politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories must leave and give Corbyn his chance

JackW said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

JackW said:

Sean_F said:

JackW said:

BBC - Prime Minister not at Trooping of the Colour.

Another hostile crowd avoided ....

I think it would be pretty insensitive to attend it, when more urgent tasks await.

I presume you mean dishing out pork to the DUP ?

She has invited residents of the tragedy to Downing Street this afternoon

Excellent - To stay in a spare bedroom? ... That would be something.

More likely a few carefully screened individuals with as little scope for political embarrassment as possible.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Tony said:

HYUFD said:

volcanopete said:

So it's either David Davis who hasn't run a whelk stall,that "nasty piece of work",old Etonian bully,Boris Johnson or Mogadon Phil who would make an excellent Funeral Director and has he inspirational qualities of a turnip.

The Tories don't need inspirational qualities just a John Major style technocrat to beat Corbyn

Corbyn for all his policy faults is a genuine human being, someone like hammond would result in Labour majority.
Has to be either Ruth or Boris.

Ruth will stay in Scotland and Boris is simply not up to it.

There are no easy choices but I would expect Rudd or Hammond to take over.

And by the way, no hard Brexit anymore

HYUFD said:

Absolutely not. A Corbyn government now with Brexit coming up would be a disaster for the country, socialism and out of the single market not to mention it would set a disastrous precedent for the Tories to refuse to serve when they got 60 seats more than Labour. If the Tories cannot be bothered to try and govern then the voters may well rightly conclude why should they be worth voting for again?

No the Tories and DUP have a majority between them and should be allowed to get on with governing. In any case the LDs may well vote with the government and against Corbyn on some issues too. What the Tories need to do is to learn the lessons of the election, ease off on austerity, end the dementia tax and create a proper commission to look at social care and pursue a more balanced Brexit. As for May she will go before the next general election but she can stay for now, she won 13.6 million votes after all last week and the Grenfell Fire is not something she can be blamed for, she has correctly ordered an inquiry and indeed has now visited victims as well as the emergency services

Tony said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Tony said:

HYUFD said:

volcanopete said:

So it's either David Davis who hasn't run a whelk stall,that "nasty piece of work",old Etonian bully,Boris Johnson or Mogadon Phil who would make an excellent Funeral Director and has he inspirational qualities of a turnip.

The Tories don't need inspirational qualities just a John Major style technocrat to beat Corbyn

Corbyn for all his policy faults is a genuine human being, someone like hammond would result in Labour majority.
Has to be either Ruth or Boris.

Ruth will stay in Scotland and Boris is simply not up to it.

There are no easy choices but I would expect Rudd or Hammond to take over.

And by the way, no hard Brexit anymore

Definitely no easy choices .
Best outcome for Tories as follows.

Keep TM till end of brexit negotiation.
Which will be some fudge on FOM for workers + cash in return for market access.
TM becomes the lightening rod for leaver anger.
Hand over to more charismatic leader, election in 2020.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

NickPalmer said:

Sean_F said:

Mortimer said:

Sean_F said:

Letting out property is not inherently wrong.

My wife and I bought a very run down flat, which we thoroughly refurbished and let out. It's not a slum, and we've brought a run down property back into use.

I'm sure you've done a great job Sean, and are I bet a great landlord. But, and it is a big but, you are de facto depriving another of the joy of owning that flat and doing it up themselves....

But, you always get people, like our tenants, who only wish to stay there for a short while. Think how hard it would be to take up jobs in new places, if the only way of doing so was to buy a new property.

Well, quite. And some of us have zero interest in doing up properties and spending our time worrying about the roof, the boiler, etc. - and would much prefer to leave it to people who are either interested in doing it or professionally trained.

Because a bad landlord can pretty much ruin your life, people feel strongly about them. But a healthy rental market is an important part of any society and there's nothing inherently evil in being a landlord. I've rented nearly all my life and had good relationships with every landlord/agent throughout. But good regulation is important to prevent the bad landlords undercutting the good ones and giving them a bad name.

As we have just unfortunately seen, a non profit landlord is no guarantor of a safe rental property.

An issue that struck me with all this debate about fire-resistant cladding: what do insurers feel? Surely there is an issue with potentially invalidating building insurance if you fit flammable materials to the outside of the building?

Retrospective rejection of existing properties would be out of order but good point about any new schemes

eek said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

NickPalmer said:

Sean_F said:

Mortimer said:

Sean_F said:

Letting out property is not inherently wrong.

My wife and I bought a very run down flat, which we thoroughly refurbished and let out. It's not a slum, and we've brought a run down property back into use.

I'm sure you've done a great job Sean, and are I bet a great landlord. But, and it is a big but, you are de facto depriving another of the joy of owning that flat and doing it up themselves....

But, you always get people, like our tenants, who only wish to stay there for a short while. Think how hard it would be to take up jobs in new places, if the only way of doing so was to buy a new property.

Well, quite. And some of us have zero interest in doing up properties and spending our time worrying about the roof, the boiler, etc. - and would much prefer to leave it to people who are either interested in doing it or professionally trained.

Because a bad landlord can pretty much ruin your life, people feel strongly about them. But a healthy rental market is an important part of any society and there's nothing inherently evil in being a landlord. I've rented nearly all my life and had good relationships with every landlord/agent throughout. But good regulation is important to prevent the bad landlords undercutting the good ones and giving them a bad name.

As we have just unfortunately seen, a non profit landlord is no guarantor of a safe rental property.

An issue that struck me with all this debate about fire-resistant cladding: what do insurers feel? Surely there is an issue with potentially invalidating building insurance if you fit flammable materials to the outside of the building?

Retrospective rejection of existing properties would be out of order but good point about any new schemes

Well that logic will get you up to the annual renewal point but would you willingly continue to insure a building with a known risk...

Tony said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Tony said:

HYUFD said:

volcanopete said:

So it's either David Davis who hasn't run a whelk stall,that "nasty piece of work",old Etonian bully,Boris Johnson or Mogadon Phil who would make an excellent Funeral Director and has he inspirational qualities of a turnip.

The Tories don't need inspirational qualities just a John Major style technocrat to beat Corbyn

Corbyn for all his policy faults is a genuine human being, someone like hammond would result in Labour majority.
Has to be either Ruth or Boris.

Ruth will stay in Scotland and Boris is simply not up to it.

There are no easy choices but I would expect Rudd or Hammond to take over.

And by the way, no hard Brexit anymore

Definitely no easy choices .
Best outcome for Tories as follows.

Keep TM till end of brexit negotiation.
Which will be some fudge on FOM for workers + cash in return for market access.
TM becomes the lightening rod for leaver anger.
Hand over to more charismatic leader, election in 2020.

GeoffM said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

GeoffM said:

JackW said:

GeoffM said:

DH isn't a sleeper agent.

He's tolerated as the House Tory because his of his unorthodox views (see also PR)

A shame he's blind to the fact that he's being manipulated to push a meme of a party divided (which it is to an extent, but not down his lines)

Is David Herdson one PBer you would be happy to extinguish a fire on if he were ablaze, as opposed to another PB you recently deemed unsuitable for saving from death by burning?

Just asking .... so the site fire fighters might be on hand.

I said no such thing. I said I wouldn't run back to him with an opinion.

Kindly retract that untruth.

GeoffM Posts: 5,149 June 16
AlastairMeeks said:
» show previous quotes
Get back to me when you can count to 326.


I wouldn't "get back to you" if you were on fire, to be honest.

Exactly. Many thanks for going back and getting that. He wanted me to get back to him with an opinion on the seat numbers and I declined to bother under any circumstances..

Point proved and his apology is awaited.

Again, cheers for getting the original comment back. Appreciated.

surbiton said:

Gallowgate said:

MyBurningEars said:

Gallowgate said:

I'm sorry but that's rubbish. I paid the 3k fees but my brother paid the 9k fees and he's better off financially due to the repayment thresholds.

I think the truth is just it depends.

For someone who becomes a charity worker on £14k a year, or only works part-time, or becomes a housespouse.... both systems work out the same, the education turns out to have been free.

For someone with a salary in the low to mid twenty thousands, the new deal is clearly a nicer way to start off in life. But for those who work through professional progression into the higher rate tax band, the higher fees will not be paid off nearly so quickly as the old ones so the lifetime effect is more noticeable.

So it's worse for people on higher incomes? Isn't that the whole bloody point?

I think some people need a reality check on what most graduates actually earn these days. I have a STEM degree from a red-brick university and work for a multi-billion dollar American corporation. I graduated 4 years ago and I earn 27,000 a year. My friends from the same university also doing STEM degrees earn in the region of 25,000 - 35,000.

For most people, the 9k 'loans' are better and won't ever be paid off.

My loan has actually increased since I graduated as the interest has been higher than my repayments.

I find it extraordinary when I read about average wages. I have two persons [ both women ] work in our warehouse. They earn approximately £25k each.

No wonder, we have very little staff turnover. 27% of our employees have been in the company for more than 20 years. Sometimes, I am not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

Of course, as a result, we have very little recruitment costs, both in money and time.

RoyalBlue said:

Gallowgate said:

MyBurningEars said:

Gallowgate said:

RoyalBlue said:

Hello all.

For what it's worth, the Tories could do far worse than reversing the 2011 tuition fees reforms. They has saved the government almost no money (thanks to the hike in repayment threshold from c. £15k to £21k) and have made the financial position of young people dramatically worse than those a few years their senior.

On May, she will be PM for the next 2 years. Tory MPs have accepted it, so what any of us think doesn't really matter. The mob rule that we would experience if Corbyn got into power, as exemplified by the reaction to Grenfell, makes keeping him out the overwhelming duty of the Tory party. We cannot afford a trial run with authoritarian socialism.

I'm sorry but that's rubbish. I paid the 3k fees but my brother paid the 9k fees and he's better off financially due to the repayment thresholds.

I think the truth is just it depends.

For someone who becomes a charity worker on £14k a year, or only works part-time, or becomes a housespouse.... both systems work out the same, the education turns out to have been free.

For someone with a salary in the low to mid twenty thousands, the new deal is clearly a nicer way to start off in life. But for those who work through professional progression into the higher rate tax band, the higher fees will not be paid off nearly so quickly as the old ones so the lifetime effect is more noticeable.

So it's worse for people on higher incomes? Isn't that the whole bloody point?

I think some people need a reality check on what most graduates actually earn these days. I have a STEM degree from a red-brick university and work for a multi-billion dollar American corporation. I graduated 4 years ago and I earn 27,000 a year. My friends from the same university also doing STEM degrees earn in the region of 25,000 - 35,000.

For most people, the 9k 'loans' are better and won't ever be paid off.

My loan has actually increased since I graduated as the interest has been higher than my repayments.

So you think it's better to be paying 9% more income tax forever on everything over £21k, rather than paying 9% more income tax until your early/mid-30s on everything over £15k?

It's a view.

Stark_Dawning said:

archer101au said:

Lets be serious, if Remain had won by 52/48 we would have had exactly the same problem - they would have claimed the question was decided, there would be no change to our status in the EU for the foreseeable future and there would have been no attempt whatsoever to do anything about the 48% who voted leave.

EU membership is a binary choice and thus divisive. People who think that it is not a binary choice (e.g. all the soft Brexit crowd) are going to find out on Monday that this is not a reality.

Painful as it is, the referendum was the only way to resolve this issue and the will of the majority has to be enacted.

Freggles said:

Dura_Ace said:

It hasn't even been a year since the Brexit referendum and it already feels like a completely different country now. Fuck knows where we go from here...

That is what happens when one side wins by 2% and everyone goes "It's clear that the will of the people is Brexit". No, it was the will of slightly more voters. In GE2015 the will of plenty of voters was to put Ed Miliband in Downing Street. The country is divided and rightly so.

Absolutely correct. Theresa's biggest blunder - by a very long chalk- was allowing the Hardest-of-Brexit crowd to take over proceedings. This is a fringe faction even within the euro-sceptic movement, let alone the public at large. Remainers were, of course, horrified and deserted the Tories in droves, whilst most Leavers were left feeling distinctly queasy. Theresa should have assured the nation that she sought 'a Brexit we can all be comfortable with'. Uniting these multitudinous strands of public opinion would have been a demanding project to be sure, but that's what great leaders are supposed to attempt. Pandering to the fringe is naive short-termism and ultimately doomed.

surbiton said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

JackW said:

Sean_F said:

JackW said:

BBC - Prime Minister not at Trooping of the Colour.

Another hostile crowd avoided ....

I think it would be pretty insensitive to attend it, when more urgent tasks await.

I presume you mean dishing out pork to the DUP ?

She has invited residents of the tragedy to Downing Street this afternoon

All of them ? Some tea and sympathy, I suppose, is better than no tea and sympathy ?

One thing she simply does not understand. The initial mistakes in human reaction cannot be fully rectified.

MaxPB said:

We lost among 35-50 year olds as well. All of my friends who are in the 27-33 range are looking to buy, but most are unable to raise enough money for deposits because rents are so high. As always you're completely clueless.

Tony said:

HYUFD said:

volcanopete said:

So it's either David Davis who hasn't run a whelk stall,that "nasty piece of work",old Etonian bully,Boris Johnson or Mogadon Phil who would make an excellent Funeral Director and has he inspirational qualities of a turnip.

The Tories don't need inspirational qualities just a John Major style technocrat to beat Corbyn

Corbyn for all his policy faults is a genuine human being, someone like hammond would result in Labour majority.
Has to be either Ruth or Boris.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cynical Jack - lets see what they say after the visit

JackW said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cynical Jack - lets see what they say after the visit

I try not to be but I'm struggling to give the PM the benefit of the doubt, which is unlike me. It smacks of damage limitation but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

GeoffM said:

JackW said:

GeoffM said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

GeoffM said:

JackW said:

GeoffM said:

DH isn't a sleeper agent.

He's tolerated as the House Tory because his of his unorthodox views (see also PR)

A shame he's blind to the fact that he's being manipulated to push a meme of a party divided (which it is to an extent, but not down his lines)

Is David Herdson one PBer you would be happy to extinguish a fire on if he were ablaze, as opposed to another PB you recently deemed unsuitable for saving from death by burning?

Just asking .... so the site fire fighters might be on hand.

I said no such thing. I said I wouldn't run back to him with an opinion.

Kindly retract that untruth.

GeoffM Posts: 5,149 June 16
AlastairMeeks said:
» show previous quotes
Get back to me when you can count to 326.


I wouldn't "get back to you" if you were on fire, to be honest.

Exactly. Many thanks for going back and getting that. He wanted me to get back to him with an opinion on the seat numbers and I declined to bother under any circumstances..

Point proved and his apology is awaited.

Again, cheers for getting the original comment back. Appreciated.

I'd stop digging if I were you. Do you have shares in JCB?

As I said at the time it was a "classy remark" given recent events.

Eh? Scrapheap has just proved me right in black and white.

Still, it's the Queen's Birthday Bank Holiday weekend here and day 2 of the tuna season. Those fish won't catch themselves and I've got a new fighting chair to test out.

Back later to scroll through the rest of the thread and look for your apology.

archer101au said:

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that there is any soft Brexit option that can 'bring people together' and that 'we can all be comfortable with'. Voting to leave the EU meant leaving the SM. Over 65% of the UK public want FOM to end, and SM membership is incompatible with this.

What May (and Corbyn lets remember) are proposing is the only option - leave the SM but try and do a deal to maintain a decent relationship. The error is in thinking that we can have a 'soft Brexit' if we choose one - we are not negotiating against ourselves. I sometimes wonder what sort of compromises people think can be made that will ensure a 'soft Brexit'? I think, sadly, the answer is really to accept FOM again. This is not going to bring the country together, it will cause chaos.

The reality is that the only option is to negotiate in good faith and hope that a deal can be done and plan for the possibility that it cannot. There is NO deal on offer that can be accepted, so saying that 'no deal is not an option' is not reflecting reality at this point. At some point in the negotiations, we may get to this, but the current EU position cannot be accepted so unless it is improved there will be no deal.

Stark_Dawning said:

archer101au said:

Lets be serious, if Remain had won by 52/48 we would have had exactly the same problem - they

EU membership is a binary choice and thus divisive. People who think that it is not a binary choice (e.g. all the soft Brexit crowd) are going to find out on Monday that this is not a reality.

Painful as it is, the referendum was the only way to resolve this issue and the will of the majority has to be enacted.

Absolutely correct. Theresa's biggest blunder - by a very long chalk- was allowing the Hardest-of-Brexit crowd to take over proceedings. This is a fringe faction even within the euro-sceptic movement, let alone the public at large. Remainers were, of course, horrified and deserted the Tories in droves, whilst most Leavers were left feeling distinctly queasy. Theresa should have assured the nation that she sought 'a Brexit we can all be comfortable with'. Uniting these multitudinous strands of public opinion would have been a demanding project to be sure, but that's what great leaders are supposed to attempt. Pandering to the fringe is naive short-termism and ultimately doomed.

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

This is what Corbyn is actually saying about the situaiton:

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/876009928045060097/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/jun/17/grenfell-tower-fire-theresa-may-under-pressure-as-anger-grows-live

Contrast with the claims here that's he's whipping up riots.

Did he really need to mention cremation when he talked about the cost of burials?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Richard_H said:

In regard to the fire, the buck stops with Kensington & Chelsea council, for the renovation works and their response to the fire. Had it been a Labour run council, this Tory Government would have been all over this like a rash.

The story is still extremely unclear e.g. The Mail reports today that the plans that were submitted to all the relevant authorities contained the panels that don't go up in flames, then a sub-contractor fitted different ones.

HYUFD said:

The best solution would be to 'cash in' the transition controls on free movement which Blair failed to introduce in 2004 but which the likes of Germany kept for 7 years until 2011, it would be difficult for the EU to argue those were incompatible with a good degree of single market access given they have already allowed them before

Gallowgate said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Richard_H said:

In regard to the fire, the buck stops with Kensington & Chelsea council, for the renovation works and their response to the fire. Had it been a Labour run council, this Tory Government would have been all over this like a rash.

The story is still extremely unclear e.g. The Mail reports today that the plans that were submitted to all the relevant authorities contained the panels that don't go up in flames, then a sub-contractor fitted different ones.

But do the panels meet all relevant building regulations?

That's the difference between breach of contract and criminality.

Charles said:

isam said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

This is what Corbyn is actually saying about the situaiton:

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/876009928045060097/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/jun/17/grenfell-tower-fire-theresa-may-under-pressure-as-anger-grows-live

Contrast with the claims here that's he's whipping up riots.

Did he really need to mention cremation when he talked about the cost of burials?

If Theresa May makes that mistake there will probably be riots

Without wanting to be another PB Moderator, is it really beyond people to refrain from using fire/smoke/burning related metaphors/similies when discussing this? I cant help thinking those that do are just trying to be provocative

I think it was just a slightly thoughtless comment - in any other circumstances talking about "burials and cremations" would be entirely reasonable. But you are right about the double standards that would be applied to May.

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

The best solution would be to 'cash in' the transition controls on free movement which Blair failed to introduce in 2004 but which the likes of Germany kept for 7 years until 2011, it would be difficult for the EU to argue those were incompatible with a good degree of single market access given they have already allowed them before

The transition measures cut both ways as the accession countries also had time to adjust their economies before being fully open within the single market. I don't think applying restrictions retrospectively would be viable, especially in the current circumstances where the EU has no incentive to offer concessions.

MaxPB said:

Charles said:

[snip]

Solution is to add a premium (say 2-3% p.a.) to the cost of a BTL mortgage. Hypothecate the money to a fund that is dedicated to building social housing for rent.

[snip]

Housing benefit should also be reformed. No short term contracts available: councils (or the social housing fund) should enter into long-term contracts (say 10 years +) at a small premium to current rates. So, if you can borrow at 3%, for example, you can be paid 3.5% as a guaranteed income from the State. If you limit loans to 90% of value for houses in this segment, it gives equity providers a guaranteed 5% pre-tax return on their equity [pretty close to the underlying risk free rate].

Exempt the social housing fund from planning permission requirements (obviously not building regs). Properties are built and managed centrally (by an arms length fund). Also support council building of homes for local provision on a matched fund basis. Also have ability to finance institutional money building homes for let on a long-term basis as per the above.

Sorry Charles, but the numbers are massive, there are around 5m properties in the private rental sector which means around 7.5m people are living in privately rented accommodation. That is 7.5m people who are pre-disposed to not vote for us. We need to smash this sector and get as many of those people onto the housing ladder as quickly as possible. Tinkering around the edges as you suggest will see Jez or someone like him walk into Downing St on the back of 24-50 year olds breaking decisively for Labour as they feel stuck in privately rented accommodation, paying off someone else's mortgage rather than their own.

In purely economic terms it is a sector that has a poor multiplier because private landlords, on the whole, spend very little on the properties they rent and overall it is money flowing from younger working people to older non-working people. I don't see how we can win as a party until we are on the side of the former rather than the latter.

Stark_Dawning said:

If James Forsyth is right, WilliamGlenn could be on course to win his bet with SeanT. £10,000 wasn't it?

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/extended-brexit-transition-now-cards/

isam said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Charles said:

isam said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

This is what Corbyn is actually saying about the situaiton:

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/876009928045060097/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/jun/17/grenfell-tower-fire-theresa-may-under-pressure-as-anger-grows-live

Contrast with the claims here that's he's whipping up riots.

Did he really need to mention cremation when he talked about the cost of burials?

If Theresa May makes that mistake there will probably be riots

Without wanting to be another PB Moderator, is it really beyond people to refrain from using fire/smoke/burning related metaphors/similies when discussing this? I cant help thinking those that do are just trying to be provocative

I think it was just a slightly thoughtless comment - in any other circumstances talking about "burials and cremations" would be entirely reasonable. But you are right about the double standards that would be applied to May.

Not quite sure how else he could have phrased it. Surely 'disposal costs' wouldn't have been acceptable.

"funeral costs"?

FrancisUrquhart said:

The story is still extremely unclear e.g. The Mail reports today that the plans that were submitted to all the relevant authorities contained the panels that don't go up in flames, then a sub-contractor fitted different ones.

If that is the case I am not sure how the council are at fault, if they were presented with plans, they checked them against all the relevant standards and then somebody goes ahead and fits something different.

Philip_Thompson said:

Sorry Max but this is very silly, if there's no private rental market then where do you suggest that those who are unable or unwilling to buy for their own personal reasons should live instead?

A few weeks after my wife (then girlfriend) and I started daying we moved in together. We found a property to rent and then later in our relationship as boyfriend and girlfriend we found a property and started renting. Later we found an affordable property (new build) to buy and later we got engaged, married, then had children.

Had I suggested instead of moving in together renting that we commit to buy a property instead then I think that would have come on very strongly and our relationship may not have progressed past that point.

For us there was a functioning and affordable rental and purchase market, that is what is needed. We don't need to smash one functioning market because the other has flaws.

MaxPB said:

Sorry Charles, but the numbers are massive, there are around 5m properties in the private rental sector which means around 7.5m people are living in privately rented accommodation. That is 7.5m people who are pre-disposed to not vote for us. We need to smash this sector and get as many of those people onto the housing ladder as quickly as possible. Tinkering around the edges as you suggest will see Jez or someone like him walk into Downing St on the back of 24-50 year olds breaking decisively for Labour as they feel stuck in privately rented accommodation, paying off someone else's mortgage rather than their own.

In purely economic terms it is a sector that has a poor multiplier because private landlords, on the whole, spend very little on the properties they rent and overall it is money flowing from younger working people to older non-working people. I don't see how we can win as a party until we are on the side of the former rather than the latter.

The_Apocalypse said:

@Tony Boris doesn't come across as a genuine and sincere though. Look at the way he behaved during EUref.

@NickPalmer McDonnell calling for people to take to streets in order to facilitate May's resignation is encouraging disorder. Corbyn should have reined him in. May needs to go, but not by mob rule.

HYUFD said:

The best solution would be to 'cash in' the transition controls on free movement which Blair failed to introduce in 2004 but which the likes of Germany kept for 7 years until 2011, it would be difficult for the EU to argue those were incompatible with a good degree of single market access given they have already allowed them before

nunu said:

HaroldO said:

Stay classy nats;

https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/876015885970026496

Nationalism is nasty. The SNP is no different.

viewcode said:

jonny83 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I think the Queen has been magnificent in this crisis with her speech today and minute's silence. She seems to be in tune with the Nation and it is good to see the residents attending Church vigils and cancelling a demonstration.

It is also good to see the Government has sent a task force to Kensington to co-ordinate the Council and Governments response.

If the hot heads can be kept in control, the residents have a very good chance of being heard and helped

Agreed, once again in tune with the public.

She learnt in a hard school

sarissa said:

HaroldO said:

Stay classy nats;

https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/876015885970026496

But the three times convicted homophobic racist domestic abuser accompanying Ruth Davidson in Ochil & South Perthshire during the campaign is OK?

archer101au said:

Sadly, I think this makes my point - transitional controls are just FOM with a small grace window. So, to get a 'soft' Brexit, we have to concede FOM? It simply can't happen.

HYUFD said:

The best solution would be to 'cash in' the transition controls on free movement which Blair failed to introduce in 2004 but which the likes of Germany kept for 7 years until 2011, it would be difficult for the EU to argue those were incompatible with a good degree of single market access given they have already allowed them before