politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It was the Question Time special exactly a week before polling
Comments
-
They have effectively, all that is happening is the government is sending out social care plans to 'consultation' which is basically shelving it by another name. Every Tory member I have spoken to has agreed we cannot ever put forward such a proposal againdyedwoolie said:@HYUFD they haven't abandoned dementia tax, it's still in the QS albeit under the heading of getting feedback on how to implement.
0 -
Nope. It was, and still is, perfectly legitimate to point out that your opponents main men were supporters of the 1980s version of the Manchester and London Bridge terrorists. It would be a betrayal not to mention it. If people don't want to believe it, or fall for the lies McDonnell & Corbyn tell, there's nothing anyone can do about it.NickPalmer said:
In retrospect the London Mayorals should have been a warning - there again, Crosby's big pitch was "Stop Khan, he had dodgy associates" and people felt that was a pretty feeble argument for voting Goldsmith. It's a real plus for democracy as a whole that it's increasingly clear that you can't win an election just by rubbishing people on the other side (and part of Corbyn's appeal that he doesn't). Even if the voters accept that there's something in the rubbishing, it isn't a clincher for them. This is rather a new development - it used to be true that the way to get votes was to bash the other side.DecrepitJohnL said:
It was even worse than that because, as was repeatedly pointed out to some of the astroturfers on here, the polling evidence was that the specific attacks used against Corbyn, mainly the SF/IRA links, were not resonating with voters. That directs some of the blame (and heaven knows there is enough to share around) back at Crosby and Messina who should have seen the attacks were ineffective. It was not just the manifesto and not just Theresa May: the whole campaign was a clusterfuck.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Woolie, spot on. Criticising the opposition is fine, but you can't have a situation where the only positive to vote for your own side is because you're not another party.
Some posters here reckon that going after McDonnell instead of Corbyn will be more productive next time. But "Your team includes a bloke who had dodgy associates" is even weaker than "Your leader had dodgy associates". The Tories just have to have a positive reason to vote for them, and I wonder if they're capable of it without a period of opposition to regroup. Like Labour in 2010, they feel as though they've simply run out of steam.
I think you in particular are an absolute disgrace on this issue, & I am glad you are no longer in politics to fawn over the latest labour leader, whatever they think.0 -
Fairy nuff! It wasn't the finest bit of politics ever.HYUFD said:
They have effectively, all that is happening is the government is sending out social care plans to 'consultation' which is basically shelving it by another name. Every Tory member I have spoken to has agreed we cannot ever put forward such a proposal againdyedwoolie said:@HYUFD they haven't abandoned dementia tax, it's still in the QS albeit under the heading of getting feedback on how to implement.
0 -
Based on that labour have more talent than the Tories , no wonder the country is F*******.Paristonda said:
Yes but go back to that leadership contest. There were 5 choices - Fox, May, Leadsom, Gove, Crabb, and Boris before he got shafted.foxinsoxuk said:
That narrowed it down to May and Leadsom. Poor judgement is more widespread.foxinsoxuk said:
It was the PCP.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well when you're up against Mother Superior Leadsome then you're going to look brilliant.foxinsoxuk said:Perhaps Toxic Theresa was right to dodge the public then, if one of her few appearances went heavily against her. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
She really is an astonishingly poor candidate for leader, and PM. What were the Tories thinking?
Leadsom would have been so far over her head as PM she would have lost her honeymoon pretty quickly. Crabb was something of a nonentity. Fox is disgraced, and a headbanger. Gove is more unappealing than May, he rubs people the wrong way. Boris would have made us a complete laughing stock - look at how people reacted to him becoming foreign secretary. He is also incredibly divisive because of the EUref, not like his mayoral days.
Despite everything, May was genuinely the best option on offer for the tories!0 -
'Mitt Romney' sounds like Scooby Doo saying 'Its lovely'eristdoof said:
Sounds like Mitt RomneySouthamObserver said:
The Tories retoxified themselves by insisting that the views of 48% of the population could be ignored0 -
I'd have been 16 grand richer all else being equal if that "tax" was present back in ~ 2002.calum said:
Bizzarely abandoning the "Dementia Tax" saves a few £Billion !HYUFD said:It was not the programme itself which hit May so much as the general perception that if you voted for Corbyn you would get a freebie, like free tuition fees, hence the higher youth turnout whilst if you voted for May you would have to use most of your estate to pay for your care costs if you got dementia and if you were a public sector worker you would still face a cap on your pay and if you were a pensioner you would get no triple lock or means tested fuel payments. There was no question which was the more electorally appealing and it was certainly not May and there was no question which was more fiscally prudent and it was certainly not Corbyn however the fact May lost her majority means Corbyn effectively won the war of ideas even if not the actual election. Hence Hammond has already effectively said there will now be an easing off of austerity, the Tories have abandoned the 'dementia tax' and ending the triple lock and means testing winter fuel payments and have had to give £1 billion to Northern Ireland to ensure DUP support. The age of austerity may not be completely over but that Question Time certainly symbolises that there is no longer much appetite for it
0 -
I thought Mrs May was clearly the best candidate on offer. I continued to think that for a week or two afterwards. Her problem is she has no strategy. Tactics she can be good at, as well as being on top of her brief, which is why she lasted so long at the Home Office. The problem is that PM, especially one taking on the impossible task of Brexit, requires someone who is bold, sees the bigger picture, a people person, good at planning and at articulating the chosen policy to get people on her side. Mrs May is none of those thingsParistonda said:
Yes but go back to that leadership contest. There were 5 choices - Fox, May, Leadsom, Gove, Crabb, and Boris before he got shafted.foxinsoxuk said:
That narrowed it down to May and Leadsom. Poor judgement is more widespread.foxinsoxuk said:
It was the PCP.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well when you're up against Mother Superior Leadsome then you're going to look brilliant.foxinsoxuk said:Perhaps Toxic Theresa was right to dodge the public then, if one of her few appearances went heavily against her. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
She really is an astonishingly poor candidate for leader, and PM. What were the Tories thinking?
Leadsom would have been so far over her head as PM she would have lost her honeymoon pretty quickly. Crabb was something of a nonentity. Fox is disgraced, and a headbanger. Gove is more unappealing than May, he rubs people the wrong way. Boris would have made us a complete laughing stock - look at how people reacted to him becoming foreign secretary. He is also incredibly divisive because of the EUref, not like his mayoral days.
Despite everything, May was genuinely the best option on offer for the tories!0 -
No need for both county and district councils for sure.freetochoose said:<
We could cut foreign aid and slash the number of local councillors and bureaucrats.
That's a start.0 -
Honestly I think everything we read about Brexit negotiations has a high chance of being complete rubbish up and until a final deal is agreed/both sides make the same statement on a particular topic.Charles said:
he predominating narrative in the UK thus far in the negotiations has essentially been that every proclamation from the EU or one of its member states is more or less infallible, as if handed down by Moses on stone tablets, while every divergence in the UK’s position from the EU’s demands is seized upon as some sort of moral flaw and a sign that Britain is supposedly handling the negotiations badly. This hugely asymmetric way in which scrutiny is being applied by the British press will do little to advance an agreement that is beneficial for both sidesBarnesian said:
That's really useful and surprisingly balanced, given the source.CarlottaVance said:UK and EU citizens rights proposals compared:
http://brexitcentral.com/uk-eu-will-square-citizens-rights/
That's the most important comment, I think.
There was a discussion on Today a couple of days ago on the question of whether the media should be more "patriotic" in their coverage of Brexit.
I think that is the wrong question. However, what we are seeing is the full scale elision of of opinion and reporting: the (generally) anti-Brexit view of the much of the media is leading them to cover the topic from a narrative of "it's all going horribly wrong" - not very constructive.
A more balanced discussion would be valuable to everyone (except possibly newspaper commercial revenues...)
Between both sides taking a strong but unrealistic negotiating stance, leaks to undermine political foes and the fact that no one really knows what we/they will give in on when it comes down to it - I feel like we might as well treat Brexit negotiations as we do the transfer rumours section of premiership football clubs.
Ignore until confirmed.0 -
Either that, or she has brilliant strategy and is executing it masterfully, as a sleeper for the Remain campaign.FF43 said:
I thought Mrs May was clearly the best candidate on offer. I continued to think that for a week or two afterwards. Her problem is she has no strategy. Tactics she can be good at, as well as being on top of her brief, which is why she lasted so long at the Home Office. The problem is that PM, especially one taking on the impossible task of Brexit, requires someone who is bold, sees the bigger picture, a people person, good at planning and at articulating the chosen policy to get people on her side. Mrs May is none of those thingsParistonda said:
Yes but go back to that leadership contest. There were 5 choices - Fox, May, Leadsom, Gove, Crabb, and Boris before he got shafted.foxinsoxuk said:
That narrowed it down to May and Leadsom. Poor judgement is more widespread.foxinsoxuk said:
It was the PCP.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well when you're up against Mother Superior Leadsome then you're going to look brilliant.foxinsoxuk said:Perhaps Toxic Theresa was right to dodge the public then, if one of her few appearances went heavily against her. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
She really is an astonishingly poor candidate for leader, and PM. What were the Tories thinking?
Leadsom would have been so far over her head as PM she would have lost her honeymoon pretty quickly. Crabb was something of a nonentity. Fox is disgraced, and a headbanger. Gove is more unappealing than May, he rubs people the wrong way. Boris would have made us a complete laughing stock - look at how people reacted to him becoming foreign secretary. He is also incredibly divisive because of the EUref, not like his mayoral days.
Despite everything, May was genuinely the best option on offer for the tories!0 -
How would Hammond have done? I wonder if he wishes he had run...FF43 said:
I thought Mrs May was clearly the best candidate on offer. I continued to think that for a week or two afterwards. Her problem is she has no strategy. Tactics she can be good at, as well as being on top of her brief, which is why she lasted so long at the Home Office. The problem is that PM, especially one taking on the impossible task of Brexit, requires someone who is bold, sees the bigger picture, a people person, good at planning and at articulating the chosen policy to get people on her side. Mrs May is none of those thingsParistonda said:
Yes but go back to that leadership contest. There were 5 choices - Fox, May, Leadsom, Gove, Crabb, and Boris before he got shafted.foxinsoxuk said:
That narrowed it down to May and Leadsom. Poor judgement is more widespread.foxinsoxuk said:
It was the PCP.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well when you're up against Mother Superior Leadsome then you're going to look brilliant.foxinsoxuk said:Perhaps Toxic Theresa was right to dodge the public then, if one of her few appearances went heavily against her. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
She really is an astonishingly poor candidate for leader, and PM. What were the Tories thinking?
Leadsom would have been so far over her head as PM she would have lost her honeymoon pretty quickly. Crabb was something of a nonentity. Fox is disgraced, and a headbanger. Gove is more unappealing than May, he rubs people the wrong way. Boris would have made us a complete laughing stock - look at how people reacted to him becoming foreign secretary. He is also incredibly divisive because of the EUref, not like his mayoral days.
Despite everything, May was genuinely the best option on offer for the tories!0 -
Possible redress against the PFI consortiums if so.Pulpstar said:
All under PFI contracts no doubt.dyedwoolie said:Sun reporting 30 NHS trusts have identified at risk cladding with 9 high rise hospitals classified at most risk. Pricey.
0 -
If you are in residential care you will still likely benefit from the assets you can keep being raised from £23k to £100kPulpstar said:
I'd have been 16 grand richer all else being equal if that "tax" was present back in ~ 2002.calum said:
Bizzarely abandoning the "Dementia Tax" saves a few £Billion !HYUFD said:It was not the programme itself which hit May so much as the general perception that if you voted for Corbyn you would get a freebie, like free tuition fees, hence the higher youth turnout whilst if you voted for May you would have to use most of your estate to pay for your care costs if you got dementia and if you were a public sector worker you would still face a cap on your pay and if you were a pensioner you would get no triple lock or means tested fuel payments. There was no question which was the more electorally appealing and it was certainly not May and there was no question which was more fiscally prudent and it was certainly not Corbyn however the fact May lost her majority means Corbyn effectively won the war of ideas even if not the actual election. Hence Hammond has already effectively said there will now be an easing off of austerity, the Tories have abandoned the 'dementia tax' and ending the triple lock and means testing winter fuel payments and have had to give £1 billion to Northern Ireland to ensure DUP support. The age of austerity may not be completely over but that Question Time certainly symbolises that there is no longer much appetite for it
0 -
You can say that again!dyedwoolie said:
Fairy nuff! It wasn't the finest bit of politics ever.HYUFD said:
They have effectively, all that is happening is the government is sending out social care plans to 'consultation' which is basically shelving it by another name. Every Tory member I have spoken to has agreed we cannot ever put forward such a proposal againdyedwoolie said:@HYUFD they haven't abandoned dementia tax, it's still in the QS albeit under the heading of getting feedback on how to implement.
0 -
I'd not seen that before.Bobajob_PB said:Priti Patel is a moron.
https://youtu.be/_DrsVhzbLzU
It surely rules her out of any future leadership hopes.0 -
Is that bit staying ?HYUFD said:
If you are in residential care you will still likely benefit from the assets you can keep being raised from £23k to £100kPulpstar said:
I'd have been 16 grand richer all else being equal if that "tax" was present back in ~ 2002.calum said:
Bizzarely abandoning the "Dementia Tax" saves a few £Billion !HYUFD said:It was not the programme itself which hit May so much as the general perception that if you voted for Corbyn you would get a freebie, like free tuition fees, hence the higher youth turnout whilst if you voted for May you would have to use most of your estate to pay for your care costs if you got dementia and if you were a public sector worker you would still face a cap on your pay and if you were a pensioner you would get no triple lock or means tested fuel payments. There was no question which was the more electorally appealing and it was certainly not May and there was no question which was more fiscally prudent and it was certainly not Corbyn however the fact May lost her majority means Corbyn effectively won the war of ideas even if not the actual election. Hence Hammond has already effectively said there will now be an easing off of austerity, the Tories have abandoned the 'dementia tax' and ending the triple lock and means testing winter fuel payments and have had to give £1 billion to Northern Ireland to ensure DUP support. The age of austerity may not be completely over but that Question Time certainly symbolises that there is no longer much appetite for it
0 -
Nope. She isn't even any good as a double agent. Brexit is going ahead with crappiness increased rather than reduced. I should also say some of the blame for that lies with David Davis. It wasn't just Theresa May.IanB2 said:
Either that, or she has brilliant strategy and is executing it masterfully, as a sleeper for the Remain campaign.FF43 said:
I thought Mrs May was clearly the best candidate on offer. I continued to think that for a week or two afterwards. Her problem is she has no strategy. Tactics she can be good at, as well as being on top of her brief, which is why she lasted so long at the Home Office. The problem is that PM, especially one taking on the impossible task of Brexit, requires someone who is bold, sees the bigger picture, a people person, good at planning and at articulating the chosen policy to get people on her side. Mrs May is none of those thingsParistonda said:
Yes but go back to that leadership contest. There were 5 choices - Fox, May, Leadsom, Gove, Crabb, and Boris before he got shafted.foxinsoxuk said:
That narrowed it down to May and Leadsom. Poor judgement is more widespread.foxinsoxuk said:
It was the PCP.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well when you're up against Mother Superior Leadsome then you're going to look brilliant.foxinsoxuk said:Perhaps Toxic Theresa was right to dodge the public then, if one of her few appearances went heavily against her. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
She really is an astonishingly poor candidate for leader, and PM. What were the Tories thinking?
Leadsom would have been so far over her head as PM she would have lost her honeymoon pretty quickly. Crabb was something of a nonentity. Fox is disgraced, and a headbanger. Gove is more unappealing than May, he rubs people the wrong way. Boris would have made us a complete laughing stock - look at how people reacted to him becoming foreign secretary. He is also incredibly divisive because of the EUref, not like his mayoral days.
Despite everything, May was genuinely the best option on offer for the tories!
Edit. To carry off Brexit semi-plausibly, you need Napoleon. An expert of strategy combined with a master of detail.0 -
Let's be cynical about this. Justified or not, the attacks did not work and, as was pointed out here at the time, it was clear from the polls they were not working. Whether that is because people did not believe them or did not care or some other reason, they did not work. Even if these attacks "should" have worked, they did not. So Nick Palmer and other posters including Conservative ones are right that a different approach is needed.isam said:
Nope. It was, and still is, perfectly legitimate to point out that your opponents main men were supporters of the 1980s version of the Manchester and London Bridge terrorists. It would be a betrayal not to mention it. If people don't want to believe it, or fall for the lies McDonnell & Corbyn tell, there's nothing anyone can do about it.NickPalmer said:
In retrospect the London Mayorals should have been a warning - there again, Crosby's big pitch was "Stop Khan, he had dodgy associates" and people felt that was a pretty feeble argument for voting Goldsmith. It's a real plus for democracy as a whole that it's increasingly clear that you can't win an election just by rubbishing people on the other side (and part of Corbyn's appeal that he doesn't). Even if the voters accept that there's something in the rubbishing, it isn't a clincher for them. This is rather a new development - it used to be true that the way to get votes was to bash the other side.DecrepitJohnL said:
It was even worse than that because, as was repeatedly pointed out to some of the astroturfers on here, the polling evidence was that the specific attacks used against Corbyn, mainly the SF/IRA links, were not resonating with voters. That directs some of the blame (and heaven knows there is enough to share around) back at Crosby and Messina who should have seen the attacks were ineffective. It was not just the manifesto and not just Theresa May: the whole campaign was a clusterfuck.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Woolie, spot on. Criticising the opposition is fine, but you can't have a situation where the only positive to vote for your own side is because you're not another party.
Some posters here reckon that going after McDonnell instead of Corbyn will be more productive next time. But "Your team includes a bloke who had dodgy associates" is even weaker than "Your leader had dodgy associates". The Tories just have to have a positive reason to vote for them, and I wonder if they're capable of it without a period of opposition to regroup. Like Labour in 2010, they feel as though they've simply run out of steam.
I think you in particular are an absolute disgrace on this issue, & I am glad you are no longer in politics to fawn over the latest labour leader, whatever they think.0 -
A complete and utter moron. Probably the next Tory leader......Bobajob_PB said:Priti Patel is a moron.
https://youtu.be/_DrsVhzbLzU0 -
Charles said:
Would @Beverley_C 's joke be easier to understand if she wrote in Cyrillic?JackW said:
Certainly not .... You can "P" off.Beverley_C said:
If Mr Corbyn becomes PM would that mean he would in charge of the Chaos Cabinet of Crackpots Party - CCCP?JackW said:Conservative Cabinet Crackpot Coalition of Chaos Update :
Corbyn's Crazy Crackpot Co-operative of Chaos
Up The Workers ..
Charles
Or possibly in crayon? I thought JackW was old enough to catch the reference 0 -
Is it just me or is 66-1 on Jon Ashworth to be next Labour leader outstanding value. Stayed on the right side of things, plenty of publicity as Shadow Health. Massive odds, I've put my max allowed stake of 25p on with betfair.0
-
Clearly the tory campaign failed. Re-running it would be idiotic. A new strategy and framework would/will be needed.DecrepitJohnL said:
Let's be cynical about this. Justified or not, the attacks did not work and, as was pointed out here at the time, it was clear from the polls they were not working. Whether that is because people did not believe them or did not care or some other reason, they did not work. Even if these attacks "should" have worked, they did not. So Nick Palmer and other posters including Conservative ones are right that a different approach is needed.isam said:
Nope. It was, and still is, perfectly legitimate to point out that your opponents main men were supporters of the 1980s version of the Manchester and London Bridge terrorists. It would be a betrayal not to mention it. If people don't want to believe it, or fall for the lies McDonnell & Corbyn tell, there's nothing anyone can do about it.NickPalmer said:
Some posters here reckon that going after McDonnell instead of Corbyn will be more productive next time. But "Your team includes a bloke who had dodgy associates" is even weaker than "Your leader had dodgy associates". The Tories just have to have a positive reason to vote for them, and I wonder if they're capable of it without a period of opposition to regroup. Like Labour in 2010, they feel as though they've simply run out of steam.DecrepitJohnL said:
It was even worse than that because, as was repeatedly pointed out to some of the astroturfers on here, the polling evidence was that the specific attacks used against Corbyn, mainly the SF/IRA links, were not resonating with voters. That directs some of the blame (and heaven knows there is enough to share around) back at Crosby and Messina who should have seen the attacks were ineffective. It was not just the manifesto and not just Theresa May: the whole campaign was a clusterfuck.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Woolie, spot on. Criticising the opposition is fine, but you can't have a situation where the only positive to vote for your own side is because you're not another party.
I think you in particular are an absolute disgrace on this issue, & I am glad you are no longer in politics to fawn over the latest labour leader, whatever they think.
One thing which I (and other's no doubt) though, was that when May launched the election she had a plan figured out. Clearly she didn't, as no one else had been working on it.0 -
Out of the attributes I identified - someone who is bold, sees the bigger picture, a people person, good at planning and at articulating the chosen policy to get people on their side - I would say Hammond does see the bigger picture, so he is at least a bit ahead of Mrs May. I have no idea whether he is any good at planning.rkrkrk said:
How would Hammond have done? I wonder if he wishes he had run...FF43 said:
I thought Mrs May was clearly the best candidate on offer. I continued to think that for a week or two afterwards. Her problem is she has no strategy. Tactics she can be good at, as well as being on top of her brief, which is why she lasted so long at the Home Office. The problem is that PM, especially one taking on the impossible task of Brexit, requires someone who is bold, sees the bigger picture, a people person, good at planning and at articulating the chosen policy to get people on her side. Mrs May is none of those thingsParistonda said:
Yes but go back to that leadership contest. There were 5 choices - Fox, May, Leadsom, Gove, Crabb, and Boris before he got shafted.foxinsoxuk said:
That narrowed it down to May and Leadsom. Poor judgement is more widespread.foxinsoxuk said:
It was the PCP.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well when you're up against Mother Superior Leadsome then you're going to look brilliant.foxinsoxuk said:Perhaps Toxic Theresa was right to dodge the public then, if one of her few appearances went heavily against her. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
She really is an astonishingly poor candidate for leader, and PM. What were the Tories thinking?
Leadsom would have been so far over her head as PM she would have lost her honeymoon pretty quickly. Crabb was something of a nonentity. Fox is disgraced, and a headbanger. Gove is more unappealing than May, he rubs people the wrong way. Boris would have made us a complete laughing stock - look at how people reacted to him becoming foreign secretary. He is also incredibly divisive because of the EUref, not like his mayoral days.
Despite everything, May was genuinely the best option on offer for the tories!0 -
Now he hasn't got Keith Harris' hand up his backside any more, why not? He's just as credible as all of the other far left loons in the PLP at the moment.0
-
Hmmh... remind me, when does the dementia tax kick in?Beverley_C said:Charles said:
Would @Beverley_C 's joke be easier to understand if she wrote in Cyrillic?JackW said:
Certainly not .... You can "P" off.Beverley_C said:
If Mr Corbyn becomes PM would that mean he would in charge of the Chaos Cabinet of Crackpots Party - CCCP?JackW said:Conservative Cabinet Crackpot Coalition of Chaos Update :
Corbyn's Crazy Crackpot Co-operative of Chaos
Up The Workers .. Charles
Or possibly in crayon? I thought JackW was old enough to catch the reference0 -
Like Christmas starts in the shops earlier every year, so it appears BBC "NHS Winter Crisis"...It June and its already time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-404213470 -
Charles said:
Hmmh... remind me, when does the dementia tax kick in?Beverley_C said:Charles said:
Would @Beverley_C 's joke be easier to understand if she wrote in Cyrillic?JackW said:
Certainly not .... You can "P" off.Beverley_C said:
If Mr Corbyn becomes PM would that mean he would in charge of the Chaos Cabinet of Crackpots Party - CCCP?JackW said:Conservative Cabinet Crackpot Coalition of Chaos Update :
Corbyn's Crazy Crackpot Co-operative of Chaos
Up The Workers .. Charles
Or possibly in crayon? I thought JackW was old enough to catch the reference 0 -
Yes, and I am not overweight, just undertall. If growth was easy in the right direction...dyedwoolie said:
Yes. We have the deficit and spending profile of a larger economy than we have. We can never address that without massive economic growthDecrepitJohnL said:
No. The paradox is that austerity limits growth (remember Ed Balls's flat-lining hand gestures). Osborne should have concentrated on expanding the economy.Beverley_C said:
So you are saying that they should have restricted spending more harshly than they did? Austerity was not harsh enough?DecrepitJohnL said:
As the Conservatives have driven that debt up to levels undreamt of by Labour even at the height of the global financial crisis "which started in America" I do not suppose even a campaigner as bad as Theresa May will entertain that suggestion.Beverley_C said:
It should be enlarged, cast in bronze and mounted on the gates to Downing St until Gordon's debt pile is finally paid off.Roger said:
It'll need carbon datingTheScreamingEagles said:
I think Dave had it laminated.Roger said:
A bit moth eaten by now i'd have thoughtTheScreamingEagles said:When it came to that magic money tree answer to that nurse, she should have done a Dave and mentioned Liam Byrne's letter.
0 -
No, there are not the votes for a hard Brexit in a hung Parliament and Parliament will have to approve the dealFF43 said:
Nope. She isn't even any good as a double agent. Brexit is going ahead with crappiness increased rather than reduced. I should also say some of the blame for that lies with David Davis. It wasn't just Theresa May.IanB2 said:
Either that, or she has brilliant strategy and is executing it masterfully, as a sleeper for the Remain campaign.FF43 said:
I thought Mrs May was clearly the best candidate on offer. I continued to think that for a week or two afterwards. Her problem is she has no strategy. Tactics she can be good at, as well as being on top of her brief, which is why she lasted so long at the Home Office. The problem is that PM, especially one taking on the impossible task of Brexit, requires someone who is bold, sees the bigger picture, a people person, good at planning and at articulating the chosen policy to get people on her side. Mrs May is none of those thingsParistonda said:
Yes but go back to that leadership contest. There were 5 choices - Fox, May, Leadsom, Gove, Crabb, and Boris before he got shafted.foxinsoxuk said:
That narrowed it down to May and Leadsom. Poor judgement is more widespread.foxinsoxuk said:
It was the PCP.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well when you're up against Mother Superior Leadsome then you're going to look brilliant.foxinsoxuk said:Perhaps Toxic Theresa was right to dodge the public then, if one of her few appearances went heavily against her. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
She really is an astonishingly poor candidate for leader, and PM. What were the Tories thinking?
Leadsom would have been so far over her head as PM she would have lost her honeymoon pretty quickly. Crabb was something of a nonentity. Fox is disgraced, and a headbanger. Gove is more unappealing than May, he rubs people the wrong way. Boris would have made us a complete laughing stock - look at how people reacted to him becoming foreign secretary. He is also incredibly divisive because of the EUref, not like his mayoral days.
Despite everything, May was genuinely the best option on offer for the tories!
Edit. To carry off Brexit semi-plausibly, you need Napoleon. An expert of strategy combined with a master of detail.-1 -
Jack was and is old enough ....Beverley_C said:Charles said:
Would @Beverley_C 's joke be easier to understand if she wrote in Cyrillic?JackW said:
Certainly not .... You can "P" off.Beverley_C said:
If Mr Corbyn becomes PM would that mean he would in charge of the Chaos Cabinet of Crackpots Party - CCCP?JackW said:Conservative Cabinet Crackpot Coalition of Chaos Update :
Corbyn's Crazy Crackpot Co-operative of Chaos
Up The Workers .. Charles
Or possibly in crayon? I thought JackW was old enough to catch the reference
0 -
This isn't Italy.CD13 said:Mr Herdson,
Don't over-think. You should have chosen Pritti Patel. At least, she's easy on the eye.0 -
As far as I can see yes, it is just the including homes in assessment for personal care which has effectively been scrapped, the 'consultation' will likely come up with some longer term plans eventuallyPulpstar said:
Is that bit staying ?HYUFD said:
If you are in residential care you will still likely benefit from the assets you can keep being raised from £23k to £100kPulpstar said:
I'd have been 16 grand richer all else being equal if that "tax" was present back in ~ 2002.calum said:
Bizzarely abandoning the "Dementia Tax" saves a few £Billion !HYUFD said:It was not the programme itself which hit May so much as the general perception that if you voted for Corbyn you would get a freebie, like free tuition fees, hence the higher youth turnout whilst if you voted for May you would have to use most of your estate to pay for your care costs if you got dementia and if you were a public sector worker you would still face a cap on your pay and if you were a pensioner you would get no triple lock or means tested fuel payments. There was no question which was the more electorally appealing and it was certainly not May and there was no question which was more fiscally prudent and it was certainly not Corbyn however the fact May lost her majority means Corbyn effectively won the war of ideas even if not the actual election. Hence Hammond has already effectively said there will now be an easing off of austerity, the Tories have abandoned the 'dementia tax' and ending the triple lock and means testing winter fuel payments and have had to give £1 billion to Northern Ireland to ensure DUP support. The age of austerity may not be completely over but that Question Time certainly symbolises that there is no longer much appetite for it
0 -
Jon Ashworth is indeed one to watch. He is an acceptable face to both wings of the PLP, and to the unions. He is Old Labour in mindset, and willing to be aprominent member of the shadow cabinet as well as an effective campaigner.woody662 said:Is it just me or is 66-1 on Jon Ashworth to be next Labour leader outstanding value. Stayed on the right side of things, plenty of publicity as Shadow Health. Massive odds, I've put my max allowed stake of 25p on with betfair.
At first I was suspicious of him as a parachuted in candidate for the safe seat of Leic South, but he has done well to establish himeself locally, and as well as campaigning for Corbyn campaigned for his neighbour Liz Kendall too. He has good organisational abilities and the astuteness to navigate difficult waters well. I think there are other good candidates, but he is better than these odds would suggest.
We do have a very SE England leadership, and as a Lancastrian in the Midlands he does bring a different perspective.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/8798579185305600020 -
Don't be too dismissive, if Corbyn can become PM then so could Priti Patel, she will not be next Tory leader, that is likely Hammond or Davis but if Corbyn were to win the next general election then Patel would be the likely Tory leader of the opposition in my viewPClipp said:
A complete and utter moron. Probably the next Tory leader......Bobajob_PB said:Priti Patel is a moron.
https://youtu.be/_DrsVhzbLzU0 -
The Tories could have given us a lot more detail on what they were going to do I agree. For instance, immigration figures during the campaign were the best for years and they barely mentioned them, a strange omission as immigration played a big part in winning the referendum. But that in no way means they were wrong to mention Corbyn Abbott and McDonnell were on the side of terrorists that wanted to kill us in the 80s, and probably sympathise with contemporary terrorists more than we should be comfortable with. You don't stop telling your kids not to go off with strangers just because they don't understand how dangerous it isDecrepitJohnL said:
Let's be cynical about this. Justified or not, the attacks did not work and, as was pointed out here at the time, it was clear from the polls they were not working. Whether that is because people did not believe them or did not care or some other reason, they did not work. Even if these attacks "should" have worked, they did not. So Nick Palmer and other posters including Conservative ones are right that a different approach is needed.isam said:
Nope. It was, and still is, perfectly legitimate to point out that your opponents main men were supporters of the 1980s version of the Manchester and London Bridge terrorists. It would be a betrayal not to mention it. If people don't want to believe it, or fall for the lies McDonnell & Corbyn tell, there's nothing anyone can do about it.NickPalmer said:
In retrospect the London Mayorals should have been a warning - there again, Crosby's big pitch was "Stop Khan, he had side (and part of, itand I wonder if they're capable of it without a period of opposition to regroup. Like Labour in 2010, they feel as though they've simply run out of steam.DecrepitJohnL said:
It was even worse than that because, as was repeatedly pointed out to some of the astroturfers on here, the polling evidence was that the specific attacks used against Corbyn, mainly the SF/IRA links, were not resonating with voters. That directs some of the blame (and heaven knows there is enough to share around) back at Crosby and Messina who should have seen the attacks were ineffective. It was not just the manifesto and not just Theresa May: the whole campaign was a clusterfuck.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Woolie, spot on. Criticising the opposition is fine, but you can't have a situation where the only positive to vote for your own side is because you're not another party.
I think you in particular are an absolute disgrace on this issue, & I am glad you are no longer in politics to fawn over the latest labour leader, whatever they think.0 -
As it's been found that Leavers are uneducated pro flogging pro hanging morons perhaps their votes should count only half those of a Remainer? So 73/27Bobajob_PB said:Priti Patel is a moron.
https://youtu.be/_DrsVhzbLzU
We Won!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-368035440 -
I'm not at all disenchanted with the Party, just the leadership.PClipp said:
In fact, Mr Herdson, there is nobody in the ranks of the Conservative Party who has any leadership qualities, who would be capable of uniting the nation. Except for your good self, of course. And I get the feeling that recently you have started to become a bit disenchanted with the Conservatives.david_herdson said:But in any case, what were the options? Boris is flaky and blustering; Osborne was tied to the Cameron project, austerity and the Remain Project Fear; Leadsom was grossly underqualified and proved within days her unsuitability; Gove is divisive and overly intellectual; Hammond might or might not be a male version of May but is uncharismatic and untested on the campaign trail. Indeed, the entire field of possibles all had significant question marks against them. At the time, May had fewer confirmed negatives which is why she won.
Not that it's an easy job but nobody forces anyone to do it and those who put themselves forward have to expect the scrutiny and expectations that come with it.0 -
May made many mistakes. But the fact is that she didn't LOSE as many votes as Corbyn gained.
That allowing Corbyn to effectively run free because she was either too crap or too cautious to take him on was a catastrophic error only genuinely became clear at 10pm on polling day.
The election campaign was far too long a period without the Tories bringing anything new (well, new that was positive). That to me is the biggest, simplest error. She allowed the, erm, Momentum to shift.0 -
Personally I think one sentence from Nick Palmer is worth a thousand posts from all the naive people who perceive the world only in 1-bit monochrome, and not very accurately at that.isam said:
Nope. It was, and still is, perfectly legitimate to point out that your opponents main men were supporters of the 1980s version of the Manchester and London Bridge terrorists. It would be a betrayal not to mention it. If people don't want to believe it, or fall for the lies McDonnell & Corbyn tell, there's nothing anyone can do about it.NickPalmer said:
In retrospect the London Mayorals should have been a warning - there again, Crosby's big pitch was "Stop Khan, he had dodgy associates" and people felt that was a pretty feeble argument for voting Goldsmith. It's a real plus for democracy as a whole that it's increasingly clear that you can't win an election just by rubbishing people on the other side (and part of Corbyn's appeal that he doesn't). Even if the voters accept that there's something in the rubbishing, it isn't a clincher for them. This is rather a new development - it used to be true that the way to get votes was to bash the other side.DecrepitJohnL said:
It was even worse than that because, as was repeatedly pointed out to some of the astroturfers on here, the polling evidence was that the specific attacks used against Corbyn, mainly the SF/IRA links, were not resonating with voters. That directs some of the blame (and heaven knows there is enough to share around) back at Crosby and Messina who should have seen the attacks were ineffective. It was not just the manifesto and not just Theresa May: the whole campaign was a clusterfuck.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Woolie, spot on. Criticising the opposition is fine, but you can't have a situation where the only positive to vote for your own side is because you're not another party.
Some posters here reckon that going after McDonnell instead of Corbyn will be more productive next time. But "Your team includes a bloke who had dodgy associates" is even weaker than "Your leader had dodgy associates". The Tories just have to have a positive reason to vote for them, and I wonder if they're capable of it without a period of opposition to regroup. Like Labour in 2010, they feel as though they've simply run out of steam.
I think you in particular are an absolute disgrace on this issue, & I am glad you are no longer in politics to fawn over the latest labour leader, whatever they think.0 -
I saw PP speak at a Brexit rally in Leicester last year. She was the worst of several speakers. She would be divisive enough to lose the GE badly for the Tories. Possibly a good thing of course, but I don't think she would beat a mainstream candidate in the party vote.HYUFD said:
Don't be too dismissive, if Corbyn can become PM then so could Priti Patel, she will not be next Tory leader, that is likely Hammond or Davis but if Corbyn were to win the next general election then Patel would be the likely Tory leader of the opposition in my viewPClipp said:
A complete and utter moron. Probably the next Tory leader......Bobajob_PB said:Priti Patel is a moron.
https://youtu.be/_DrsVhzbLzU0 -
Will it? When A50 expires we leave automatically. Do you think that in the event of an impasse parliament will be confronted with a choice of crash out or revoke and remain?HYUFD said:
No, there are not the votes for a hard Brexit in a hung Parliament and Parliament will have to approve the dealFF43 said:
Nope. She isn't even any good as a double agent. Brexit is going ahead with crappiness increased rather than reduced. I should also say some of the blame for that lies with David Davis. It wasn't just Theresa May.IanB2 said:
Either that, or she has brilliant strategy and is executing it masterfully, as a sleeper for the Remain campaign.FF43 said:
I thought Mrs May was clearly the best candidate on offer. I continued to think that for a week or two afterwards. Her problem is she has no strategy. Tactics she can be good at, as well as being on top of her brief, which is why she lasted so long at the Home Office. The problem is that PM, especially one taking on the impossible task of Brexit, requires someone who is bold, sees the bigger picture, a people person, good at planning and at articulating the chosen policy to get people on her side. Mrs May is none of those thingsParistonda said:
Yes but go back to that leadership contest. There were 5 choices - Fox, May, Leadsom, Gove, Crabb, and Boris before he got shafted.foxinsoxuk said:
That narrowed it down to May and Leadsom. Poor judgement is more widespread.foxinsoxuk said:
It was the PCP.TheScreamingEagles said:
Well when you're up against Mother Superior Leadsome then you're going to look brilliant.foxinsoxuk said:Perhaps Toxic Theresa was right to dodge the public then, if one of her few appearances went heavily against her. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
She really is an astonishingly poor candidate for leader, and PM. What were the Tories thinking?
Leadsom would have been so far over her head as PM she would have lost her honeymoon pretty quickly. Crabb was something of a nonentity. Fox is disgraced, and a headbanger. Gove is more unappealing than May, he rubs people the wrong way. Boris would have made us a complete laughing stock - look at how people reacted to him becoming foreign secretary. He is also incredibly divisive because of the EUref, not like his mayoral days.
Despite everything, May was genuinely the best option on offer for the tories!
Edit. To carry off Brexit semi-plausibly, you need Napoleon. An expert of strategy combined with a master of detail.0 -
Surely she gained votes?Lucian_Fletcher said:May made many mistakes. But the fact is that she didn't LOSE as many votes as Corbyn gained.
0 -
A stopped clock is right twice a dayChris said:
Personally I think one sentence from Nick Palmer is worth a thousand posts from all the naive people who perceive the world only in 1-bit monochrome, and not very accurately at that.isam said:
Nope. It was, and still is, perfectly legitimate to point out that your opponents main men were supporters of the 1980s version of the Manchester and London Bridge terrorists. It would be a betrayal not to mention it. If people don't want to believe it, or fall for the lies McDonnell & Corbyn tell, there's nothing anyone can do about it.NickPalmer said:
In retrospect the London Mayorals should have been a warning - there again, Crosby's big pitch was "Stop Khan, he had dodgy associates" and people felt that was a pretty feeble argument for voting Goldsmith. It's a real plus for democracy as a whole that it's increasingly clear that you can't win an election just by rubbishing people on the other side (and part of Corbyn's appeal that he doesn't). Even if the voters accept that there's something in the rubbishing, it isn't a clincher for them. This is rather a new development - it used to be true that the way to get votes was to bash the other side.DecrepitJohnL said:
It was even worse than that because, as was repeatedly pointed out to some of the astroturfers on here, the polling evidence was that the specific attacks used against Corbyn, mainly the SF/IRA links, were not resonating with voters. That directs some of the blame (and heaven knows there is enough to share around) back at Crosby and Messina who should have seen the attacks were ineffective. It was not just the manifesto and not just Theresa May: the whole campaign was a clusterfuck.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Woolie, spot on. Criticising the opposition is fine, but you can't have a situation where the only positive to vote for your own side is because you're not another party.
Some posters here reckon that going after McDonnell instead of Corbyn will be more productive next time. But "Your team includes a bloke who had dodgy associates" is even weaker than "Your leader had dodgy associates". The Tories just have to have a positive reason to vote for them, and I wonder if they're capable of it without a period of opposition to regroup. Like Labour in 2010, they feel as though they've simply run out of steam.
I think you in particular are an absolute disgrace on this issue, & I am glad you are no longer in politics to fawn over the latest labour leader, whatever they think.0 -
The Tories suddenly discovering the Magic Money Tree now that they've realised there's votes in it:
Fallon says government has to 'consider' lifting public sector pay cap
Sir Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, has also hinted that he favours lifting the public sector pay cap, PoliticsHome reports. Fallon was asked about pay at the end of his speech to the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) this morning and he replied:
That is obviously a huge question.
It’s partly a matter for the pay review bodies but it also involves a forecast of where you expect inflation to be. I think we expect inflation to start falling back again from the autumn onwards.
But it is obviously something we have to consider not just for the army but right across the public sector as a whole.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jun/28/pmqs-may-corbyn-queens-speech-oliver-letwin-tory-and-cameron-policy-guru-says-taxes-should-go-up-to-fund-better-public-services-politics-live0 -
Goodo, nice to know I have a 50k absolute safety net for the worst happening in the future.HYUFD said:
As far as I can see yes, it is just the including homes in assessment for personal care which has effectively been scrapped, the 'consultation' will likely come up with some longer term plans eventuallyPulpstar said:
Is that bit staying ?HYUFD said:
If you are in residential care you will still likely benefit from the assets you can keep being raised from £23k to £100kPulpstar said:
I'd have been 16 grand richer all else being equal if that "tax" was present back in ~ 2002.calum said:
Bizzarely abandoning the "Dementia Tax" saves a few £Billion !HYUFD said:It was not the programme itself which hit May so much as the general perception that if you voted for Corbyn you would get a freebie, like free tuition fees, hence the higher youth turnout whilst if you voted for May you would have to use most of your estate to pay for your care costs if you got dementia and if you were a public sector worker you would still face a cap on your pay and if you were a pensioner you would get no triple lock or means tested fuel payments. There was no question which was the more electorally appealing and it was certainly not May and there was no question which was more fiscally prudent and it was certainly not Corbyn however the fact May lost her majority means Corbyn effectively won the war of ideas even if not the actual election. Hence Hammond has already effectively said there will now be an easing off of austerity, the Tories have abandoned the 'dementia tax' and ending the triple lock and means testing winter fuel payments and have had to give £1 billion to Northern Ireland to ensure DUP support. The age of austerity may not be completely over but that Question Time certainly symbolises that there is no longer much appetite for it
0 -
-
Keep going. Only another 999 to go.isam said:
A stopped clock is right twice a dayChris said:
Personally I think one sentence from Nick Palmer is worth a thousand posts from all the naive people who perceive the world only in 1-bit monochrome, and not very accurately at that.isam said:
Nope. It was, and still is, perfectly legitimate to point out that your opponents main men were supporters of the 1980s version of the Manchester and London Bridge terrorists. It would be a betrayal not to mention it. If people don't want to believe it, or fall for the lies McDonnell & Corbyn tell, there's nothing anyone can do about it.NickPalmer said:
In retrospect the London Mayorals should have been a warning - there again, Crosby's big pitch was "Stop Khan, he had dodgy associates" and people felt that was a pretty feeble argument for voting Goldsmith. It's a real plus for democracy as a whole that it's increasingly clear that you can't win an election just by rubbishing people on the other side (and part of Corbyn's appeal that he doesn't). Even if the voters accept that there's something in the rubbishing, it isn't a clincher for them. This is rather a new development - it used to be true that the way to get votes was to bash the other side.DecrepitJohnL said:
It was even worse than that because, as was repeatedly pointed out to some of the astroturfers on here, the polling evidence was that the specific attacks used against Corbyn, mainly the SF/IRA links, were not resonating with voters. That directs some of the blame (and heaven knows there is enough to share around) back at Crosby and Messina who should have seen the attacks were ineffective. It was not just the manifesto and not just Theresa May: the whole campaign was a clusterfuck.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Woolie, spot on. Criticising the opposition is fine, but you can't have a situation where the only positive to vote for your own side is because you're not another party.
Some posters here reckon that going after McDonnell instead of Corbyn will be more productive next time. But "Your team includes a bloke who had dodgy associates" is even weaker than "Your leader had dodgy associates". The Tories just have to have a positive reason to vote for them, and I wonder if they're capable of it without a period of opposition to regroup. Like Labour in 2010, they feel as though they've simply run out of steam.
I think you in particular are an absolute disgrace on this issue, & I am glad you are no longer in politics to fawn over the latest labour leader, whatever they think.0 -
While on the subject of hanging....this extraordinary documentary filmed in a Russian prison-all murderers on full life sentences 6 hours from any civilization-is brilliant. Incidentally they stopped hanging in 1996 and all those on death row had their sentences to 25 years. No one in this prison has yet been released
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04m3k1q/storyville-russias-toughest-prison-the-condemned#0 -
That is an interesting link Roger - "They tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present."Roger said:
As it's been found that Leavers are uneducated pro flogging pro hanging morons perhaps their votes should count only half those of a Remainer? So 73/27
We Won!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
I think that the last bit (my bolding) might explain the demographics of the leave vote - the oldsters generally going Leave whilst the youngsters went for Remain. The youngsters' do not have as much "past" to hark back to...0 -
Quite right, Mr Herdson, quite right. :The problem is that the rot sets in from the head.....david_herdson said:
I'm not at all disenchanted with the Party, just the leadership.PClipp said:
In fact, Mr Herdson, there is nobody in the ranks of the Conservative Party who has any leadership qualities, who would be capable of uniting the nation. Except for your good self, of course. And I get the feeling that recently you have started to become a bit disenchanted with the Conservatives.david_herdson said:But in any case, what were the options? Boris is flaky and blustering; Osborne was tied to the Cameron project, austerity and the Remain Project Fear; Leadsom was grossly underqualified and proved within days her unsuitability; Gove is divisive and overly intellectual; Hammond might or might not be a male version of May but is uncharismatic and untested on the campaign trail. Indeed, the entire field of possibles all had significant question marks against them. At the time, May had fewer confirmed negatives which is why she won.
Not that it's an easy job but nobody forces anyone to do it and those who put themselves forward have to expect the scrutiny and expectations that come with it.0 -
Nonetheless, he has one thing absolutely correct - "The Tories just have to have a positive reason to vote for them" because at the last election, that is what they most definitely lacked.Chris said:
Personally I think one sentence from Nick Palmer is worth a thousand posts from all the naive people who perceive the world only in 1-bit monochrome, and not very accurately at that.isam said:
Nope. It was, and still is, perfectly legitimate to point out that your opponents main men were supporters of the 1980s version of the Manchester and London Bridge terrorists. It would be a betrayal not to mention it. If people don't want to believe it, or fall for the lies McDonnell & Corbyn tell, there's nothing anyone can do about it.NickPalmer said:
In retrospect the London Mayorals should have been a warning - there again, Crosby's big pitch was "Stop Khan, he had dodgy associates" and people felt that was a pretty feeble argument for voting Goldsmith. It's a real plus for democracy as a whole that it's increasingly clear that you can't win an election just by rubbishing people on the other side (and part of Corbyn's appeal that he doesn't). Even if the voters accept that there's something in the rubbishing, it isn't a clincher for them. This is rather a new development - it used to be true that the way to get votes was to bash the other side.DecrepitJohnL said:
It was even worse than that because, as was repeatedly pointed out to some of the astroturfers on here, the polling evidence was that the specific attacks used against Corbyn, mainly the SF/IRA links, were not resonating with voters. That directs some of the blame (and heaven knows there is enough to share around) back at Crosby and Messina who should have seen the attacks were ineffective. It was not just the manifesto and not just Theresa May: the whole campaign was a clusterfuck.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Woolie, spot on. Criticising the opposition is fine, but you can't have a situation where the only positive to vote for your own side is because you're not another party.
Some posters here reckon that going after McDonnell instead of Corbyn will be more productive next time. But "Your team includes a bloke who had dodgy associates" is even weaker than "Your leader had dodgy associates". The Tories just have to have a positive reason to vote for them, and I wonder if they're capable of it without a period of opposition to regroup. Like Labour in 2010, they feel as though they've simply run out of steam.
I think you in particular are an absolute disgrace on this issue, & I am glad you are no longer in politics to fawn over the latest labour leader, whatever they think.0 -
I've been right about quite a few things, more often than a stopped clock that's for sureChris said:
Keep going. Only another 999 to go.isam said:
A stopped clock is right twice a dayChris said:
Personally I think one sentence from Nick Palmer is worth a thousand posts from all the naive people who perceive the world only in 1-bit monochrome, and not very accurately at that.isam said:
Nope. It was, and still is, perfectlyNickPalmer said:
In retrospect the London Mayorals should have been a warning - there again, Crosby's big pitch was "Stop Khan, he had dodgy associates" and people felt that was a pretty feeble argument for voting Goldsmith. It's a real plus for democracy as a whole that it's increasingly clear that you can't win an election just by rubbishing people on the other side (and part of Corbyn's appeal that he doesn't). Even if the voters accept that there's something in the rubbishing, it isn't a clincher for them. This is rather a new development - it used to be true that the way to get votes was to bash the other side.DecrepitJohnL said:
It was even worse than that because, as was repeatedly pointed out to some of the astroturfers on here, the polling evidence was that the specific attacks used against Corbyn, mainly the SF/IRA links, were not resonating with voters. That directs some of the blame (and heaven knows there is enough to share around) back at Crosby and Messina who should have seen the attacks were ineffective. It was not just the manifesto and not just Theresa May: the whole campaign was a clusterfuck.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Woolie, spot on. Criticising the opposition is fine, but you can't have a situation where the only positive to vote for your own side is because you're not another party.
Some posters here reckon that going after McDonnell instead of Corbyn will be more productive next time. But "Your team includes a bloke who had dodgy associates" is even weaker than "Your leader had dodgy associates". The Tories just have to have a positive reason to vote for them, and I wonder if they're capable of it without a period of opposition to regroup. Like Labour in 2010, they feel as though they've simply run out of steam.
I think you in particular are an absolute disgrace on this issue, & I am glad you are no longer in politics to fawn over the latest labour leader, whatever they think.
Palmer told us, straight from the heart of Broxtowe, that he had won so easily in 2015 that Anna Soubry had given up!
Blairite who voted for Iraq, now cheerleading for Corbyn. He's just an employee who sucks up to whoever is boss0 -
The statistic that someone believing in bringing back capital punishment gives a 72% indication that they are a 'Leaver' is extraordinaryBeverley_C said:
That is an interesting link Roger - "They tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present."Roger said:
As it's been found that Leavers are uneducated pro flogging pro hanging morons perhaps their votes should count only half those of a Remainer? So 73/27
We Won!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
I think that the last bit (my bolding) might explain the demographics of the leave vote - the oldsters generally going Leave whilst the youngsters went for Remain. The youngsters' do not have as much "past" to hark back to...0 -
That is what all the teenagers sayJackW said:
Jack was and is old enough ....Beverley_C said:Charles said:
Would @Beverley_C 's joke be easier to understand if she wrote in Cyrillic?JackW said:
Certainly not .... You can "P" off.Beverley_C said:
If Mr Corbyn becomes PM would that mean he would in charge of the Chaos Cabinet of Crackpots Party - CCCP?JackW said:Conservative Cabinet Crackpot Coalition of Chaos Update :
Corbyn's Crazy Crackpot Co-operative of Chaos
Up The Workers .. Charles
Or possibly in crayon? I thought JackW was old enough to catch the reference 0 -
Not with Labour, it didn't: the rot set in from the body (you could make a case that the problem was Blair / Brown / Miliband but I don't really buy that: their problem now is of a different order to an unpopular, tired or ineffectual leader).PClipp said:
Quite right, Mr Herdson, quite right. :The problem is that the rot sets in from the head.....david_herdson said:
I'm not at all disenchanted with the Party, just the leadership.PClipp said:
In fact, Mr Herdson, there is nobody in the ranks of the Conservative Party who has any leadership qualities, who would be capable of uniting the nation. Except for your good self, of course. And I get the feeling that recently you have started to become a bit disenchanted with the Conservatives.david_herdson said:But in any case, what were the options? Boris is flaky and blustering; Osborne was tied to the Cameron project, austerity and the Remain Project Fear; Leadsom was grossly underqualified and proved within days her unsuitability; Gove is divisive and overly intellectual; Hammond might or might not be a male version of May but is uncharismatic and untested on the campaign trail. Indeed, the entire field of possibles all had significant question marks against them. At the time, May had fewer confirmed negatives which is why she won.
Not that it's an easy job but nobody forces anyone to do it and those who put themselves forward have to expect the scrutiny and expectations that come with it.
Similarly with the Lib Dems: it wasn't so much that rot set in as that the environment changed and became far more hostile, though their decisions didn't help them adapt.0 -
It does look like the government are going to lift the pay cap and that is justified, especially due to the heroic efforts of the fire, police and ambulance services.
I think we are going to see an increase in spending but as was noted previously, if there is going to be a slackening of the purse I would rather a conservative government undertook it0 -
Very believable though. When I have discussed Brexit with some people, in general, the older they are the more "Brexitty" they are and when they get wound up enough, some of the attitudes they come out with are astonishingly backwards.Roger said:
The statistic that someone believing in bringing back capital punishment gives a 72% indication that they are a 'Leaver' is extraordinaryBeverley_C said:
That is an interesting link Roger - "They tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present."Roger said:
As it's been found that Leavers are uneducated pro flogging pro hanging morons perhaps their votes should count only half those of a Remainer? So 73/27
We Won!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
I think that the last bit (my bolding) might explain the demographics of the leave vote - the oldsters generally going Leave whilst the youngsters went for Remain. The youngsters' do not have as much "past" to hark back to...0 -
Mr HYUFD,
That's another thing I don't understand. if, after two or three years negotiation, Parliament says "No - it's too hard a Brexit" - the alternative is WTO terms, And don't pretend the EU will roll over when you try to re-negotiate.
Parliament will be saying "We'd better stay" in then, but that will fool nobody.
Why would anyone bother voting anymore?
0 -
They really are quite mad in the cult....
https://order-order.com/2017/06/28/corbynistas-at-war-calling-jez-the-absolute-boy-is-sexist/0 -
Ms C,
Their opinions are backwards - mine are forwards.
Case closed, I'm in the right and they're in the wrong. Life is lovely when it's black and white. If only ...0 -
Roger said:
The statistic that someone believing in bringing back capital punishment gives a 72% indication that they are a 'Leaver' is extraordinaryBeverley_C said:
That is an interesting link Roger - "They tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present."Roger said:
As it's been found that Leavers are uneducated pro flogging pro hanging morons perhaps their votes should count only half those of a Remainer? So 73/27
We Won!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
I think that the last bit (my bolding) might explain the demographics of the leave vote - the oldsters generally going Leave whilst the youngsters went for Remain. The youngsters' do not have as much "past" to hark back to...
Radical right policies on criminal justice are very popular.Roger said:
The statistic that someone believing in bringing back capital punishment gives a 72% indication that they are a 'Leaver' is extraordinaryBeverley_C said:
That is an interesting link Roger - "They tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present."Roger said:
As it's been found that Leavers are uneducated pro flogging pro hanging morons perhaps their votes should count only half those of a Remainer? So 73/27
We Won!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
I think that the last bit (my bolding) might explain the demographics of the leave vote - the oldsters generally going Leave whilst the youngsters went for Remain. The youngsters' do not have as much "past" to hark back to...
For example, this morning's NatSocCen survey shows very big majorities in favour of random stop and search, and indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects.0 -
Incredible...Sean_F said:Roger said:
The statistic that someone believing in bringing back capital punishment gives a 72% indication that they are a 'Leaver' is extraordinaryBeverley_C said:
That is an interesting link Roger - "They tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present."Roger said:
As it's been found that Leavers are uneducated pro flogging pro hanging morons perhaps their votes should count only half those of a Remainer? So 73/27
We Won!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
I think that the last bit (my bolding) might explain the demographics of the leave vote - the oldsters generally going Leave whilst the youngsters went for Remain. The youngsters' do not have as much "past" to hark back to...
Radical right policies on criminal justice are very popular.Roger said:
The statistic that someone believing in bringing back capital punishment gives a 72% indication that they are a 'Leaver' is extraordinaryBeverley_C said:
That is an interesting link Roger - "They tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present."Roger said:
As it's been found that Leavers are uneducated pro flogging pro hanging morons perhaps their votes should count only half those of a Remainer? So 73/27
We Won!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
I think that the last bit (my bolding) might explain the demographics of the leave vote - the oldsters generally going Leave whilst the youngsters went for Remain. The youngsters' do not have as much "past" to hark back to...
For example, this morning's NatSocCen survey shows very big majorities in favour of random stop and search, and indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects.0 -
I don't 'agree with Nick' Palmer on many things. I can see that he is faithful to a fault to his party leader, whoever that may be, but so are many on here. However, he argues logically and politely and is always worth reading.Chris said:
Personally I think one sentence from Nick Palmer is worth a thousand posts from all the naive people who perceive the world only in 1-bit monochrome, and not very accurately at that.isam said:
Nope. It was, and still is, perfectly legitimate to point out that your opponents main men were supporters of the 1980s version of the Manchester and London Bridge terrorists. It would be a betrayal not to mention it. If people don't want to believe it, or fall for the lies McDonnell & Corbyn tell, there's nothing anyone can do about it.NickPalmer said:
In retrospect the London Mayorals should have been a warning - there again, Crosby's big pitch was "Stop Khan, he had dodgy associates" and people felt that was a pretty feeble argument for voting Goldsmith. It's a real plus for democracy as a whole that it's increasingly clear that you can't win an election just by rubbishing people on the other side (and part of Corbyn's appeal that he doesn't). Even if the voters accept that there's something in the rubbishing, it isn't a clincher for them. This is rather a new development - it used to be true that the way to get votes was to bash the other side.DecrepitJohnL said:
It was even worse than that because, as was repeatedly pointed out to some of the astroturfers on here, the polling evidence was that the specific attacks used against Corbyn, mainly the SF/IRA links, were not resonating with voters. That directs some of the blame (and heaven knows there is enough to share around) back at Crosby and Messina who should have seen the attacks were ineffective. It was not just the manifesto and not just Theresa May: the whole campaign was a clusterfuck.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Woolie, spot on. Criticising the opposition is fine, but you can't have a situation where the only positive to vote for your own side is because you're not another party.
Some posters here reckon that going after McDonnell instead of Corbyn will be more productive next time. But "Your team includes a bloke who had dodgy associates" is even weaker than "Your leader had dodgy associates". The Tories just have to have a positive reason to vote for them, and I wonder if they're capable of it without a period of opposition to regroup. Like Labour in 2010, they feel as though they've simply run out of steam.
I think you in particular are an absolute disgrace on this issue, & I am glad you are no longer in politics to fawn over the latest labour leader, whatever they think.0 -
Fair enough. I class it "backwards" when they start judging other people by skin colour, or by whom they sleep with or where they come from.CD13 said:Ms C,
Their opinions are backwards - mine are forwards.
Case closed, I'm in the right and they're in the wrong. Life is lovely when it's black and white. If only ...0 -
I wouldn't be surprised if you had majorities in favour of torture, depending how you framed the question.Beverley_C said:
Incredible...Sean_F said:Roger said:
The statistic that someone believing in bringing back capital punishment gives a 72% indication that they are a 'Leaver' is extraordinaryBeverley_C said:
That is an interesting link Roger - "They tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present."Roger said:
As it's been found that Leavers are uneducated pro flogging pro hanging morons perhaps their votes should count only half those of a Remainer? So 73/27
We Won!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
I think that the last bit (my bolding) might explain the demographics of the leave vote - the oldsters generally going Leave whilst the youngsters went for Remain. The youngsters' do not have as much "past" to hark back to...
Radical right policies on criminal justice are very popular.Roger said:
The statistic that someone believing in bringing back capital punishment gives a 72% indication that they are a 'Leaver' is extraordinaryBeverley_C said:
That is an interesting link Roger - "They tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present."Roger said:
As it's been found that Leavers are uneducated pro flogging pro hanging morons perhaps their votes should count only half those of a Remainer? So 73/27
We Won!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
I think that the last bit (my bolding) might explain the demographics of the leave vote - the oldsters generally going Leave whilst the youngsters went for Remain. The youngsters' do not have as much "past" to hark back to...
For example, this morning's NatSocCen survey shows very big majorities in favour of random stop and search, and indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects.0 -
Parliament is quite capable of seeing which way the negotiations are going and if they see the government is going for too hard a Brexit will force it to change tack but Hammond is already moving towards a softer Brexit and is the most powerful man in government now. The British people voted for Brexit but then failed to give May the clear majority she needed for a hard Brexit, so a softer Brexit is much more likely now as a result of the general electionCD13 said:Mr HYUFD,
That's another thing I don't understand. if, after two or three years negotiation, Parliament says "No - it's too hard a Brexit" - the alternative is WTO terms, And don't pretend the EU will roll over when you try to re-negotiate.
Parliament will be saying "We'd better stay" in then, but that will fool nobody.
Why would anyone bother voting anymore?
0 -
Up to a point!Sean_F said:Roger said:
The statistic that someone believing in bringing back capital punishment gives a 72% indication that they are a 'Leaver' is extraordinaryBeverley_C said:
That is an interesting link Roger - "They tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present."Roger said:
As it's been found that Leavers are uneducated pro flogging pro hanging morons perhaps their votes should count only half those of a Remainer? So 73/27
We Won!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
I think that the last bit (my bolding) might explain the demographics of the leave vote - the oldsters generally going Leave whilst the youngsters went for Remain. The youngsters' do not have as much "past" to hark back to...
Radical right policies on criminal justice are very popular.Roger said:
The statistic that someone believing in bringing back capital punishment gives a 72% indication that they are a 'Leaver' is extraordinaryBeverley_C said:
That is an interesting link Roger - "They tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present."Roger said:
As it's been found that Leavers are uneducated pro flogging pro hanging morons perhaps their votes should count only half those of a Remainer? So 73/27
We Won!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
I think that the last bit (my bolding) might explain the demographics of the leave vote - the oldsters generally going Leave whilst the youngsters went for Remain. The youngsters' do not have as much "past" to hark back to...
For example, this morning's NatSocCen survey shows very big majorities in favour of random stop and search, and indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects.
The social attitudes survey also shows social conservatismin long term decline, for example attitudes to abortion and homosexuality are now nearly identical in self identified Christians and the general population.
There is a very good chance that the retired Talibanites of Brexit will be washed away within another generation, by a generation much more happy with the modern world:
http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-34/key-findings/context.aspx-1 -
Against a moderate, charismatic Labour PM maybe, after a term of Corbyn and McDonnell wrecking the economy maybe not, Thatcher was of course a poor public speaker to start off with. If Corbyn becomes PM Tory members may think they need a populist rightwing hanger and flogger to match a populist leftwing socialistfoxinsoxuk said:
I saw PP speak at a Brexit rally in Leicester last year. She was the worst of several speakers. She would be divisive enough to lose the GE badly for the Tories. Possibly a good thing of course, but I don't think she would beat a mainstream candidate in the party vote.HYUFD said:
Don't be too dismissive, if Corbyn can become PM then so could Priti Patel, she will not be next Tory leader, that is likely Hammond or Davis but if Corbyn were to win the next general election then Patel would be the likely Tory leader of the opposition in my viewPClipp said:
A complete and utter moron. Probably the next Tory leader......Bobajob_PB said:Priti Patel is a moron.
https://youtu.be/_DrsVhzbLzU0 -
foxinsoxuk said:
That's why I referred specifically to criminal justice, where attitudes are very socially illiberal.Sean_F said:
Up to a point!Roger said:Beverley_C said:
That is an interesting link Roger - "They tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present."Roger said:
As it's been found that Leavers are uneducated pro flogging pro hanging morons perhaps their votes should count only half those of a Remainer? So 73/27
We Won!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
I blockquote>
The statistic that someone believing in bringing back capital punishment gives a 72% indication that they are a 'Leaver' is extraordinary
Radical right policies on criminal justice are very popular.Roger said:
The statistic that someone believing in bringing back capital punishment gives a 72% indication that they are a 'Leaver' is extraordinaryBeverley_C said:
That is an interesting link Roger - "They tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present."Roger said:
As it's been found that Leavers are uneducated pro flogging pro hanging morons perhaps their votes should count only half those of a Remainer? So 73/27
We Won!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
...
For example, this morning's NatSocCen survey shows very big majorities in favour of random stop and search, and indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects.
The social attitudes survey also shows social conservatismin long term decline, for example attitudes to abortion and homosexuality are now nearly identical in self identified Christians and the general population.
There is a very good chance that the retired Talibanites of Brexit will be washed away within another generation, by a generation much more happy with the modern world:
http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-34/key-findings/context.aspx0 -
Ms C,
I wasn't being critical, but subjective opinions can often form the basis of hatred. Both sides are guilty. Even in science, we weren't immune. As Thomas Huxley said "The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."0 -
Really? In which country has this been demonstrated in the recovery from the 2008/9 crash?DecrepitJohnL said:No. The paradox is that austerity limits growth (remember Ed Balls's flat-lining hand gestures). Osborne should have concentrated on expanding the economy.
0 -
Of course, such policies only ever apply to "others" or "them", never to "me" or "us".Sean_F said:
I wouldn't be surprised if you had majorities in favour of torture, depending how you framed the question.Beverley_C said:
Incredible...Sean_F said:Radical right policies on criminal justice are very popular.
For example, this morning's NatSocCen survey shows very big majorities in favour of random stop and search, and indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects.0 -
On topic, there is a wise English saying, which we should bear in mind when contemplating what happened: "Easy come, easy go".0
-
Chancellors should be judged by what happens to the economy a few years after they leave office, as it takes that long for their policies to have a sustained impact on the economy - and it's also a few years before their successors can either begin appreciably to sort out their screwups, or screw up their successes.Chris said:
During Gordon Brown's chancellorship, I guess.Chris said:
And when was the last time that happened?Slackbladder said:
Well the debt is always going to increase until the deficit is zero.DecrepitJohnL said:
As the Conservatives have driven that debt up to levels undreamt of by Labour even at the height of the global financial crisis "which started in America" I do not suppose even a campaigner as bad as Theresa May will entertain that suggestion.Beverley_C said:
It should be enlarged, cast in bronze and mounted on the gates to Downing St until Gordon's debt pile is finally paid off.Roger said:
It'll need carbon datingTheScreamingEagles said:
I think Dave had it laminated.Roger said:
A bit moth eaten by now i'd have thoughtTheScreamingEagles said:When it came to that magic money tree answer to that nurse, she should have done a Dave and mentioned Liam Byrne's letter.
One (of the many) things the electorate does not appear fully to appreciate is that government actions don't usually have instantaneous results, and that their actions don't cease to have ramifications after they leave office.
(edit - of course in Brown's case, the ramifications of his screwups have continued for a decade or more.... and some of the egregious PPI contracts are over three decades.)
0 -
CD13 said:
Ms C,
I wasn't being critical, but subjective opinions can often form the basis of hatred. Both sides are guilty. Even in science, we weren't immune. As Thomas Huxley said "The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." 0 -
Even Patel now takes a relatively tolerant approach to homosexuality and abortion (though on abortion the voters still generally do not want the time limit reduced), where she is tough is on law and order, national security and immigration, which is exactly where the average British voter wants a tougher line toofoxinsoxuk said:
Up to a point!Sean_F said:Roger said:
The statistic that someone believing in bringing back capital punishment gives a 72% indication that they are a 'Leaver' is extraordinaryBeverley_C said:
That is an interesting link Roger - "They tended to value things like order, stability and safety against things like openness, modernity and other social-liberal values that were more popular among Remain voters. Often it's about harking back to the past - sometimes a feeling that they don't belong to the present."Roger said:
As it's been found that Leavers are uneducated pro flogging pro hanging morons perhaps their votes should count only half those of a Remainer? So 73/27
We Won!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
I think that the last bit (my bolding) might explain the demographics of the leave vote - the oldsters generally going Leave whilst the youngsters went for Remain. The youngsters' do not have as much "past" to hark back to...
Radical right policies on criminal justice are very popular.Roger said:
The statistic that someone believing in bringing back capital punishment gives a 72% indication that they are a 'Leaver' is extraordinaryBeverley_C said:
That is an interesting link Roger -."Roger said:
As it's been found that Leavers are uneducated pro flogging pro hanging morons perhaps their votes should count only half those of a Remainer? So 73/27
We Won!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
I think that the last bit (my ...
For example, this morning's NatSocCen survey shows very big majorities in favour of random stop and search, and indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects.
The social attitudes survey also shows social conservatismin long term decline, for example attitudes to abortion and homosexuality are now nearly identical in self identified Christians and the general population.
There is a very good chance that the retired Talibanites of Brexit will be washed away within another generation, by a generation much more happy with the modern world:
http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-34/key-findings/context.aspx0 -
Big change from 2015 when we had Witney, Sheffield and Doncaster.foxinsoxuk said:
Jon Ashworth is indeed one to watch. He is an acceptable face to both wings of the PLP, and to the unions. He is Old Labour in mindset, and willing to be aprominent member of the shadow cabinet as well as an effective campaigner.woody662 said:Is it just me or is 66-1 on Jon Ashworth to be next Labour leader outstanding value. Stayed on the right side of things, plenty of publicity as Shadow Health. Massive odds, I've put my max allowed stake of 25p on with betfair.
At first I was suspicious of him as a parachuted in candidate for the safe seat of Leic South, but he has done well to establish himeself locally, and as well as campaigning for Corbyn campaigned for his neighbour Liz Kendall too. He has good organisational abilities and the astuteness to navigate difficult waters well. I think there are other good candidates, but he is better than these odds would suggest.
We do have a very SE England leadership, and as a Lancastrian in the Midlands he does bring a different perspective.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/8798579185305600020 -
A bit of minor disruption in Glasgow this weekend !
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/15374730.Major_Glasgow_streets_closed_this_weekend_for_Orange_Order_walk___all_you_need_to_know/?ref=mrb&lp=10 -
I'm very puzzled by the posters who claim that the election showed that negative campaigns don't work. What negative campaign? The Tory one never happened, much to all our bemusement at the time; we kept waiting for it to start, and wondering whether they were keeping their powder dry, and then wondering whether they were leaving it a bit late: and finally, it never materialised.
Conversely, the Labour negative campaign against Theresa May, especially the Momentum one on social media, was brilliant and extremely effective. Just ask anyone in the 18-30 age group as to what videos were shared and 'liked' amiongst their peer group.0 -
https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2012/02/18/austerity-and-growth/?referer=Richard_Nabavi said:
Really? In which country has this been demonstrated in the recovery from the 2008/9 crash?DecrepitJohnL said:No. The paradox is that austerity limits growth (remember Ed Balls's flat-lining hand gestures). Osborne should have concentrated on expanding the economy.
Not sure if that link will work...0 -
Krugman! The guy who, apparently with a straight face, cites Denmark, of all countries, in support of his theory that Osborne should have spent even more zillions of borrowed money than he did.rkrkrk said:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2012/02/18/austerity-and-growth/?referer=Richard_Nabavi said:
Really? In which country has this been demonstrated in the recovery from the 2008/9 crash?DecrepitJohnL said:No. The paradox is that austerity limits growth (remember Ed Balls's flat-lining hand gestures). Osborne should have concentrated on expanding the economy.
Not sure if that link will work...
Edit: I can't however see the chart in that link.0 -
-
He has a better graph in another blog post but I can't find it.Richard_Nabavi said:
Krugman! The guy who, apparently with a straight face, cites Denmark, of all countries, in support of his theory that Osborne should have spent even more zillions of borrowed money than he did.rkrkrk said:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2012/02/18/austerity-and-growth/?referer=Richard_Nabavi said:
Really? In which country has this been demonstrated in the recovery from the 2008/9 crash?DecrepitJohnL said:No. The paradox is that austerity limits growth (remember Ed Balls's flat-lining hand gestures). Osborne should have concentrated on expanding the economy.
Not sure if that link will work...
The relationship between austerity and growth when in liquidity trap/ZLB is shown really nicely.
Edit - I know very little about Denmark, but perhaps you could play the ball and not the man?0 -
My mum lives in Priti Patel's constituency, she says she tries ever so hard.Bobajob_PB said:Priti Patel is a moron.
Thinking back to her talking about her students when she was a teacher I suspect that's a euphemism for what Bobajob_PB said, but I'm not sure.0 -
Wow! That would make a wonderful story for the press.david_herdson said:
Not with Labour, it didn't: the rot set in from the body (you could make a case that the problem was Blair / Brown / Miliband but I don't really buy that: their problem now is of a different order to an unpopular, tired or ineffectual leader).PClipp said:
Quite right, Mr Herdson, quite right. :The problem is that the rot sets in from the head.....david_herdson said:
I'm not at all disenchanted with the Party, just the leadership.PClipp said:
In fact, Mr Herdson, there is nobody in the ranks of the Conservative Party who has any leadership qualities, who would be capable of uniting the nation. Except for your good self, of course. And I get the feeling that recently you have started to become a bit disenchanted with the Conservatives.david_herdson said:But in any case, what were the options? Boris is flaky and blustering; Osborne was tied to the Cameron project, austerity and the Remain Project Fear; Leadsom was grossly underqualified and proved within days her unsuitability; Gove is divisive and overly intellectual; Hammond might or might not be a male version of May but is uncharismatic and untested on the campaign trail. Indeed, the entire field of possibles all had significant question marks against them. At the time, May had fewer confirmed negatives which is why she won.
Not that it's an easy job but nobody forces anyone to do it and those who put themselves forward have to expect the scrutiny and expectations that come with it.
Similarly with the Lib Dems: it wasn't so much that rot set in as that the environment changed and became far more hostile, though their decisions didn't help them adapt.
"Lib Dems not rotten," says leading Tory. "They are consistent to a fault, " he adds.
May we quote you on that?0 -
I think at this point it's probably safe to assume pretty much any public building with cladding will be combustible...calum said:0 -
Really? I remember pb tories getting ever so excited with the viewing figures on a certain videoRichard_Nabavi said:I'm very puzzled by the posters who claim that the election showed that negative campaigns don't work. What negative campaign? The Tory one never happened, much to all our bemusement at the time; we kept waiting for it to start, and wondering whether they were keeping their powder dry, and then wondering whether they were leaving it a bit late: and finally, it never materialised.
Conversely, the Labour negative campaign against Theresa May, especially the Momentum one on social media, was brilliant and extremely effective. Just ask anyone in the 18-30 age group as to what videos were shared and 'liked' amiongst their peer group.0 -
David Davis is a supporter of capital punishment I seem to recall from an interview in the Tory leadership campaign all those years ago. Was such a refreshing interview full of straight answers that it has stuck in my mind for nearly 15 years.logical_song said:
I'd not seen that before.Bobajob_PB said:Priti Patel is a moron.
https://youtu.be/_DrsVhzbLzU
It surely rules her out of any future leadership hopes.0 -
That's why they've got let keep Theresa until Spring 2019 and then have a leadership election which brings on a new face.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
The ball is very simple. Every man and his dog, incluuding all economists and all sane politicians, and particularly including Conservative Chancellors, and including myself, agree that when there's a downturn, a government of a country which is not already over-borrowing, can and should expand the economy by means of a fiscal stimulus.rkrkrk said:
He has a better graph in another blog post but I can't find it.Richard_Nabavi said:
Krugman! The guy who, apparently with a straight face, cites Denmark, of all countries, in support of his theory that Osborne should have spent even more zillions of borrowed money than he did.rkrkrk said:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2012/02/18/austerity-and-growth/?referer=Richard_Nabavi said:
Really? In which country has this been demonstrated in the recovery from the 2008/9 crash?DecrepitJohnL said:No. The paradox is that austerity limits growth (remember Ed Balls's flat-lining hand gestures). Osborne should have concentrated on expanding the economy.
Not sure if that link will work...
The relationship between austerity and growth when in liquidity trap/ZLB is shown really nicely.
Edit - I know very little about Denmark, but perhaps you could play the ball and not the man?
Denmark, which entered the crisis with a budget surplus and very low overall debt, is a prime example of how this can work.
When Osborne became Chancellor, in contrast, he inherited the largest deficit of any major economy, an absolutely humoungous over-spend: Darling was splurging out £4 for every £3 raised in tax. So of course Osborne had no room to do the kind of fiscal stimulus which countries which had managed their finances soundly could do, but instead had to rein it in - which he did extremely skilfully, completely avoiding the mass unemployment which Krugman and pals had forecast..
This shouldn't be hard to understand, surely?0 -
Boris's problem isn't being a wanker. It's that being all things to all people wouldn't work as pm.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
logical_song said:
I'd not seen that before.Bobajob_PB said:Priti Patel is a moron.
https://youtu.be/_DrsVhzbLzU
It surely rules her out of any future leadership hopes.
If being in favour of capital punishment was a bar to being PM the Blessed Margaret would never have been Prime Minister...
As long as any leader maintains the position of Parliament deciding on a free vote (which effectively rules out the possibility of it ever being re-introduced) why should someone's personal view on capital punishment rule them out from ever being PM?0 -
....and he then proceeded to spray the rich and big businesses with tax cuts, even while cutting services for normal people.Richard_Nabavi said:
When Osborne became Chancellor, in contrast, he inherited the largest deficit of any major economy, an absolutely humoungous over-spend:0 -
Tony Blair pulled it off for around eight years as LOTO and PM...Stereotomy said:
Boris's problem isn't being a wanker. It's that being all things to all people wouldn't work as pm.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
No comments on PMQ's?0
-
Danny565 said:
....and he then proceeded to spray the rich and big businesses with tax cuts, even while cutting services for normal people.Richard_Nabavi said:
When Osborne became Chancellor, in contrast, he inherited the largest deficit of any major economy, an absolutely humoungous over-spend:
I seem to recall tax takes increasing. Heard of the Laffer curve? Should have increased rates for ALL bands of income tax by one or two points and increased expenditure in key areas. The present government should still do that.Danny565 said:
....and he then proceeded to spray the rich and big businesses with tax cuts, even while cutting services for normal people.Richard_Nabavi said:
When Osborne became Chancellor, in contrast, he inherited the largest deficit of any major economy, an absolutely humoungous over-spend:0
