Davidson.0
-
Lamb or Swinson would be fine but no to Vince from me.Barnesian said:
Although I don't like Cable and favour Swinson, I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Cable. He's a heavyweight that will see us through the next couple of important years while Jo Swinson gets more experience. I suspect she will enter her name very shortly for the position of deputy leader.HYUFD said:
Cable and Davey have not ruled themselves out yet eitherAndyJS said:
It'll probably be Lamb vs Swinson.foxinsoxuk said:Norman Lamb says he is thinking of standing for leader.
Lamb will get my vote again.0 -
-
If the Tories win next time it will be to keep Corbyn out, much as they won in 1992 to keep Kinnock out, so they do not need a winner as such just someone mildly inoffensive like Hammond. As soon as Labour get someone more electable then there would be no question they would be back in power, as occurred in 1997 with BlairDanny565 said:Portillo says Tories don't have any winners on the bench, other than Ruth Davidson.
0 -
Another election
0 -
Please noPulpstar said:Another election
0 -
Sorry, but I think there's a curse in effect. If Cable is elected, it will immediately emerge that he swindled an innocent baby out of its inheritance and had it thrown into the sea. If Swinson, we'll find out that her hobby is torturing puppies to death. If Carmichael, that he's a liar and a cheat. Oh, just a minute ...Barnesian said:
Although I don't like Cable and favour Swinson, I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Cable. He's a heavyweight that will see us through the next couple of important years while Jo Swinson gets more experience. I suspect she will enter her name very shortly for the position of deputy leader.HYUFD said:
Cable and Davey have not ruled themselves out yet eitherAndyJS said:
It'll probably be Lamb vs Swinson.foxinsoxuk said:Norman Lamb says he is thinking of standing for leader.
0 -
Brussels could perhaps suggest a technocratic PM they could do business with?KentRising said:
Please noPulpstar said:Another election
0 -
whatever happened to the Office of Budget Responsibility checking the party manifesto'sJason said:
The Tories have got to nail this lie about Labour's manifesto being 'fully costed'. It is fully costed...by the Labour party. It's what I said earlier about there being no serious scrutiny about their economic prospectus.foxinsoxuk said:Emily Thornberry thriving on BBC QT. Labour need look no further for their next leader.
And as for Thornberry, she said that Labour had a 'clear vision for Britain'. Yes - fucking BANKRUPTCY.0 -
We are in a post-facts environment, nobody gives a shit about things being 'fully costed' they just want them. Now.Jason said:
The Tories have got to nail this lie about Labour's manifesto being 'fully costed'. It is fully costed...by the Labour party. It's what I said earlier about there being no serious scrutiny about their economic prospectus.foxinsoxuk said:Emily Thornberry thriving on BBC QT. Labour need look no further for their next leader.
And as for Thornberry, she said that Labour had a 'clear vision for Britain'. Yes - fucking BANKRUPTCY.
If the Conservatives are to have any chance they need to fight fire with fire and start dishing out their own largesse. A massive basic rate tax cut would do it.0 -
This is absolutely correct.Dura_Ace said:
We are in a post-facts environment, nobody gives a shit about things being 'fully costed' they just want them. Now.Jason said:
The Tories have got to nail this lie about Labour's manifesto being 'fully costed'. It is fully costed...by the Labour party. It's what I said earlier about there being no serious scrutiny about their economic prospectus.foxinsoxuk said:Emily Thornberry thriving on BBC QT. Labour need look no further for their next leader.
And as for Thornberry, she said that Labour had a 'clear vision for Britain'. Yes - fucking BANKRUPTCY.
If the Conservatives are to have any chance they need to fight fire with fire and start dishing out their own largesse. A massive basic rate tax cut would do it.0 -
Precisely why some of us voted to leave.williamglenn said:
Brussels could perhaps suggest a technocratic PM they could do business with?KentRising said:
Please noPulpstar said:Another election
0 -
Lib Dem leader one I meantKentRising said:
Please noPulpstar said:Another election
0 -
If only Kendall and Portillo could be persuaded to breed in captivity we could have perfect centrist PM the country needs by 2050.isam said:0 -
There should be a thread on what Portillo just said re Labour to Liz Kendall0
-
I almost glazed over your comment thinking you were going to quote the useless 42% figure again, thankfully you resisted.HYUFD said:
If the Tories win next time it will be to keep Corbyn out, much as they won in 1992 to keep Kinnock out, so they do not need a winner as such just someone mildly inoffensive like Hammond. As soon as Labour get someone more electable then there would be no question they would be back in power, as occurred in 1997 with BlairDanny565 said:Portillo says Tories don't have any winners on the bench, other than Ruth Davidson.
Under fptp it is the lead that matters not the share.0 -
Maybe but if the Tories hold their 42% they will win next time, in 1992 Major won because he got 41.9% and held almost all the 42.2% Thatcher got in 1987, also against Kinnock. Corbyn needs to win people next time who voted against him this time, almost all Tories. That will be more difficult for him than squeezing LD, UKIP, Green and SNP voters as he did last weeknunuone said:
I almost glazed over your comment thinking you were going to quote the useless 42% figure again, thankfully you resisted.HYUFD said:
If the Tories win next time it will be to keep Corbyn out, much as they won in 1992 to keep Kinnock out, so they do not need a winner as such just someone mildly inoffensive like Hammond. As soon as Labour get someone more electable then there would be no question they would be back in power, as occurred in 1997 with BlairDanny565 said:Portillo says Tories don't have any winners on the bench, other than Ruth Davidson.
Under fptp it is the lead that matters not the share.0 -
Maybe a free Nando's pledge will help the Tories grab back some votes from da kidz?0
-
-
27% of voters support the DUP deal, 48% oppose it. 0
-
YouGov? What do they know?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
What percentage did you used to forecast for UKIP if the Conservatives backed a soft Brexit and where do you think they would come from?HYUFD said:
Maybe but if the Tories hold their 42% they will win next time, in 1992 Major won because he got 41.9% and held almost all the 42.2% Thatcher got in 1987, also against Kinnock. Corbyn needs to win people next time who voted against him this time, almost all Tories. That will be more difficult for him than squeezing LD, UKIP, Green and SNP voters as he did last weeknunuone said:
I almost glazed over your comment thinking you were going to quote the useless 42% figure again, thankfully you resisted.HYUFD said:
If the Tories win next time it will be to keep Corbyn out, much as they won in 1992 to keep Kinnock out, so they do not need a winner as such just someone mildly inoffensive like Hammond. As soon as Labour get someone more electable then there would be no question they would be back in power, as occurred in 1997 with BlairDanny565 said:Portillo says Tories don't have any winners on the bench, other than Ruth Davidson.
Under fptp it is the lead that matters not the share.0 -
-
The article doesn't go into what happened. From another article I've got somewhere, Thalidomide was one of the first designer drugs specifically for morning sickness. The chemists involved were very specific in the design of the process, which they then licensed to manufacturers to produce. Unfortunately, the manufacturers thought that by changing the process (making it cheaper to make and increasing the profits) they were onto a good thing. What happened was not expected, or even known about at the time. A molecule made up of atoms in a structure can have two versions as mirror images. In this case, the original process produced right hand molecules that were safe, while the new process produced left hand molecules which were dangerous. Kelsey was suspicious of the manufacturers and so she blocked the sale of Thalidomide in the USA, while under tremendous pressure from commercial and political sources.isam said:
Seems it was 1962. She got it banned in the US despite it being available in Canada.AndyJS said:
Maybe it was earlier than 1961.isam said:
Enoch Powell banned it in the U.K in 1961AndyJS said:
Reminds me a bit of the brilliant decision of this Canadian female scientist to ban thalidomide in the United States in 1962 while European governments continued to allow it to be prescribed.TheScreamingEagles said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-doctor-averted-disaster-by-keeping-thalidomide-out-of-the-us/article21721337/?service=amp
Funnily enough, Thalidomide is used today, not for pregnant women, but for certain other medical conditions, and a different brand name. And the correct molecular image or version.
Chemists have also made mirror molecule products, salts, sugars and flavourings as non fattening, the molecules couldn't react to humans who were made up of the opposite molecules and the two couldn't bind or react. Also supposedly tasted horrible or no taste, no use as a food and more importantly, not commercially viable.0 -
Building Standards (including enforcement of Building Regulations) and Planning are different functions with different responsibilities and are usually usually different sub-departments of Local councils.Barnesian said:
The safety aspect of the panels was apparently not considered by the planning committee. They were only concerned with the appearance of the panels.foxinsoxuk said:
Housing standards vary around the world. Our government sets ours and always has. Sovereignty.isam said:
Been on the Medicinals?foxinsoxuk said:
Sovereignty.isam said:
How come we have different safety standards to Germany?Nigelb said:
Note the reported extra cost of specifying fire resistant panels for the building - a few thousand pounds.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's obviously not because of Brexit, do you know why?
From the planning decision on application PP/12/04097 /Q18:
"3. Detailed drawings or samples of materials as appropriate, in respect of the
following, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority before the relevant part of the work is begun and the
works shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the details so
approved and shall thereafter be so maintained:
· Materials to be used on the external faces of the building(s);
Reason – To accord with the development plan by ensuring that the character and appearance of the area are preserved and living conditions of those living near the development suitably protected."
Also, the responsibility for the choice of cladding has AFAIK not yet been made public - it would be solely the Contractor's choice only if the contract was Design and Build, and even then there should have been clear Employers' Requirements stated to them when tendering.0 -
I don't expect the Tories will go for soft Brexit more fudged Brexit. There will be free movement controls, perhaps even the cashing in of the transition controls Blair failed to implement, while it is unlikely we will retain full single market membership but could get bilateral agreements. That would be enough for most UKIP to Tory switchers and of course Corbyn also got a number of UKIP to Labour switchers who could return to UKIP if they do not think the Brexit deal was tough enoughwilliamglenn said:
What percentage did you used to forecast for UKIP if the Conservatives backed a soft Brexit and where do you think they would come from?HYUFD said:
Maybe but if the Tories hold their 42% they will win next time, in 1992 Major won because he got 41.9% and held almost all the 42.2% Thatcher got in 1987, also against Kinnock. Corbyn needs to win people next time who voted against him this time, almost all Tories. That will be more difficult for him than squeezing LD, UKIP, Green and SNP voters as he did last weeknunuone said:
I almost glazed over your comment thinking you were going to quote the useless 42% figure again, thankfully you resisted.HYUFD said:
If the Tories win next time it will be to keep Corbyn out, much as they won in 1992 to keep Kinnock out, so they do not need a winner as such just someone mildly inoffensive like Hammond. As soon as Labour get someone more electable then there would be no question they would be back in power, as occurred in 1997 with BlairDanny565 said:Portillo says Tories don't have any winners on the bench, other than Ruth Davidson.
Under fptp it is the lead that matters not the share.0 -
How could Portillo say all that when Andrea Leadsom is in the running?isam said:0 -
It wouldn't hurt. More seriously loading people up with £27k fees was always going to be a vote loser.KentRising said:Maybe a free Nando's pledge will help the Tories grab back some votes from da kidz?
My vote for Tory leader (when it comes not if) will be based on who win back the moderate remain/soft brexit voters in the suburbs such as Keighley, Battersea and High Peak.
Not going down a rabbit hole in an attempt to gain working class northern voters who will *never* vote Tory.0 -
An argument can be made that such a task isn;t too difficult, all the potential alternatives to May have it in them to win back such seats, they would just need to havenunuone said:
It wouldn't hurt. More seriously loading people up with £27k fees was always going to be a vote loser.KentRising said:Maybe a free Nando's pledge will help the Tories grab back some votes from da kidz?
My vote for Tory leader (when it comes not if) will be based on who win back the moderate remain/soft brexit voters in the suburbs such as Keighley, Battersea and High Peak.
Not going down a rabbit hole in an attempt to gain working class northern voters who will *never* vote Tory.
1) a good election campaign
2) a manifesto that doesn't go down like a floater in a swimming pool
Meeting a few voters and some sunlit uplands wouldn't hurt.0 -
It's interesting how qualities like forgiveness, mercy and sympathy seem to have completely disappeared from British politics in the last few years. No-one seems willing to offer any of those to Theresa May after it all went wrong for her for example. The election result was her own fault of course, but that doesn't mean she doesn't deserve a bit of sympathy.0
-
And if Norman Lamb, that he's a sensible and competent politician - but that they've rechecked the ballots and he actually lost his seat last week...Chris said:
Sorry, but I think there's a curse in effect. If Cable is elected, it will immediately emerge that he swindled an innocent baby out of its inheritance and had it thrown into the sea. If Swinson, we'll find out that her hobby is torturing puppies to death. If Carmichael, that he's a liar and a cheat. Oh, just a minute ...Barnesian said:
Although I don't like Cable and favour Swinson, I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Cable. He's a heavyweight that will see us through the next couple of important years while Jo Swinson gets more experience. I suspect she will enter her name very shortly for the position of deputy leader.HYUFD said:
Cable and Davey have not ruled themselves out yet eitherAndyJS said:
It'll probably be Lamb vs Swinson.foxinsoxuk said:Norman Lamb says he is thinking of standing for leader.
0 -
I think Boris is too distrusted by too many voters to win back such seats. He campaigned on promises which were seen as outright lies during EU ref for leadership ambitions.KentRising said:
An argument can be made that such a task isn;t too difficult, all the potential alternatives to May have it in them to win back such seats, they would just need to havenunuone said:
It wouldn't hurt. More seriously loading people up with £27k fees was always going to be a vote loser.KentRising said:Maybe a free Nando's pledge will help the Tories grab back some votes from da kidz?
My vote for Tory leader (when it comes not if) will be based on who win back the moderate remain/soft brexit voters in the suburbs such as Keighley, Battersea and High Peak.
Not going down a rabbit hole in an attempt to gain working class northern voters who will *never* vote Tory.
1) a good election campaign
2) a manifesto that doesn't go down like a floater in a swimming pool
Meeting a few voters and some sunlit uplands wouldn't hurt.
There is much more remain anger out there then I thought existed even if most now accept a soft brexit, Boris will be seen as wanting hard brexit and untrustworthy by many would be Tory voters.
I also believe we need to as Duraace says fight fire with fire so we need our own headline grabbing policies.
E.g cut income tax by 5p, freeze council tax, 20 hours free social care a week et etc people don't care anymore of how it is paid for.0 -
Did she at all behave in any way to be the recipient of sympathy ? She started the campaign with the same political sensitivity as shown by Kim Jong Un.AndyJS said:It's interesting how qualities like forgiveness, mercy and sympathy seem to have completely disappeared from British politics in the last few years. No-one seems willing to offer any of those to Theresa May after it all went wrong for her for example. The election result was her own fault of course, but that doesn't mean she doesn't deserve a bit of sympathy.
0 -
I do feel sorry for her. She's clearly crap as a politician, but she comes across as someone who wanted to make big changes to our country, even if I don't support her direction (and not all of the manifesto was cack, just most of it). Feels a bit like when bland Hillary lost - you can't help but feel a twinge of empathy, to recognise how humiliating their position is.AndyJS said:It's interesting how qualities like forgiveness, mercy and sympathy seem to have completely disappeared from British politics in the last few years. No-one seems willing to offer any of those to Theresa May after it all went wrong for her for example. The election result was her own fault of course, but that doesn't mean she doesn't deserve a bit of sympathy.
But then I'm not a Tory so am not exactly angry that she pissed away a majority - I completely get why Tory party members do not seem sympathetic to her at all.0 -
Correct - but try selling that to an ignorant and ranting press. It is hard enough to grant planning permission to an all night disco without members of the public demanding it be turned down. That is a licensing matter and nothing to do with planning. Last month on South Lakeland we had a structure on a golf course - didn't stop open spaces society ( who bloody well know better ) from ranting about how it would affect Kendal Common.sarissa said:
Building Standards (including enforcement of Building Regulations) and Planning are different functions with different responsibilities and are usually usually different sub-departments of Local councils.Barnesian said:
The safety aspect of the panels was apparently not considered by the planning committee. They were only concerned with the appearance of the panels.
From the planning decision on application PP/12/04097 /Q18:
"3. Detailed drawings or samples of materials as appropriate, in respect of the
following, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority before the relevant part of the work is begun and the
works shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the details so
approved and shall thereafter be so maintained:
· Materials to be used on the external faces of the building(s);
Reason – To accord with the development plan by ensuring that the character and appearance of the area are preserved and living conditions of those living near the development suitably protected."
Also, the responsibility for the choice of cladding has AFAIK not yet been made public - it would be solely the Contractor's choice only if the contract was Design and Build, and even then there should have been clear Employers' Requirements stated to them when tendering.
Planning is very narrow, it is meant to be very narrow. If there are licensing issues, building control issues, Common Land issues or anything ultra vires planning then planning MUST NOT intervene. Planning has to consider the matter on its PLANNING merits. It is for licensing to refuse the license, it is for building control to refuse to grant a building licence or condemn the erected structure. These are not material planning considerations.0 -
Sorry but when were those qualities ever in evidence in British politics?AndyJS said:It's interesting how qualities like forgiveness, mercy and sympathy seem to have completely disappeared from British politics in the last few years. No-one seems willing to offer any of those to Theresa May after it all went wrong for her for example. The election result was her own fault of course, but that doesn't mean she doesn't deserve a bit of sympathy.
0 -
And blocked any enquiry into the scandal.isam said:
Enoch Powell banned it in the U.K in 1961AndyJS said:
Reminds me a bit of the brilliant decision of this Canadian female scientist to ban thalidomide in the United States in 1962 while European governments continued to allow it to be prescribed.TheScreamingEagles said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey0
This discussion has been closed.