Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And so to Manchester where all the focus is on Mrs. May and Mr

SystemSystem Posts: 12,683
edited October 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And so to Manchester where all the focus is on Mrs. May and Mr. Johnson

BoJo now becomes next CON leader favourite with PaddyPower and Betfair sportsbook pic.twitter.com/uIAEw5fe45

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,694
    Turn on to Pb and there’s a new thread. Claim first!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    surbiton said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    The self restraint of the crowds and protesters in Spain is remarkable and shows up the police in the most extreme way. I find it astonishing that this is going on right now in a core EU country and our politicians are wibbling about whether one buffoon should replace another. It is so embarrassingly parochial.

    Thankfully nothing as violent yet but this vaguely reminds me of Tiammen Square. In Europe. Shameful.

    These people are participating in an illegal act, in a country that has been a democracy for more than 40 years. I am horrified by the scenes of violence, but if you participate in an illegal act, don't be surprised when those whose job it is to enforce the law treat you less than favourably.

    Tianmen Square took place in a communist dictatorship. Spain is a liberal democracy with extensive decentralisation of power. They are not comparable at all.
    When did you get employed by the Russian Interior Ministry ?
    I believe in the rule of law. I'm not going to apologise for that.
    I do not believe that the rule of law is enforced by violently assaulting peaceful protesters who are seeking to exercise a democratic right and express their opinions. If you can't see the parallels with Tianmen then I suggest you need to rethink.

    Of course the Spanish State has or more accurately had the right to state that as a matter of law this referendum was unconstitutional and of no effect. They have no right at all to do what they have done today.

    Would you be happy if Nicola Sturgeon called an unofficial referendum, got 95% for Yes on a low turnout, and then declared independence on that basis? If not, why not?
    I wouldn't be happy, but I wouldn't advise sending in the troops to beat people voting - for one if it is on low turnout, she would soon find herself constrained if she tried to move forward.

    Very few people are saying the Catalans are blameless for the escalation, but given as far as I know it was not certain they would win a free and fair poll, then permitting an illegal poll and ignoring it was probably a better option.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Ah, lay Boris and lay the favourite together again.

    Not sure Rudd or Hammond have what it takes should May go soon though (Boris probably knows this) and even long term a dark horse candidate seems possible. Surprised to see Cleverly on the list.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,929
    MikeSmithson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Blighty agreed to call a legally binding Scots Referendum in 2014.

    Why can't the Spanish Govt do the same for Catalonia?

    Because Spain would then split up.
    So you mean they are afraid of losing the democratic argument?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    kle4 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    surbiton said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    The self restraint of the crowds and protesters in Spain is remarkable and shows up the police in the most extreme way. I find it astonishing that this is going on right now in a core EU country and our politicians are wibbling about whether one buffoon should replace another. It is so embarrassingly parochial.

    Thankfully nothing as violent yet but this vaguely reminds me of Tiammen Square. In Europe. Shameful.

    These people are participating in an illegal act, in a country that has been a democracy for more than 40 years. I am horrified by the scenes of violence, but if you participate in an illegal act, don't be surprised when those whose job it is to enforce the law treat you less than favourably.

    Tianmen Square took place in a communist dictatorship. Spain is a liberal democracy with extensive decentralisation of power. They are not comparable at all.
    When did you get employed by the Russian Interior Ministry ?
    I believe in the rule of law. I'm not going to apologise for that.
    I do not believe that the rule of law is enforced by violently assaulting peaceful protesters who are seeking to exercise a democratic right and express their opinions. If you can't see the parallels with Tianmen then I suggest you need to rethink.

    Of course the Spanish State has or more accurately had the right to state that as a matter of law this referendum was unconstitutional and of no effect. They have no right at all to do what they have done today.

    Would you be happy if Nicola Sturgeon called an unofficial referendum, got 95% for Yes on a low turnout, and then declared independence on that basis? If not, why not?
    I wouldn't be happy, but I wouldn't advise sending in the troops to beat people voting - for one if it is on low turnout, she would soon find herself constrained if she tried to move forward.

    Very few people are saying the Catalans are blameless for the escalation, but given as far as I know it was not certain they would win a free and fair poll, then permitting an illegal poll and ignoring it was probably a better option.
    Better yet - instruct no voters not to turn out.
    Say the question is flawed. Dispute the electoral franchise, argue about the boundaries of Catalonia, declare that Catalans in the rest of Spain should vote etc etc . Do whatever you can to discredit an illegal referendum.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    On Catalan, I had always wondered if the Catalans would truly dare UDI if the turnout was low, but wonder, given both sides are escalating, whereas now even though turnout will be low and the process questionable to say the least, they will justify UDI on the basis the vote was interferred with and wasn't able to be as proper as they wanted.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,929
    "Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. Indeed, it is a weapon unique in history, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it."

    — Martin Luther King, Jr., The Quest for Peace and Justice (1964)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Gandhi's "Salt March" in 1930 was technically "illegal".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March

    Pretty sure the americans still owe us reparations for their illegal rebellion too.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,963
    BF Exchange still giving the edge to Davis, just.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    kle4 said:


    Very few people are saying the Catalans are blameless for the escalation, but given as far as I know it was not certain they would win a free and fair poll, then permitting an illegal poll and ignoring it was probably a better option.


    The fact Madrid has gone this far probably indicates they thought a yes vote was likely.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,929
    FPT

    Blighty agreed to call a legally binding Scots Referendum in 2014.

    Why can't the Spanish Govt do the same for Catalonia?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,309
    Afternoon all :)

    I was wrong (as I usually am and most people on here usually are in all fairness).

    ENABLE put up a brilliant performance to win the Arc and reproduced the King George form with ULYSSES almost to the ounce.

    One terrible result for the bookmakers along with what I expect will be an announcement this week from the Government proposing a reduction to £10 maximum stake on FOBTs.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,929
    kle4 said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Gandhi's "Salt March" in 1930 was technically "illegal".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March

    Pretty sure the americans still owe us reparations for their illegal rebellion too.
    Yebbut that was non-Non-Violent :)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,963
    kle4 said:

    Ah, lay Boris and lay the favourite together again.

    Not sure Rudd or Hammond have what it takes should May go soon though (Boris probably knows this) and even long term a dark horse candidate seems possible. Surprised to see Cleverly on the list.

    Re: Cleverly. Probably on there because of this in recent days:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4581638/james-cleverly-theresa-may-prime-minister/
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Andrew said:

    kle4 said:


    Very few people are saying the Catalans are blameless for the escalation, but given as far as I know it was not certain they would win a free and fair poll, then permitting an illegal poll and ignoring it was probably a better option.


    The fact Madrid has gone this far probably indicates they thought a yes vote was likely.

    Should have instructed their supporters to stay at home and discredit the referendum - if they were going to physically try to stop it from taking place, I think they really needed to do so to the point virtually no one could vote at all. As it is, they've hamfistedly busted down doors and beaten people, so I am sure turnout will be low, but plenty of people have managed to vote. If you physically couldn't stop it then focus on discrediting it.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    edited October 2017
    Cleverly has got 'it'. Pretty untested, but a good roll of the dice. Better than the usual suspects
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,271
    edited October 2017
    Should be on David Davis and JRM too given they were joint winners of today's Frank Luntz focus group on leadership contenders with Boris third.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYFD said:
    'I am not going through your selective data picking yet again other than to point out Thatcher got inflation down to just 4% in 1986, an astonishing achievement given even on your figures it never fell below 9% throughout the 1970s.'

    Not so. I have not given the 1978 data - but RPI for that year hovered around 8%. The best that could be set for Thatcher is that she inherited 10.3% in May 1979 and bequeathed 9.7% to Major in November 1990 - a reduction of 0.6% over 11.5 years.
    The Wilson /Callaghan Government inherited 13.5% in March 1974 and passed on 10.3% in May 1979 - a reduction of 3.2% over a period of barely 5 years.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,271
    Ruth Davidson getting a standing ovation as she behind her speech at the Tory conference now
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/jgforsyth/status/914456504425738240
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,963
    HYUFD said:

    Should be on David Davis and JRM too given they were joint winners of today's Frank Luntz focus group on leadership contenders with Boris third.

    Time running out for Boris?

    Will he strike this autumn? Does he have the numbers?

    So many questions.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,309
    On the Catalan question, it's complex but I simply don't understand the reaction from Madrid. They have only poured petrol on a perfectly good fire.

    There are plenty of people in Catalonia, who, for various reasons, would wish to stay in Spain. There was no certainty the referendum result would be decisive in terms of turnout let alone a clear majority for independence. Now, the turnout argument has been squashed and the Catalan separatists can cry "intimidation" if the result isn't a big Si vote.

    In 2014, had the Scots voted to secede from the United Kingdom, I suspect the rest of us would have accepted the result in sorrow more than anger (though there was plenty of the latter as I recall). Madrid should have allowed the referendum and even if there was a big vote to leave the offer of further negotiation could have been made.

    The pictures of violence embolden the extremists on both sides regrettably. Barcelona has seen its share of violence already this year - it doesn't need any more.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,963
    Meanwhile:

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/914497877543735296
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,963
    Note that Kim has now been insult upgraded to 'Little Rocket Man'.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,271
    edited October 2017
    justin124 said:

    HYFD said:
    'I am not going through your selective data picking yet again other than to point out Thatcher got inflation down to just 4% in 1986, an astonishing achievement given even on your figures it never fell below 9% throughout the 1970s.'

    Not so. I have not given the 1978 data - but RPI for that year hovered around 8%. The best that could be set for Thatcher is that she inherited 10.3% in May 1979 and bequeathed 9.7% to Major in November 1990 - a reduction of 0.6% over 11.5 years.
    The Wilson /Callaghan Government inherited 13.5% in March 1974 and passed on 10.3% in May 1979 - a reduction of 3.2% over a period of barely 5 years.

    For the final time as even you have admitted inflation was lower when Thatcher left office than when she arrived and lower still when the Tories left office fully in 1997 than Labour had left it in 1979

    I am not going to defend the Heath government but the 1979 to 1997 Thatcher/Major governments cut inflation by 7% from what they had inherited more than double the cut the Wilson/Callaghan government left
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,271
    Davidson praises a 'Union of choice not a Union of force' an excellent line today
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    Andrew said:

    kle4 said:


    Very few people are saying the Catalans are blameless for the escalation, but given as far as I know it was not certain they would win a free and fair poll, then permitting an illegal poll and ignoring it was probably a better option.


    The fact Madrid has gone this far probably indicates they thought a yes vote was likely.

    All the polls indicate a majority are against independence. a Yes vote was always inevitable since the official position of the opposition was to ignore the vote. Today's violence was inevitable but to assume all the bad guys are with the national government would be wrong. the tactics may be flawed but the tendency to side with those on the streets is to wilfully ignore the vast majority who are at home. Not good news copy but....
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYFD said:
    'I am not going through your selective data picking yet again other than to point out Thatcher got inflation down to just 4% in 1986, an astonishing achievement given even on your figures it never fell below 9% throughout the 1970s.'

    Not so. I have not given the 1978 data - but RPI for that year hovered around 8%. The best that could be set for Thatcher is that she inherited 10.3% in May 1979 and bequeathed 9.7% to Major in November 1990 - a reduction of 0.6% over 11.5 years.
    The Wilson /Callaghan Government inherited 13.5% in March 1974 and passed on 10.3% in May 1979 - a reduction of 3.2% over a period of barely 5 years.

    For the final time as even you have admitted inflation was lower when Thatcher left office than when she arrived and lower still when the Tories left office fully in 1997 than Labour had left it in 1979

    I am.not going to defend the Heath government but the 1979 to 1997 Thatcher/Major governments cut inflation by 7% from what they had inherited more than double the cut the Wilson/Callaghan government left
    I am referring to Thatcher - not Major. The idea that she was responsible for a significant fall in inflation is demonstrably false - it had barely changed after 11.5 years in power - and indeed was higher than in 1978 which was Callaghan's last full year in office.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,271
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYFD said:
    'I am not going through your selective data picking yet again other than to point out Thatcher got inflation down to just 4% in 1986, an astonishing achievement given even on your figures it never fell below 9% throughout the 1970s.'

    Not so. I have not given the 1978 data - but RPI for that year hovered around 8%. The best that could be set for Thatcher is that she inherited 10.3% in May 1979 and bequeathed 9.7% to Major in November 1990 - a reduction of 0.6% over 11.5 years.
    The Wilson /Callaghan Government inherited 13.5% in March 1974 and passed on 10.3% in May 1979 - a reduction of 3.2% over a period of barely 5 years.

    For the final time as even you have admitted inflation was lower when Thatcher left office than when she arrived and lower still when the Tories left office fully in 1997 than Labour had left it in 1979

    I am.not going to defend the Heath government but the 1979 to 1997 Thatcher/Major governments cut inflation by 7% from what they had inherited more than double the cut the Wilson/Callaghan government left
    I am referring to Thatcher - not Major. The idea that she was responsible for a significant fall in inflation is demonstrably false - it had barely changed after 11.5 years in power - and indeed was higher than in 1978 which was Callaghan's last full year in office.
    When did Callaghan or Wilson ever get inflation down as low as 4% as Thatcher did in 1986?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    stodge said:

    On the Catalan question, it's complex but I simply don't understand the reaction from Madrid. They have only poured petrol on a perfectly good fire.

    There are plenty of people in Catalonia, who, for various reasons, would wish to stay in Spain. There was no certainty the referendum result would be decisive in terms of turnout let alone a clear majority for independence. Now, the turnout argument has been squashed and the Catalan separatists can cry "intimidation" if the result isn't a big Si vote.

    In 2014, had the Scots voted to secede from the United Kingdom, I suspect the rest of us would have accepted the result in sorrow more than anger (though there was plenty of the latter as I recall). Madrid should have allowed the referendum and even if there was a big vote to leave the offer of further negotiation could have been made.

    The pictures of violence embolden the extremists on both sides regrettably. Barcelona has seen its share of violence already this year - it doesn't need any more.

    A balanced comment. I would only say that the view inside the rest of Spain is generally more sympathetic to the Spanish government at the moment, whatever their previous mistakes.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    edited October 2017
    felix said:

    Andrew said:

    kle4 said:


    Very few people are saying the Catalans are blameless for the escalation, but given as far as I know it was not certain they would win a free and fair poll, then permitting an illegal poll and ignoring it was probably a better option.


    The fact Madrid has gone this far probably indicates they thought a yes vote was likely.

    Today's violence was inevitable
    How so? If a majority are against independence, as many seem to think is the case, and either they participated and that was the result, or they stayed at home and discredited the vote due to very low turnout, then there would be no need for violence - it's not as though the Catalan separatists would have had any reason to do so. You are clearly right all the 'bad guys' are not with the national government, but they are the ones having people trying to vote beaten in the street when it doesn't seem necessary, even with the regional leaders claiming they would UDI in the event of a Si vote. The people in other regions probably support a very tough approach, but even knowing there were no easy options moving forward even had they gone the ignore route, is this really helping their own cause?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,271
    edited October 2017
    FPT
    YBarddCwsc said:

    FF43 said:


    I'm OK with that. You either open up education to anyone who wants it and meets the standards or you limit it effectively to an elite. The second is not acceptable in today's world because people have aspirations and don't accept being kept in their box by bureaucrats and politicians. Which is the political point. The issue isn't that too many people are being educated at university; it's that it costs too much.

    Ryanair opened up air travel to people who would have stayed at home before.

    You have Ryanair.

    Anyone with money who wants to avoid cattle class takes another airline, pays more money and travels in comfort.

    You have EasyUniversity.

    Anyone with money pays more and goes to a Russell Group, or to a University in the US.

    Your system will end up like air travel. Cattle class for some, whilst an elite travels business class in comfort.

    In your world, Oxford, Cambridge & the Russell Group will simply go private.
    Only if the government allows them to keep their mouths on the public teat. They are all very big consumers of public funds in one way or another
    YBarddCwsc said:

    Who do you think is going to end up at your Education Factory, your EasyUniversity ? Who will teach there, when terms and conditions are so much better at a Russell Group University? When an employer looks at cvs, do you think they hire someone from the University of Durham or the EasyUniversity ? When the BBC chose a new Director General, will it be Oxbridge or the University of RyanAir.

    Staff will be paid a decent salary for delivering education efficiently and to a high standard. They will be paid a full time salary for a full time's job. If the job includes research, that part of their job is funded another way. Universities only teach for half the year which is neither efficient use of staff and university facilities nor does it help students who have to keep paying their accommodation in the off season and have sporadic employment opportunities when they do.
    YBarddCwsc said:

    By reducing public universities to such a pitiful level, you will have actually entranced privilege.

    I would expect general teaching standards to be significantly higher than they are now because the focus would be on that teaching. More students would have greater access to affordable education, so I completely disagree with your final point.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    Jonathan said:

    Cleverly has got 'it'. Pretty untested, but a good roll of the dice. Better than the usual suspects

    He is a long time ally of Boris from his years on the Assembly - ex Army, represents a pro Brexit Essex seat. Certainly has potential as does his new neighbour in Saffron Walden Kemi Badenoch. They don't do identity politics either.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,234
    Ruth is the one person who would beat Corbyn.

    She is an inspiration. What a speech

    'We are not leavers or remainers anymore we are just Brits'

    What a reception
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Ruth is the one person who would beat Corbyn.

    She is an inspiration. What a speech

    'We are not leavers or remainers anymore we are just Brits'

    What a reception

    It's a good line if notably untrue.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,344
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Ruth is the one person who would beat Corbyn.

    She is an inspiration. What a speech

    'We are not leavers or remainers anymore we are just Brits'

    What a reception

    Didn't hear the speech. But tend to agree that she would be the tories' best hope. The mechanism for getting her to getting her to that position is a little tricky, though.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    brendan16 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Cleverly has got 'it'. Pretty untested, but a good roll of the dice. Better than the usual suspects

    He is a long time ally of Boris from his years on the Assembly - ex Army, represents a pro Brexit Essex seat. Certainly has potential as does his new neighbour in Saffron Walden Kemi Badenoch. They don't do identity politics either.
    Cleverly said in response to Barack Obama's intervention in the EU referendum debate that he cannot understand how anyone of African heritage can support the EU. That is the most crass kind of identity politics imaginable.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,694
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYFD said:
    'I am not going through your selective data picking yet again other than to point out Thatcher got inflation down to just 4% in 1986, an astonishing achievement given even on your figures it never fell below 9% throughout the 1970s.'

    Not so. I have not given the 1978 data - but RPI for that year hovered around 8%. The best that could be set for Thatcher is that she inherited 10.3% in May 1979 and bequeathed 9.7% to Major in November 1990 - a reduction of 0.6% over 11.5 years.
    The Wilson /Callaghan Government inherited 13.5% in March 1974 and passed on 10.3% in May 1979 - a reduction of 3.2% over a period of barely 5 years.

    For the final time as even you have admitted inflation was lower when Thatcher left office than when she arrived and lower still when the Tories left office fully in 1997 than Labour had left it in 1979

    I am.not going to defend the Heath government but the 1979 to 1997 Thatcher/Major governments cut inflation by 7% from what they had inherited more than double the cut the Wilson/Callaghan government left
    I am referring to Thatcher - not Major. The idea that she was responsible for a significant fall in inflation is demonstrably false - it had barely changed after 11.5 years in power - and indeed was higher than in 1978 which was Callaghan's last full year in office.
    When did Callaghan or Wilson ever get inflation down as low as 4% as Thatcher did in 1986?
    RPI might have been falling during the later Thatcher years but interest rates were astronomical. I rember trying, and failing to keep a small business afloat as the the landlord kept putting up the rent and the bank the interest rate.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,910
    There’s definitely no antisemitism in the Labour Party. They had an enquiry and everything.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/30/jeremy-corbyn-backed-groups-activists-hounded-jewish-business/
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,567
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Ruth is the one person who would beat Corbyn.

    She is an inspiration. What a speech

    'We are not leavers or remainers anymore we are just Brits'

    What a reception

    Let's get her in Number 10 now.

    She should stand in the next possible Westminster by-election. Sorry Scotland, the whole nation needs her.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    ThomasNashe said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Ruth is the one person who would beat Corbyn.

    She is an inspiration. What a speech

    'We are not leavers or remainers anymore we are just Brits'

    What a reception

    Didn't hear the speech. But tend to agree that she would be the tories' best hope. The mechanism for getting her to getting her to that position is a little tricky, though.
    Others on here will have a much better idea of inter-party dynamics, but I would imagine her network among Westminster MPs is not that strong.

    I think it's more likely that her endorsement is crucial.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,567
    rkrkrk said:

    ThomasNashe said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Ruth is the one person who would beat Corbyn.

    She is an inspiration. What a speech

    'We are not leavers or remainers anymore we are just Brits'

    What a reception

    Didn't hear the speech. But tend to agree that she would be the tories' best hope. The mechanism for getting her to getting her to that position is a little tricky, though.
    Others on here will have a much better idea of inter-party dynamics, but I would imagine her network among Westminster MPs is not that strong.

    I think it's more likely that her endorsement is crucial.
    Given the reception to the speech, she certainly has appeal with the membership.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYFD said:
    'I am not going through your selective data picking yet again other than to point out Thatcher got inflation down to just 4% in 1986, an astonishing achievement given even on your figures it never fell below 9% throughout the 1970s.'

    Not so. I have not given the 1978 data - but RPI for that year hovered around 8%. The best that could be set for Thatcher is that she inherited 10.3% in May 1979 and bequeathed 9.7% to Major in November 1990 - a reduction of 0.6% over 11.5 years.
    The Wilson /Callaghan Government inherited 13.5% in March 1974 and passed on 10.3% in May 1979 - a reduction of 3.2% over a period of barely 5 years.

    For the final time as even you have admitted inflation was lower when Thatcher left office than when she arrived and lower still when the Tories left office fully in 1997 than Labour had left it in 1979

    I am.not going to defend the Heath government but the 1979 to 1997 Thatcher/Major governments cut inflation by 7% from what they had inherited more than double the cut the Wilson/Callaghan government left
    I am referring to Thatcher - not Major. The idea that she was responsible for a significant fall in inflation is demonstrably false - it had barely changed after 11.5 years in power - and indeed was higher than in 1978 which was Callaghan's last full year in office.
    When did Callaghan or Wilson ever get inflation down as low as 4% as Thatcher did in 1986?
    Wilson had inflation lower than 4% in the course of his 1964 - 1970 Government.Getiing inflation down to 4% for a short period was no great achievement in the context of the most severe recession since World War 2 - and as soon as Lawson eased credit and cut interest rates inflation rocketed again.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,309
    felix said:



    A balanced comment. I would only say that the view inside the rest of Spain is generally more sympathetic to the Spanish government at the moment, whatever their previous mistakes.

    Thank you for the kind word.

    It's tempting for English people to view the current Catalan situation through the prism of our own identity and historical creation. The United Kingdom is and was a different creation from Spain whose creation, over a long period of time and under wholly different circumstances, led to a very different form of State.

    Religion has played a huge role as unifier and enforcer of that unity which came out of the Reconquista and the role of the different Spanish kingdoms and their eventual unification.

    From a Spanish historical perspective, the anarchy of the early 20th Century and the disaster of the Civil War (much more recent than ours for example) is a potent message against allowing too much decentralisation and I'm not surprised that still resonates strongly in the Spanish psyche.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,949
    Shocking scene's from Spain? :open_mouth:
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYFD said:
    'I am not going through your selective data picking yet again other than to point out Thatcher got inflation down to just 4% in 1986, an astonishing achievement given even on your figures it never fell below 9% throughout the 1970s.'

    Not so. I have not given the 1978 data - but RPI for that year hovered around 8%. The best that could be set for Thatcher is that she inherited 10.3% in May 1979 and bequeathed 9.7% to Major in November 1990 - a reduction of 0.6% over 11.5 years.
    The Wilson /Callaghan Government inherited 13.5% in March 1974 and passed on 10.3% in May 1979 - a reduction of 3.2% over a period of barely 5 years.

    For the final time as even you have admitted inflation was lower when Thatcher left office than when she arrived and lower still when the Tories left office fully in 1997 than Labour had left it in 1979

    I am.not going to defend the Heath government but the 1979 to 1997 Thatcher/Major governments cut inflation by 7% from what they had inherited more than double the cut the Wilson/Callaghan government left
    I am referring to Thatcher - not Major. The idea that she was responsible for a significant fall in inflation is demonstrably false - it had barely changed after 11.5 years in power - and indeed was higher than in 1978 which was Callaghan's last full year in office.
    When did Callaghan or Wilson ever get inflation down as low as 4% as Thatcher did in 1986?
    RPI might have been falling during the later Thatcher years but interest rates were astronomical. I rember trying, and failing to keep a small business afloat as the the landlord kept putting up the rent and the bank the interest rate.
    Inflation was rising during her later years having fallen in her middle period.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    So when are the Catalans preparing to announce the results do we know?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    edited October 2017
    Gardenwalker said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ThomasNashe said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Ruth is the one person who would beat Corbyn.

    She is an inspiration. What a speech

    'We are not leavers or remainers anymore we are just Brits'

    What a reception

    Didn't hear the speech. But tend to agree that she would be the tories' best hope. The mechanism for getting her to getting her to that position is a little tricky, though.
    Others on here will have a much better idea of inter-party dynamics, but I would imagine her network among Westminster MPs is not that strong.

    I think it's more likely that her endorsement is crucial.
    Given the reception to the speech, she certainly has appeal with the membership.
    I imagine she could do well with membership - she seems charasmatic, albeit she is (I think) much more liberal than the average Tory member.

    But there are surely enough egotistical Tory MPs who would baulk at a new MP, totally inexperienced in Westminster, overtaking them to become PM.

    Even if she makes it to a position where she can run... I doubt she would make final two.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    kle4 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Ruth is the one person who would beat Corbyn.

    She is an inspiration. What a speech

    'We are not leavers or remainers anymore we are just Brits'

    What a reception

    It's a good line if notably untrue.
    Ah, but the same is true of Jeremy's "We're for the many, not the few"

    A line can either be good or be true, not both.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,694
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYFD said:
    'I am not going through your selective data picking yet again other than to point out Thatcher got inflation down to just 4% in 1986, an astonishing achievement given even on your figures it never fell below 9% throughout the 1970s.'

    Not so. I have not given the 1978 data - but RPI for that year hovered around 8%. The best that could be set for Thatcher is that she inherited 10.3% in May 1979 and bequeathed 9.7% to Major in November 1990 - a reduction of 0.6% over 11.5 years.
    The Wilson /Callaghan Government inherited 13.5% in March 1974 and passed on 10.3% in May 1979 - a reduction of 3.2% over a period of barely 5 years.

    For the final time as even you have admitted inflation was lower when Thatcher left office than when she arrived and lower still when the Tories left office fully in 1997 than Labour had left it in 1979

    I am.not going to defend the Heath government but the 1979 to 1997 Thatcher/Major governments cut inflation by 7% from what they had inherited more than double the cut the Wilson/Callaghan government left
    I am referring to Thatcher - not Major. The idea that she was responsible for a significant fall in inflation is demonstrably false - it had barely changed after 11.5 years in power - and indeed was higher than in 1978 which was Callaghan's last full year in office.
    When did Callaghan or Wilson ever get inflation down as low as 4% as Thatcher did in 1986?
    Wilson had inflation lower than 4% in the course of his 1964 - 1970 Government.Getiing inflation down to 4% for a short period was no great achievement in the context of the most severe recession since World War 2 - and as soon as Lawson eased credit and cut interest rates inflation rocketed again.
    There were extraneous factors at woirk, too. Oil prices for example. Inflation cannot necessarily be totally controlled by governments. ‘Events, dear boy, events!'
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,631
    justin124 said:

    HYFD said:
    'I am not going through your selective data picking yet again other than to point out Thatcher got inflation down to just 4% in 1986, an astonishing achievement given even on your figures it never fell below 9% throughout the 1970s.'

    Not so. I have not given the 1978 data - but RPI for that year hovered around 8%. The best that could be set for Thatcher is that she inherited 10.3% in May 1979 and bequeathed 9.7% to Major in November 1990 - a reduction of 0.6% over 11.5 years.
    The Wilson /Callaghan Government inherited 13.5% in March 1974 and passed on 10.3% in May 1979 - a reduction of 3.2% over a period of barely 5 years.

    To save me working it out do you know what the average inflation rates were for both periods?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    https://twitter.com/thespainreport/status/914507870527528960
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,271
    edited October 2017
    rottenborough said:

    HYUFD said:

    Should be on David Davis and JRM too given they were joint winners of today's Frank Luntz focus group on leadership contenders with Boris third.

    Time running out for Boris?

    Will he strike this autumn? Does he have the numbers?

    So many questions.
    He cannot strike unless May resigns or loses a no confidence vote
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    YBarddCwsc said:

    kle4 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Ruth is the one person who would beat Corbyn.

    She is an inspiration. What a speech

    'We are not leavers or remainers anymore we are just Brits'

    What a reception

    It's a good line if notably untrue.
    Ah, but the same is true of Jeremy's "We're for the many, not the few"

    A line can either be good or be true, not both.
    Course it can - a line's effectiveness is based upon catchiness so it sticks in the memory, and how well it inspires/captures the mood.

    If we were relying on lines being true then everything we hear would be a lot less inspiring and a lot more depressing, and we punish politicians when they try to get real with us.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,631
    edited October 2017
    OldKingCole said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYFD said:
    'I am not going through your selective data picking yet again other than to point out Thatcher got inflation down to just 4% in 1986, an astonishing achievement given even on your figures it never fell below 9% throughout the 1970s.'

    Not so. I have not given the 1978 data - but RPI for that year hovered around 8%. The best that could be set for Thatcher is that she inherited 10.3% in May 1979 and bequeathed 9.7% to Major in November 1990 - a reduction of 0.6% over 11.5 years.
    The Wilson /Callaghan Government inherited 13.5% in March 1974 and passed on 10.3% in May 1979 - a reduction of 3.2% over a period of barely 5 years.

    For the final time as even you have admitted inflation was lower when Thatcher left office than when she arrived and lower still when the Tories left office fully in 1997 than Labour had left it in 1979

    I am.not going to defend the Heath government but the 1979 to 1997 Thatcher/Major governments cut inflation by 7% from what they had inherited more than double the cut the Wilson/Callaghan government left
    I am referring to Thatcher - not Major. The idea that she was responsible for a significant fall in inflation is demonstrably false - it had barely changed after 11.5 years in power - and indeed was higher than in 1978 which was Callaghan's last full year in office.
    When did Callaghan or Wilson ever get inflation down as low as 4% as Thatcher did in 1986?
    Wilson had inflation lower than 4% in the course of his 1964 - 1970 Government.Getiing inflation down to 4% for a short period was no great achievement in the context of the most severe recession since World War 2 - and as soon as Lawson eased credit and cut interest rates inflation rocketed again.
    There were extraneous factors at woirk, too. Oil prices for example. Inflation cannot necessarily be totally controlled by governments. ‘Events, dear boy, events!'
    Unless we're talking about the 2008 global finance crisis, in which case it's all Labour's fault, of course!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,271
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYFD said:
    'I am not going through your selective data picking yet again other than to point out Thatcher got inflation down to just 4% in 1986, an astonishing achievement given even on your figures it never fell below 9% throughout the 1970s.'

    Not so. I have not given the 1978 data - but RPI for that year hovered around 8%. The best that could be set for Thatcher is that she inherited 10.3% in May 1979 and bequeathed 9.7% to Major in November 1990 - a reduction of 0.6% over 11.5 years.
    The Wilson /Callaghan Government inherited 13.5% in March 1974 and passed on 10.3% in May 1979 - a reduction of 3.2% over a period of barely 5 years.

    For the final time as even you have admitted inflation was lower when Thatcher left office than when she arrived and lower still when the Tories left office fully in 1997 than Labour had left it in 1979

    I am.not going to defend the Heath government but the 1979 to 1997 Thatcher/Major governments cut inflation by 7% from what they had inherited more than double the cut the Wilson/Callaghan government left
    I am referring to Thatcher - not Major. The idea that she was responsible for a significant fall in inflation is demonstrably false - it had barely changed after 11.5 years in power - and indeed was higher than in 1978 which was Callaghan's last full year in office.
    When did Callaghan or Wilson ever get inflation down as low as 4% as Thatcher did in 1986?
    Wilson had inflation lower than 4% in the course of his 1964 - 1970 Government.Getiing inflation down to 4% for a short period was no great achievement in the context of the most severe recession since World War 2 - and as soon as Lawson eased credit and cut interest rates inflation rocketed again.
    By the end of 1990 Thatcher not only left inflation lower than May 1979 but GDP per capita was far higher and strikes far fewer too
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    OldKingCole said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYFD said:
    'I am not going through your selective data picking yet again other than to point out Thatcher got inflation down to just 4% in 1986, an astonishing achievement given even on your figures it never fell below 9% throughout the 1970s.'

    Not so. I have not given the 1978 data - but RPI for that year hovered around 8%. The best that could be set for Thatcher is that she inherited 10.3% in May 1979 and bequeathed 9.7% to Major in November 1990 - a reduction of 0.6% over 11.5 years.
    The Wilson /Callaghan Government inherited 13.5% in March 1974 and passed on 10.3% in May 1979 - a reduction of 3.2% over a period of barely 5 years.

    For the final time as even you have admitted inflation was lower when Thatcher left office than when she arrived and lower still when the Tories left office fully in 1997 than Labour had left it in 1979

    I am.not going to defend the Heath government but the 1979 to 1997 Thatcher/Major governments cut inflation by 7% from what they had inherited more than double the cut the Wilson/Callaghan government left
    I am referring to Thatcher - not Major. The idea that she was responsible for a significant fall in inflation is demonstrably false - it had barely changed after 11.5 years in power - and indeed was higher than in 1978 which was Callaghan's last full year in office.
    When did Callaghan or Wilson ever get inflation down as low as 4% as Thatcher did in 1986?
    Wilson had inflation lower than 4% in the course of his 1964 - 1970 Government.Getiing inflation down to 4% for a short period was no great achievement in the context of the most severe recession since World War 2 - and as soon as Lawson eased credit and cut interest rates inflation rocketed again.
    There were extraneous factors at woirk, too. Oil prices for example. Inflation cannot necessarily be totally controlled by governments. ‘Events, dear boy, events!'
    Absolutely! That was the major cause of the inflation surge which began in Autumn 1973 and which continued into 1975/76. A second oil price explosion contributed to higher inflation at the end of the 1970s.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Mr. Glenn, I'm sure that'll help to calm the situation down...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    edited October 2017
    Benpointer said:


    Unless we're talking about the 2008 global finance crisis, in which case it's all Labour's fault, of course!

    In his 2010 conference speech David Cameron himself stated they were not completely responsible.

    Let's start by being honest with ourselves. The mess this country is in – it's not all because of Labour.

    Of course, they must take some of the blame. Alright - they need to take a lot of the blame

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/oct/06/david-cameron-speech-tory-conference

    Of course day to day the impression they liked to give was that Labour was entirely responsible, but that's spin for you - creating an impression even if you do strictly speaking say something else. Corbyn certainly learned that lesson when it came to student debt.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited October 2017
    Benpointer said:

    Unless we're talking about the 2008 global finance crisis, in which case it's all Labour's fault, of course!

    I trust that you noticed Ed Balls' admission that the Labour government screwed up financial supervision:

    it is clear from my draft that the Deputy Governor (Financial Regulation) was intended to play a vital role in macro-financial stability within the Bank, with ‘conduct’ regulation moved to a separate institution. As is well known, some senior figures at both the Treasury and the Bank wanted a more decisive break. And the final compromise evolved progressively, and problematically, over the following decade as the Bank’s engagement in financial stability steadily eroded.

    http://www.edballs.co.uk/blog/2017/09/bank-of-england-independence-20-years-on/

    Kudos to him - it's not often that politicians admit that they screwed up something so vital. He could have gone a bit further and admitted that Peter Lilley's warnings were absolutely spot-on.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    That's a seriously good speech from Ruth Davidson - some real content to it, as well.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,234
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    That's a seriously good speech from Ruth Davidson - some real content to it, as well.

    I would expect her to become first choice for members
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,234
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    That's a seriously good speech from Ruth Davidson - some real content to it, as well.

    I would expect her to become first choice for members
    She is mine but she being a Scot helps
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I would expect her to become first choice for members

    Some of the more rabid Leavers won't like her, of course, but if we're serious about becoming the natural party of government again, and seeing off the Corybnistic lunacy, she'd be a fantastic choice. Of course, she might not want the job, and the mechanics are tricky.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,631
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Benpointer said:

    Unless we're talking about the 2008 global finance crisis, in which case it's all Labour's fault, of course!

    I trust that you noticed Ed Balls' admission that the Labour government screwed up financial supervision:

    it is clear from my draft that the Deputy Governor (Financial Regulation) was intended to play a vital role in macro-financial stability within the Bank, with ‘conduct’ regulation moved to a separate institution. As is well known, some senior figures at both the Treasury and the Bank wanted a more decisive break. And the final compromise evolved progressively, and problematically, over the following decade as the Bank’s engagement in financial stability steadily eroded.

    http://www.edballs.co.uk/blog/2017/09/bank-of-england-independence-20-years-on/

    Kudos to him - it's not often that politicians admit that they screwed up something so vital. He could have gone a bit further and admitted that Peter Lilley's warnings were absolutely spot-on.
    I did, and yes I agree, kudos to him. I suspect you know in your heart though that the impact of the crisis on the UK would have been very little different had there been a Tory goverment instead of a Labour one. It's all history though and nothing will change it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    That's a seriously good speech from Ruth Davidson - some real content to it, as well.

    I would expect her to become first choice for members
    Maybe we could have a Shogun situation, where the nominal head is in place and someone else does the actual running of things, and May could stay as PM while someone like Davidson really runs things.

    And before we note that we already have a nominal head of state, the Shoguns were for a time figureheads as well apparently, with regents ruling for a Shogun, who ruled for the Emperor.
  • initforthemoneyinitforthemoney Posts: 736
    FPT
    rural_voter said:



    Even in the US, one notes that every state has publicly-owned, partly state-funded, largely self-governing universities (Regents run them). They appear to charge students ~£6,000 per year. A 4 year course is normal, like Scotland.

    Excluding those, I don't think the US has more than a dozen fully private universities, does it, i.e. Stanford, Yale, Harvard, MIT? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_universities_in_the_United_States. Many of the state universities have excellent reputations. So how can UK univs. charge 1.5x as much as the land of the free where almost everything incl. univs. runs on a largely fee-for-service basis?

    It appears that US states do expect to pay towards the running costs of their state universities, unlike our state. The only point in favour of the UK is that our loans are 'soft'. US student loans are something that you must repay or the debt collectors will come for you.

    My understanding is that there are hundreds of private colleges. Most tend to be smaller than the big state colleges though and fees range from the state college level to exorbitant.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Benpointer said:

    I did, and yes I agree, kudos to him. I suspect you know in your heart though that the impact of the crisis on the UK would have been very little different had there been a Tory goverment instead of a Labour one. It's all history though and nothing will change it.

    No, I don't agree that it would have made no difference. Brown's wrecking of our financial supervision system was central to the fact that we were much worse hit than most other countries. To take the most obvious point, there is no way that RBS would have been allowed to take over ABN Amro if any regulator had regarded it as their role to protect the stability of the financial system as a whole.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,631
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I would expect her to become first choice for members

    Some of the more rabid Leavers won't like her, of course, but if we're serious about becoming the natural party of government again, and seeing off the Corybnistic lunacy, she'd be a fantastic choice. Of course, she might not want the job, and the mechanics are tricky.
    As a non-tory, I agree that Davidson would be a great choice for you guys and imo would seriously diminish the chances of Labour winning next time. If you really are so afeared of the prospect of a Corbyn administration* you should be hoping that a) May hangs on for a year or two and b) an MP resigns or dies in a tory safe seat so that Davidson can be parachuted in in time to be elected leader when May goes before the next GE. It's a tricky path!

    (*I happen to think it will be a lot more docile and less radical than you fear)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,707
    Is Southam on the ground in Catalonia? Wondering what the mood is like there as there have been some disturbing scenes.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,631
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Benpointer said:

    I did, and yes I agree, kudos to him. I suspect you know in your heart though that the impact of the crisis on the UK would have been very little different had there been a Tory goverment instead of a Labour one. It's all history though and nothing will change it.

    No, I don't agree that it would have made no difference. Brown's wrecking of our financial supervision system was central to the fact that we were much worse hit than most other countries. To take the most obvious point, there is no way that RBS would have been allowed to take over ABN Amro if any regulator had regarded it as their role to protect the stability of the financial system as a whole.
    Haha the thought of the Tories having more banking regulation and supervision than Labour or standing in the way of big corporations like RBS (as it was) is truly laughable!
  • glwglw Posts: 10,512
    kle4 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Ruth is the one person who would beat Corbyn.

    She is an inspiration. What a speech

    'We are not leavers or remainers anymore we are just Brits'

    What a reception

    It's a good line if notably untrue.
    Yes, and she's clearly not a reader of PB.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,234
    Benpointer said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I would expect her to become first choice for members

    Some of the more rabid Leavers won't like her, of course, but if we're serious about becoming the natural party of government again, and seeing off the Corybnistic lunacy, she'd be a fantastic choice. Of course, she might not want the job, and the mechanics are tricky.
    As a non-tory, I agree that Davidson would be a great choice for you guys and imo would seriously diminish the chances of Labour winning next time. If you really are so afeared of the prospect of a Corbyn administration* you should be hoping that a) May hangs on for a year or two and b) an MP resigns or dies in a tory safe seat so that Davidson can be parachuted in in time to be elected leader when May goes before the next GE. It's a tricky path!

    (*I happen to think it will be a lot more docile and less radical than you fear)
    She fully endorsed TM in her speech and the Holyrood elections are in 2021. Post those elections she could just be the answer as we would be post Brexit and TM's term would be coming to an end

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,631
    RobD said:

    Is Southam on the ground in Catalonia? Wondering what the mood is like there as there have been some disturbing scenes.

    Not sure if it's already been commented on but Barca's decision to play to an empty stadium looks like a bold political statement. Will the Spanish FA react I wonder? Sport can never ignore politics.
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119
    Benpointer said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Benpointer said:

    I did, and yes I agree, kudos to him. I suspect you know in your heart though that the impact of the crisis on the UK would have been very little different had there been a Tory goverment instead of a Labour one. It's all history though and nothing will change it.

    No, I don't agree that it would have made no difference. Brown's wrecking of our financial supervision system was central to the fact that we were much worse hit than most other countries. To take the most obvious point, there is no way that RBS would have been allowed to take over ABN Amro if any regulator had regarded it as their role to protect the stability of the financial system as a whole.
    Haha the thought of the Tories having more banking regulation and supervision than Labour or standing in the way of big corporations like RBS (as it was) is truly laughable!
    Well considering Labour deregulated from where the Tories left things in 1997 then it's not really all that laughable is it?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,631
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Benpointer said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I would expect her to become first choice for members

    Some of the more rabid Leavers won't like her, of course, but if we're serious about becoming the natural party of government again, and seeing off the Corybnistic lunacy, she'd be a fantastic choice. Of course, she might not want the job, and the mechanics are tricky.
    As a non-tory, I agree that Davidson would be a great choice for you guys and imo would seriously diminish the chances of Labour winning next time. If you really are so afeared of the prospect of a Corbyn administration* you should be hoping that a) May hangs on for a year or two and b) an MP resigns or dies in a tory safe seat so that Davidson can be parachuted in in time to be elected leader when May goes before the next GE. It's a tricky path!

    (*I happen to think it will be a lot more docile and less radical than you fear)
    She fully endorsed TM in her speech and the Holyrood elections are in 2021. Post those elections she could just be the answer as we would be post Brexit and TM's term would be coming to an end

    But she'd need to be an MP in Westminster by then!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Benpointer said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I would expect her to become first choice for members

    Some of the more rabid Leavers won't like her, of course, but if we're serious about becoming the natural party of government again, and seeing off the Corybnistic lunacy, she'd be a fantastic choice. Of course, she might not want the job, and the mechanics are tricky.
    As a non-tory, I agree that Davidson would be a great choice for you guys and imo would seriously diminish the chances of Labour winning next time. If you really are so afeared of the prospect of a Corbyn administration* you should be hoping that a) May hangs on for a year or two and b) an MP resigns or dies in a tory safe seat so that Davidson can be parachuted in in time to be elected leader when May goes before the next GE. It's a tricky path!

    (*I happen to think it will be a lot more docile and less radical than you fear)
    It would look ill of her to seemingly abandon Holyrood because Westminster was beckoning, but assuming for a moment she were willing to do so before the next Scottish parliamentary elections, and acknowledging there is no reason at all why she couldn't do otherwise, I feel like she would really want to represent a Scottish seat, of which all but one of the scottish Tory seats are newly taken so no one likely to retire anytime soon and most are young enough that one wouldn't expect a sudden change in their circumstances. Even opening up to UK wide, there may not be any by-elections in the next few years in a winnable seat for the Tories, a lot of them have seemed to have be in Labour heartland seats.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,234
    Benpointer said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Benpointer said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I would expect her to become first choice for members

    Some of the more rabid Leavers won't like her, of course, but if we're serious about becoming the natural party of government again, and seeing off the Corybnistic lunacy, she'd be a fantastic choice. Of course, she might not want the job, and the mechanics are tricky.
    As a non-tory, I agree that Davidson would be a great choice for you guys and imo would seriously diminish the chances of Labour winning next time. If you really are so afeared of the prospect of a Corbyn administration* you should be hoping that a) May hangs on for a year or two and b) an MP resigns or dies in a tory safe seat so that Davidson can be parachuted in in time to be elected leader when May goes before the next GE. It's a tricky path!

    (*I happen to think it will be a lot more docile and less radical than you fear)
    She fully endorsed TM in her speech and the Holyrood elections are in 2021. Post those elections she could just be the answer as we would be post Brexit and TM's term would be coming to an end

    But she'd need to be an MP in Westminster by then!
    That can be arranged. Plenty will be looking to go to the House of Lords by then
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,631
    CopperSulphate said:

    Benpointer said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Benpointer said:

    I did, and yes I agree, kudos to him. I suspect you know in your heart though that the impact of the crisis on the UK would have been very little different had there been a Tory goverment instead of a Labour one. It's all history though and nothing will change it.

    No, I don't agree that it would have made no difference. Brown's wrecking of our financial supervision system was central to the fact that we were much worse hit than most other countries. To take the most obvious point, there is no way that RBS would have been allowed to take over ABN Amro if any regulator had regarded it as their role to protect the stability of the financial system as a whole.
    Haha the thought of the Tories having more banking regulation and supervision than Labour or standing in the way of big corporations like RBS (as it was) is truly laughable!
    Well considering Labour deregulated from where the Tories left things in 1997 then it's not really all that laughable is it?
    So the Tories are the party of business regulation now are they? My, how the times are changing!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Benpointer said:

    RobD said:

    Is Southam on the ground in Catalonia? Wondering what the mood is like there as there have been some disturbing scenes.

    Not sure if it's already been commented on but Barca's decision to play to an empty stadium looks like a bold political statement. Will the Spanish FA react I wonder? Sport can never ignore politics.
    I know the club are pretty political at times apparently, but given people are being beaten in the street in the city it seems like a sound safety move to not have 100,000 fans all riled up as even a small number causing trouble could cause problems.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Benpointer said:

    CopperSulphate said:

    Benpointer said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Benpointer said:

    I did, and yes I agree, kudos to him. I suspect you know in your heart though that the impact of the crisis on the UK would have been very little different had there been a Tory goverment instead of a Labour one. It's all history though and nothing will change it.

    No, I don't agree that it would have made no difference. Brown's wrecking of our financial supervision system was central to the fact that we were much worse hit than most other countries. To take the most obvious point, there is no way that RBS would have been allowed to take over ABN Amro if any regulator had regarded it as their role to protect the stability of the financial system as a whole.
    Haha the thought of the Tories having more banking regulation and supervision than Labour or standing in the way of big corporations like RBS (as it was) is truly laughable!
    Well considering Labour deregulated from where the Tories left things in 1997 then it's not really all that laughable is it?
    So the Tories are the party of business regulation now are they? My, how the times are changing!
    That made me laugh too.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited October 2017
    Benpointer said:

    Haha the thought of the Tories having more banking regulation and supervision than Labour or standing in the way of big corporations like RBS (as it was) is truly laughable!

    As always, you equate 'more' regulation with 'better' regulation. The was no shortage of quantity of regulation; every single employeee in any banking role in RBS was duly authorised by the FSA, having had to pass absolutely brain-dead exams and sit through tedious FSA-approved courses. Like every other bank, the place was crawling with compliance officers. The bank had in place zillions of pages of FSA-approved practice manuals, covering everything from insider trading to money laundering to diversity to consumer protection and lots of other stuff. Everything was ticked off and logged in documents which no-one ever read.

    The one thing that was missing was the most important thing of all: a sensible regulatory system designed to prevent banks crashing the economy, such as we had had from the period following the collapse of Overend & Gurney in 1866 until 1997 when Gordon Brown decided he knew better.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,631
    kle4 said:

    Benpointer said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I would expect her to become first choice for members

    Some of the more rabid Leavers won't like her, of course, but if we're serious about becoming the natural party of government again, and seeing off the Corybnistic lunacy, she'd be a fantastic choice. Of course, she might not want the job, and the mechanics are tricky.
    As a non-tory, I agree that Davidson would be a great choice for you guys and imo would seriously diminish the chances of Labour winning next time. If you really are so afeared of the prospect of a Corbyn administration* you should be hoping that a) May hangs on for a year or two and b) an MP resigns or dies in a tory safe seat so that Davidson can be parachuted in in time to be elected leader when May goes before the next GE. It's a tricky path!

    (*I happen to think it will be a lot more docile and less radical than you fear)
    It would look ill of her to seemingly abandon Holyrood because Westminster was beckoning, but assuming for a moment she were willing to do so before the next Scottish parliamentary elections, and acknowledging there is no reason at all why she couldn't do otherwise, I feel like she would really want to represent a Scottish seat, of which all but one of the scottish Tory seats are newly taken so no one likely to retire anytime soon and most are young enough that one wouldn't expect a sudden change in their circumstances. Even opening up to UK wide, there may not be any by-elections in the next few years in a winnable seat for the Tories, a lot of them have seemed to have be in Labour heartland seats.
    Yes, I was thinking central office could lean on a sitting tory MP in a safe seat. But I think it's a good point re it really needing to be a Scottish seat. So it's probably in the lap of the gods then. The other issue is would it feel right for someone who had been an MP for only a year or so to? I said it was a tricky path.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    kle4 said:

    Benpointer said:

    RobD said:

    Is Southam on the ground in Catalonia? Wondering what the mood is like there as there have been some disturbing scenes.

    Not sure if it's already been commented on but Barca's decision to play to an empty stadium looks like a bold political statement. Will the Spanish FA react I wonder? Sport can never ignore politics.
    I know the club are pretty political at times apparently, but given people are being beaten in the street in the city it seems like a sound safety move to not have 100,000 fans all riled up as even a small number causing trouble could cause problems.
    It would have been inviting a modern day version of the Nika riots.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    All you need to know about Ruth Davidson is that Blair himself all but anoints her in his latest ( I must say magisterial ) piece on the current state of British politics. The problem is timing and dynamic. She represent and forge a new Centre. The problem is the electorate blew up the old centre and appears to be quite enjoying a return the trenches. What we don't yet know is whether this really is the end of a great cycle. Do we really have to relive the 1970's because too many folk have forgotten the original version. My instinct is now yes we do have to relive the 1970's.

    So we should distinguish between a Davidson Premiership that tries to prevent the deluge and one that's a response to the deluge. She's a young women and I think she'd be better suited to the later.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,512
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    As always, you equate 'more' regulation with 'better' regulation. The was no shortage of quantity of regulation; every single employeee in any banking role in RBS was duly authorised by the FSA, having had to pass absolutely brain-dead exams and sit through tedious FSA-approved course. Like every other bank, the place was crawling with compliance officers. The bank had in place zillions of pages of FSA-approved practice manuals, covering everything from insider trading to money laundering to diversity to consumer protection and lots of other stuff. Everything was ticked off and logged in documents which no-one ever read.

    The one thing that was missing was the most important thing of all: a sensible regulatory system designed to prevent RBS crashing the economy, such as we had had from the period following the collapse of Overend & Gurney in 1866 until 1997 when Gordon Brown decided he knew better.

    IIRC the FSA had something like 4,000 people "regulating" the banks, they seemed quite good at making sure interests rates were clearly and consistently printed on leaflets, but not so good at making sure the entire financial system wasn't about to fall into the abyss.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    AlastairMeeks said:

    kle4 said:

    Benpointer said:

    RobD said:

    Is Southam on the ground in Catalonia? Wondering what the mood is like there as there have been some disturbing scenes.

    Not sure if it's already been commented on but Barca's decision to play to an empty stadium looks like a bold political statement. Will the Spanish FA react I wonder? Sport can never ignore politics.
    I know the club are pretty political at times apparently, but given people are being beaten in the street in the city it seems like a sound safety move to not have 100,000 fans all riled up as even a small number causing trouble could cause problems.
    It would have been inviting a modern day version of the Nika riots.
    Death to Justinian!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Benpointer said:

    kle4 said:

    Benpointer said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I would expect her to become first choice for members

    Some of the more rabid Leavers won't like her, of course, but if we're serious about becoming the natural party of government again, and seeing off the Corybnistic lunacy, she'd be a fantastic choice. Of course, she might not want the job, and the mechanics are tricky.
    As a non-tory, I agree that Davidson would be a great choice for you guys and imo would seriously diminish the chances of Labour winning next time. If you really are so afeared of the prospect of a Corbyn administration* you should be hoping that a) May hangs on for a year or two and b) an MP resigns or dies in a tory safe seat so that Davidson can be parachuted in in time to be elected leader when May goes before the next GE. It's a tricky path!

    (*I happen to think it will be a lot more docile and less radical than you fear)
    It would look ill of her to seemingly abandon Holyrood because Westminster was beckoning, but assuming for a moment she were willing to do so before the next Scottish parliamentary elections, and acknowledging there is no reason at all why she couldn't do otherwise, I feel like she would really want to represent a Scottish seat, of which all but one of the scottish Tory seats are newly taken so no one likely to retire anytime soon and most are young enough that one wouldn't expect a sudden change in their circumstances. Even opening up to UK wide, there may not be any by-elections in the next few years in a winnable seat for the Tories, a lot of them have seemed to have be in Labour heartland seats.
    Yes, I was thinking central office could lean on a sitting tory MP in a safe seat. But I think it's a good point re it really needing to be a Scottish seat. So it's probably in the lap of the gods then. The other issue is would it feel right for someone who had been an MP for only a year or so to? I said it was a tricky path.
    If she had an experienced MP as, say, First Secretary of State to act as her portal to Westminster I could see her rising to the top job fairly quickly in those circumstances, allaying concerns she would not know how to operate in Westminster. But I think it is a question for post 2021 - of SCON continue to do well there, making some more gains and solidify second place at least, then her star will be able to keep rising.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Mr. Meeks/Mr. kle4, it wouldn't've been that bad.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,969
    FPT
    Recidivist said:

    » show previous quotes
    Really? You are responding to a joke about the political situation in Spain with a partisan dig at the Labour Party?and your criticism is that they're not prepared to take up arms in a foreign Civil War?

    No I was commenting on the fact that they are always spouting about how they are internationalists , especially their leaders an din Scotland, meanwhile they are really a bunch of mealy mouthed liars who have more faces than the town clock and do not care a jot other than getting themselves into power to enrich themselves. You can pick just about any of their policies, anti nuclear but support Trident , anti Uni fees but introduced them and on and on and on.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    glw said:

    IIRC the FSA had something like 4,000 people "regulating" the banks, they seemed quite good at making sure interests rates were clearly and consistently printed on leaflets, but not so good at making sure the entire financial system wasn't about to fall into the abyss.

    That's because their remit was largely about consumer protection; it wasn't their role to look at financial stability of the whole system. Previously that had been done by the BoE, but Gordon Brown took away that responsibility and deliberately ignored those who warned him about the likely consequences.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,350
    Jeremy Corbyn ✔@jeremycorbyn
    I urge @Theresa_May to appeal directly to Rajoy to end police violence in Catalonia & find political solution to this constitutional crisis.
    4:57 PM - Oct 1, 2017
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,969
    HYUFD said:

    Ruth Davidson getting a standing ovation as she behind her speech at the Tory conference now

    The Tories love a windbag
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Benpointer said:

    I did, and yes I agree, kudos to him. I suspect you know in your heart though that the impact of the crisis on the UK would have been very little different had there been a Tory goverment instead of a Labour one. It's all history though and nothing will change it.

    No, I don't agree that it would have made no difference. Brown's wrecking of our financial supervision system was central to the fact that we were much worse hit than most other countries. To take the most obvious point, there is no way that RBS would have been allowed to take over ABN Amro if any regulator had regarded it as their role to protect the stability of the financial system as a whole.
    The Conservative manifesto of 2005 talked only of deregulation and doesn't even mention financial regulation as far as I can see. Wishful thinking to say they would have done anything on a regulator of the city - if anything they wanted to move further in the other direction.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    Lots of jmplicit xenophobia in many of these Catalan comments. What do you think would happen if the Scottish government or Northern Ireland Assembly tried to hold a clearly illegal Independence referendum ? Westminster would try to stop it. Hopefully less ham fistedly but it would use the law the stop an illegal referendum. Just as Trump would if Vermont tried to hold an illegal referendum. Look at what Lincoln did to preserve national unity.

    We can argue Madrid shouldn't have got into this mess but it did. Once in it what was it supposed to do in the face of an illegal referendum ?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,969
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Benpointer said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Benpointer said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I would expect her to become first choice for members

    Some of the more rabid Leavers won't like her, of course, but if we're serious about becoming the natural party of government again, and seeing off the Corybnistic lunacy, she'd be a fantastic choice. Of course, she might not want the job, and the mechanics are tricky.
    As a non-tory, I agree that Davidson would be a great choice for you guys and imo would seriously diminish the chances of Labour winning next time. If you really are so afeared of the prospect of a Corbyn administration* you should be hoping that a) May hangs on for a year or two and b) an MP resigns or dies in a tory safe seat so that Davidson can be parachuted in in time to be elected leader when May goes before the next GE. It's a tricky path!

    (*I happen to think it will be a lot more docile and less radical than you fear)
    She fully endorsed TM in her speech and the Holyrood elections are in 2021. Post those elections she could just be the answer as we would be post Brexit and TM's term would be coming to an end

    But she'd need to be an MP in Westminster by then!
    That can be arranged. Plenty will be looking to go to the House of Lords by then
    The Tories sure love troughing, if only they had some principles
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,234
    edited October 2017
    The question for Junckers and the EU elite is that as they go down the road to abolition of Nation states into one Europe it will feed the monster of Nationalism and regional self determination resulting in the implosion of the EU.

    Catalan is a demonstration of the anger of people wanting a democratic vote on their own destiny

    Mark Stone of Sky saying that under the orders of an European government Police were pulling people out by their hair, stamped upon them, put on one side, and illegal rubber bullets fired at them

    Over 470 injuries

    Thank goodness we are leaving
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    Barnesian said:

    Jeremy Corbyn ✔@jeremycorbyn
    I urge @Theresa_May to appeal directly to Rajoy to end police violence in Catalonia & find political solution to this constitutional crisis.
    4:57 PM - Oct 1, 2017

    A useful reminder of what an idiot Corbyn is his recent stunning electoral sucess not withstanding.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,969
    Gardenwalker said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Ruth is the one person who would beat Corbyn.

    She is an inspiration. What a speech

    'We are not leavers or remainers anymore we are just Brits'

    What a reception

    Let's get her in Number 10 now.

    She should stand in the next possible Westminster by-election. Sorry Scotland, the whole nation needs her.
    You can have the useless windbag any time you want , she is not wanted here.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,234
    malcolmg said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Benpointer said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Benpointer said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I would expect her to become first choice for members

    Some of the more rabid Leavers won't like her, of course, but if we're serious about becoming the natural party of government again, and seeing off the Corybnistic lunacy, she'd be a fantastic choice. Of course, she might not want the job, and the mechanics are tricky.
    As a non-tory, I agree that Davidson would be a great choice for you guys and imo would seriously diminish the chances of Labour winning next time. If you really are so afeared of the prospect of a Corbyn administration* you should be hoping that a) May hangs on for a year or two and b) an MP resigns or dies in a tory safe seat so that Davidson can be parachuted in in time to be elected leader when May goes before the next GE. It's a tricky path!

    (*I happen to think it will be a lot more docile and less radical than you fear)
    She fully endorsed TM in her speech and the Holyrood elections are in 2021. Post those elections she could just be the answer as we would be post Brexit and TM's term would be coming to an end

    But she'd need to be an MP in Westminster by then!
    That can be arranged. Plenty will be looking to go to the House of Lords by then
    The Tories sure love troughing, if only they had some principles
    That is the nature of politics
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025