Fair do's. The lender is a participant in a free market, they decide who to lend the money to (albeit in a heavily regulated way). The question is really whether it is right that people are stuck in insecurity and unable to accumulate wealth, to support the profitability of banks.
We saw what happens when the government intervenes in the mortgage market in 2007. The Communities Reinvestment Act in the US was largely the trigger for the sub-prime crisis. CRA mortgages were the bulk of the loss making assets in the US. It's better for the government not to fix the mortgage market in any way, but to help people by keeping prices affordable and getting the parasites out of the market.
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.
As it's the civil service, I imagine the solution to their incompetence will be to promote them.
No, a glowing reference gets you a sideways transfer to another department.
They can move interests from a technical sense but the economic impact ex housing would be bad. The economy needs to get back to normal rates but it will be a while before it is healthy enough.
I don't know the specifics of 1989-95 but it will be to do with higher lending ratios (salary multiples as as a percentage), the shift to BTL lending (who often have to sell if they are bleeding while o/o can hunker down), changing accounting standards so banks can't "manage" their reporting and lower overall capital reserves.
Basically they are taking more concentrated and riskier bets with less capital and can't lie their way out of trouble
Affordability is key - it's why I was telling @HHemmelig that it's interest rates that matter most. The capping of salary multiples have also been a huge. constraint on prices.
The stamp duty change is all about affordability which is why those (correctly) noting it will push prices up a bit too are missing the point. Plus of course the FTB owns the house eventually (as opposed to the stamp duty which is lost forever).
It's worth noting that affordability of mortgage repayments is at historically normal levels: it's the interest rates that are abnormal. Plus expectations have changed [for the better] and governments haven't met them. https://twitter.com/resi_analyst/status/925708897998065664
Agreed - that's why prices are so high, because rates are low
Increasing interest rates and increasing proportion spent on mortgages might reduce the amount of imported tat people buy...
It would - though it would also be another net transfer from the young, who are servicing mortgages or renting, to the rich and the elderly with savings.
There already is a border between North and South Ireland as neither the UK nor Republic are in Schengen and so you need a passport to enter both. A FTA which largely avoids tariffs between North and South is not hard Brexit
That's not true. Both the UK and the Republic are in the Common Travel Area (CTA) so there's no border between them.
Not being in Schengen means you need a passport to move between the Republic and Schengen, or North and Schengen, it does not mean you need a passport to move between the Republic and North.
Quite. I regularly travel by ferry between the UK and ROI without a passport, or indeed without any personal identification.
From your own link: Arriving from Northern Ireland: no passport controls are enforced. The border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is open and barely discernable.
Do you think that matches your claim earlier that "There already is a border between North and South Ireland as neither the UK nor Republic are in Schengen and so you need a passport to enter both."?
I'm canvassing in Richmond and Twickenham for the locals next May. I think the LibDems have a reasonable chance of taking it. The Tory party is taking a big hit here for its approach to Brexit. Also, EU nationals can vote in the locals and there are a LOT of them here, and they're angry.
A big WHOOOOSH! as you fail to realise why "a LOT of them" is the reason so many people voted for Brexit....and no longer for the LibDems.
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Referring to a minister by his forename is no more acceptable than by his surname. The diary secretary knows to call David Davis "the Secretary of State". They should have known to call Davis' counterparts by their title. It slightly amuses me when civil servant friends refer to their bosses by the "Minister" title in general conversation. It's ingrained.
Which means he is a f****** arse-hole. Still the imperial attitude has not left some Tories. They think the world should snap to attention at their beck and call. Things have moved on.
No it means his secretary made a mistake. I hope you are more tolerant if your employees
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.
As it's the civil service, I imagine the solution to their incompetence will be to promote them.
No, a glowing reference gets you a sideways transfer to another department.
Tim Farron bears a lot of responsibility. And so do the members who elected him without ever properly probing his weak point - which took all of about 48 hours in the GE to become a huge millstone.
At least the members can't be blamed this time.
All parties have a habit of keeping leadership battles a bit too chummy (and/or coronatory). It's a delicate line to tread (especially in a multi-candidate election) but candidates ought to be tested and pressed on their weak points.
I was struck by how chipper the PM seemed yesterday. I'm beginning to wonder if behind the scenes we are a lot closer to an exit deal than all the bluff and bluster suggests.
An exit from Brexit deal with the cabinet.
* Canada counts as Hard Brexit
Canada does not count as hard Brexit. A FTA is not hard Brexit to anyone but the most diehard Remainer for whom staying in the single market and leaving free movement in place is sacrosanct
An FTA is a Hard Brexit to the Irish and was a Hard Brexit to the Leave Campaign before they moved the goalposts after winning the referendum. It results in a newly hard border between north and south Ireland when it was soft before. I'm OK with referring to it as Hard Brexit. Definitions need to be useful.
There already is a border between North and South Ireland as neither the UK nor Republic are in Schengen and so you need a passport to enter both. A FTA which largely avoids tariffs between North and South is not hard Brexit
That's not true. Both the UK and the Republic are in the Common Travel Area (CTA) so there's no border between them.
Not being in Schengen means you need a passport to move between the Republic and Schengen, or North and Schengen, it does not mean you need a passport to move between the Republic and North.
Quite. I regularly travel by ferry between the UK and ROI without a passport, or indeed without any personal identification.
I don't. And I've never been asked so presumably I'm not expected to.
I suppose it is a bit like a driving licence. I never carry mine and I've never been asked for it in 55 years of driving. I often go out with no means of identification and I love it. Freedom. That's when I'm a true liberal.
There already is a border between North and South Ireland as neither the UK nor Republic are in Schengen and so you need a passport to enter both. A FTA which largely avoids tariffs between North and South is not hard Brexit
That's not true. Both the UK and the Republic are in the Common Travel Area (CTA) so there's no border between them.
Not being in Schengen means you need a passport to move between the Republic and Schengen, or North and Schengen, it does not mean you need a passport to move between the Republic and North.
Quite. I regularly travel by ferry between the UK and ROI without a passport, or indeed without any personal identification.
From your own link: Arriving from Northern Ireland: no passport controls are enforced. The border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is open and barely discernable.
Do you think that matches your claim earlier that "There already is a border between North and South Ireland as neither the UK nor Republic are in Schengen and so you need a passport to enter both."?
You certainly need ID to enter the ROI from the UK
It looks like the Department of Culture, Media and Sports misled candidate cities bidding for EU Capital of Culture. The rules state explicitly that the scheme is open only to member states, candidate members and "potential candidate" states participating in the EU cultural programme. There isn't a slot for candidate countries in 2023.
I think the DCMS will need to fund this themselves.
Just run "London" in competition to whichever city is chosen....
Speaking as a party member and candidate in recent council elections who has now resigned from the local party I can tell you that any resurgence won't come from the ground up. I thought it would but the GE being called in the middle of the county elections turned those elections in to a national vote of confidence in the Tories - just a few weeks ahead of the GE. This was pre-Dementia Tax when Theresa May was at her peek of popularity - the result was council gains for the Tories and losses for Lib Dems, who up to that point had been winning council by-elections from all parties.
From that point on the Tories stumbled and the Labour band-wagon began rolling. The decision of the Lib Dem GE campaign to concentrate resources on target seats left every other constituency party under-manned, under-funded and under-appreciated .Come election day in my constituency we were washed away in to third by a resurgent Labour Party full of activists on the ground. Look at some of the seats in the South West where we were the natural party of opposition - we're now third...and a distant third!
Tim Farron bears a lot of responsibility. And so do the members who elected him without ever properly probing his weak point - which took all of about 48 hours in the GE to become a huge millstone.
If it weren't for the gutter, my mind would be homeless.
FFS @TSE. That was genuinely unintentional on my part (for once).
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Referring to a minister by his forename is no more acceptable than by his surname. The diary secretary knows to call David Davis "the Secretary of State". They should have known to call Davis' counterparts by their title. It slightly amuses me when civil servant friends refer to their bosses by the "Minister" title in general conversation. It's ingrained.
Indeed the first name/surname question for Kenny is moot and I hope some who said it were joking. The title is what should be used.
But civil servants make mistakes and had it not been published I doubt either Kenny or Davis would either have known or been bothered by this. Davis won't have sent this email it would have been sent as discussed by a civil servant, similarly Kenny won't have received the email either it would have been received by a civil servant.
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Referring to a minister by his forename is no more acceptable than by his surname. The diary secretary knows to call David Davis "the Secretary of State". They should have known to call Davis' counterparts by their title. It slightly amuses me when civil servant friends refer to their bosses by the "Minister" title in general conversation. It's ingrained.
The desired end point is that he lives in the same flat, ideally worth/costing a bit less, and what he pays in rent now he pays as mortgage in the future. This is how it used to be for the majority of people when I was younger.
The challenge is getting from here to there without a traumatic transition period. This is what I think Osbourne hoped he was starting when he began to remove landlord tax breaks. Government will rightly be paranoid about any sudden change for the reasons you suggest; meanwhile young people are increasingly dissatisfied and more people are entering the market at what may well be the top.
Indeed. It's about creating a while new host of owner occupiers and decimating the private rental market and getting leeches out of the market. Private landlords are nothing but parasites taking advantage of a market where young people and lower earners have been locked out.
Bit harsh.
I am not BTL landlord, but I can understand, in a world of pensions trauma ( caused by a variety of reasons), why the (predominately?) middle aged sought BTL as a way of creating an enhanced pension pot and steady inflation proofed income in old age.
Now combined with very low interest rates that have driven up the market anyway, the demand for bigger deposits (no more 100% mortgages these days?) from lenders, and increasing demand from more household formation and population growth and we have arrived where we are, which I'm sure is not where we'd like to be. However, many "leeches" were reacting logically to their own circumstances and are part of a chain of events unconnected to them per se.
They are still leeches. How many of them could have invested in an ETF and just taken the dividends and capital gain? Instead they chose to "invest" in houses where people live. They are parasites who leech on the young and low paid, whose money is moving in the wrong direction. Young people should benefit from the old spending their money, instead the old are leeching off the young to top up their pensions.
Well most have no idea what an ETF is (I'm not too proud to say I just had to look it up myself), but bricks and mortar are understandable to normal folk, and doesn't sound "dodgy" like "City alphabet soup".
"Topping up pensions" is in many cases actually having anything meaningful at all to live off in old age. I doubt many sat there like a panto villain thinking "how can I blood suck the youth of today, - I know BTL. Let's all cackle in a manic fashion".
It's a mess all round, and there's no magic bullet, though as I keep banging on, so many distortions have low interest rates lurking somewhere as a major factor.
Fair do's. The lender is a participant in a free market, they decide who to lend the money to (albeit in a heavily regulated way). The question is really whether it is right that people are stuck in insecurity and unable to accumulate wealth, to support the profitability of banks.
We saw what happens when the government intervenes in the mortgage market in 2007. The Communities Reinvestment Act in the US was largely the trigger for the sub-prime crisis. CRA mortgages were the bulk of the loss making assets in the US. It's better for the government not to fix the mortgage market in any way, but to help people by keeping prices affordable and getting the parasites out of the market.
Max, just out of curiosity, what happens to the (currently large amount of) people who are ineligible for mortgages in your proposed free market system where the private rented sector is obliterated and landlords are taxed out of existence, thereby resulting a major fall in house prices.
You keep making these arguments but you never responded to my comment at 12.24 which set out what I think is the problem with this idea.
I was struck by how chipper the PM seemed yesterday. I'm beginning to wonder if behind the scenes we are a lot closer to an exit deal than all the bluff and bluster suggests.
An exit from Brexit deal with the cabinet.
* Canada counts as Hard Brexit
Canada does not count as hard Brexit. A FTA is not hard Brexit to anyone but the most diehard Remainer for whom staying in the single market and leaving free movement in place is sacrosanct
An FTA is a Hard Brexit to the Irish and was a Hard Brexit to the Leave Campaign before they moved the goalposts after winning the referendum. It results in a newly hard border between north and south Ireland when it was soft before. I'm OK with referring to it as Hard Brexit. Definitions need to be useful.
There already is a border between North and South Ireland as neither the UK nor Republic are in Schengen and so you need a passport to enter both. A FTA which largely avoids tariffs between North and South is not hard Brexit
That's not true. Both the UK and the Republic are in the Common Travel Area (CTA) so there's no border between them.
Not being in Schengen means you need a passport to move between the Republic and Schengen, or North and Schengen, it does not mean you need a passport to move between the Republic and North.
Quite. I regularly travel by ferry between the UK and ROI without a passport, or indeed without any personal identification.
I don't. And I've never been asked so presumably I'm not expected to.
I suppose it is a bit like a driving licence. I never carry mine and I've never been asked for it in 55 years of driving. I often go out with no means of identification and I love it. Freedom. That's when I'm a true liberal.
Irish police and customs officials will generally check you to see if you have a passport or birth certificate entering the ROI from the UK
There already is a border between North and South Ireland as neither the UK nor Republic are in Schengen and so you need a passport to enter both. A FTA which largely avoids tariffs between North and South is not hard Brexit
That's not true. Both the UK and the Republic are in the Common Travel Area (CTA) so there's no border between them.
Not being in Schengen means you need a passport to move between the Republic and Schengen, or North and Schengen, it does not mean you need a passport to move between the Republic and North.
Quite. I regularly travel by ferry between the UK and ROI without a passport, or indeed without any personal identification.
From your own link: Arriving from Northern Ireland: no passport controls are enforced. The border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is open and barely discernable.
Do you think that matches your claim earlier that "There already is a border between North and South Ireland as neither the UK nor Republic are in Schengen and so you need a passport to enter both."?
You certainly need ID to enter the ROI from the UK
No you do not.
You need to carry one while in ROI but you don't need one to get across the border between North and the Republic (don't call them South, they don't like that).
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.
As it's the civil service, I imagine the solution to their incompetence will be to promote them.
No, a glowing reference gets you a sideways transfer to another department.
That’s how DExEU got staffed in the first place.
DExEU's big staffing problems is that
1) No one really wants to work for a department that won't be extant within a couple of years
2) Few want to work for the preening egotist that is David Davis
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Blame the civil service. Seems to be the first instinct of Brexiters as their project hits the rocks.
No, it's just a mistake. I doubt Davis proof reads his assistant's emails. (And he shouldn't)
I was struck by how chipper the PM seemed yesterday. I'm beginning to wonder if behind the scenes we are a lot closer to an exit deal than all the bluff and bluster suggests.
An exit from Brexit deal with the cabinet.
* Canada counts as Hard Brexit
Canada does not count as hard Brexit. A FTA is not hard Brexit to anyone but the most diehard Remainer for whom staying in the single market and leaving free movement in place is sacrosanct
An FTA is a Hard Brexit to the Irish and was a Hard Brexit to the Leave Campaign before they moved the goalposts after winning the referendum. It results in a newly hard border between north and south Ireland when it was soft before. I'm OK with referring to it as Hard Brexit. Definitions need to be useful.
There already is a border between North and South Ireland as neither the UK nor Republic are in Schengen and so you need a passport to enter both. A FTA which largely avoids tariffs between North and South is not hard Brexit
That's not true. Both the UK and the Republic are in the Common Travel Area (CTA) so there's no border between them.
Not being in Schengen means you need a passport to move between the Republic and Schengen, or North and Schengen, it does not mean you need a passport to move between the Republic and North.
Quite. I regularly travel by ferry between the UK and ROI without a passport, or indeed without any personal identification.
I don't. And I've never been asked so presumably I'm not expected to.
I suppose it is a bit like a driving licence. I never carry mine and I've never been asked for it in 55 years of driving. I often go out with no means of identification and I love it. Freedom. That's when I'm a true liberal.
Irish police and customs officials will generally check you to see if you have a passport or birth certificate entering the ROI from the UK
Except there aren't police and customs officials at the border between North and the Republic.
A solid piece from TSE and very little with which I, as an LD, can disagree.
[snip]
As I've said before, the Party I joined in 1980 was destroyed by the Coalition and I do appreciate the irony. There is a new LD Party now with a new generation of activists - some of the traditional areas have revived, others haven't while pockets of new activity have emerged. They are learning the old lesson of building national strength from local strength.
Oddly enough, the "breakthrough" of the Alliance came when you had a "national" party like the SDP grafted on to a "local" party like the Liberals. The SDP brought a lot to that and not just money but a way of functioning at national level that had always evaded the Liberals.
The future ? As TSE suggests, the coming rounds of local elections will be interesting - next year in London will we see further Conservative reverses and will these include Richmond and Kingston returning to the LDs ? Not inconceivable though the headlines would be Labour advancing into Wandsworth (the recent Thamesfield by election suggested a solid swing to Labour though whether its enough to take the Borough remains to be seen).
I would be looking at the 2021 County elections for some insight - the Conservatives had a remarkably good round in 2017 and the extent to which those advances can be held may be indicative of prospects for the GE.
As a LibDem, I agree with all that, including that the Party I joined in 1983 was destroyed by the Coalition.
I'm canvassing in Richmond and Twickenham for the locals next May. I think the LibDems have a reasonable chance of taking it. The Tory party is taking a big hit here for its approach to Brexit. Also, EU nationals can vote in the locals and there are a LOT of them here, and they're angry.
I'm down on the LibDem database as a "red Liberal". I increasingly realise that, deep down I'm a Corbynista, and my interest in the LibDems is hammering the Tories here in Rick and Twick to enable a Labour government. I wonder if other LD activists feel the same way as me?
This would be the same Richmond Park which still voted Tory in June
By 45 votes!! No, actually it isn't. The local elections are for the Royal Borough of Richmond upon Thames which includes Twickenham which is less Tory. Also EU nationals can vote in the local election but not in the general election.
This was 70% Remain Richmond Park which still voted Tory at the general election even after Brexit (and a brief by election protest)
Speaking as a party member and candidate in recent council elections who has now resigned from the local party I can tell you that any resurgence won't come from the ground up. I thought it would but the GE being called in the middle of the county elections turned those elections in to a national vote of confidence in the Tories - just a few weeks ahead of the GE. This was pre-Dementia Tax when Theresa May was at her peek of popularity - the result was council gains for the Tories and losses for Lib Dems, who up to that point had been winning council by-elections from all parties.
From that point on the Tories stumbled and the Labour band-wagon began rolling. The decision of the Lib Dem GE campaign to concentrate resources on target seats left every other constituency party under-manned, under-funded and under-appreciated .Come election day in my constituency we were washed away in to third by a resurgent Labour Party full of activists on the ground. Look at some of the seats in the South West where we were the natural party of opposition - we're now third...and a distant third!
Tim Farron bears a lot of responsibility. And so do the members who elected him without ever properly probing his weak point - which took all of about 48 hours in the GE to become a huge millstone.
Yes, but our alternative choice was Norman Lamb. I have huge respect for Norman - he is a great guy and has single-handedly propelled mental health way up the political agenda - but being an outstanding team member doesn't necessarily make for a great leader. He is tainted by his support for tuition fees, and sadly he is steady rather than interesting. And his name is Norman.
All true, but as it turned out, the Lib Dems just ended up with a pound-shop version of Jeremy Corbyn. Lamb could have appealed to the sensible centre. And he doesn't have a face that makes you immediately want to oppose anything that comes out of it.
I'm canvassing in Richmond and Twickenham for the locals next May. I think the LibDems have a reasonable chance of taking it. The Tory party is taking a big hit here for its approach to Brexit. Also, EU nationals can vote in the locals and there are a LOT of them here, and they're angry.
A big WHOOOOSH! as you fail to realise why "a LOT of them" is the reason so many people voted for Brexit....and no longer for the LibDems.
Seriously? EU citizens living in the London Borough of Richmond are mostly employed in worthwhile and generally well paid jobs, and other local residents have no problem with this whatsoever. Trying to transplant the perspective from Torquay onto the rest of the country isn't a good look.
The problem for the LDs is the ideological gap between the Tories and Labour has noticeably widened compared to 5 years. As such, voting Labour to keep the Tories out (and vice versa) has become more important to many people than giving a 3rd party a look. Of course, this is a problem magnified by FPTP.
It’s no coincidence that the peak LD was 2005 when there were endless complaints of there being no difference between the Tories and New Labour.
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.
As it's the civil service, I imagine the solution to their incompetence will be to promote them.
No, a glowing reference gets you a sideways transfer to another department.
That’s how DExEU got staffed in the first place.
DExEU's big staffing problems is that
1) No one really wants to work for a department that won't be extant within a couple of years
2) Few want to work for the preening egotist that is David Davis
These type of clerical errors are all in a days work in government, as (I suspect) they are in all other organisations.
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Referring to a minister by his forename is no more acceptable than by his surname. The diary secretary knows to call David Davis "the Secretary of State". They should have known to call Davis' counterparts by their title. It slightly amuses me when civil servant friends refer to their bosses by the "Minister" title in general conversation. It's ingrained.
Which is why it probably really was DD himself.
Writing on his Diary Secretary's laptop? I don't think so.
The problem for the LDs is the ideological gap between the Tories and Labour has noticeably widened compared to 5 years. As such, voting Labour to keep the Tories out (and vice versa) has become more important to many people than giving a 3rd party a look. Of course, this is a problem magnified by FPTP.
It’s no coincidence that the peak LD was 2005 when there were endless complaints of there being no difference between the Tories and New Labour.
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.
As it's the civil service, I imagine the solution to their incompetence will be to promote them.
No, a glowing reference gets you a sideways transfer to another department.
That’s how DExEU got staffed in the first place.
DExEU's big staffing problems is that
1) No one really wants to work for a department that won't be extant within a couple of years
2) Few want to work for the preening egotist that is David Davis
These type of clerical errors are all in a days work in government, as (I suspect) they are in all other organisations.
Yup, is why I have staff check all of my letters.
I have the unfortunate habit in missing out words.
The problem for the LDs is the ideological gap between the Tories and Labour has noticeably widened compared to 5 years. As such, voting Labour to keep the Tories out (and vice versa) has become more important to many people than giving a 3rd party a look. Of course, this is a problem magnified by FPTP.
It’s no coincidence that the peak LD was 2005 when there were endless complaints of there being no difference between the Tories and New Labour.
The counter-case is 1983.
Would 1983 have happened without the Labour/SDP schism?
There's been no schism this time. Had May not called the election early then its possible there would have been under Corbyn but that's off the cards now.
Speaking as a party member and candidate in recent council elections who has now resigned from the local party I can tell you that any resurgence won't come from the ground up. I thought it would but the GE being called in the middle of the county elections turned those elections in to a national vote of confidence in the Tories - just a few weeks ahead of the GE. This was pre-Dementia Tax when Theresa May was at her peek of popularity - the result was council gains for the Tories and losses for Lib Dems, who up to that point had been winning council by-elections from all parties.
From that point on the Tories stumbled and the Labour band-wagon began rolling. The decision of the Lib Dem GE campaign to concentrate resources on target seats left every other constituency party under-manned, under-funded and under-appreciated .Come election day in my constituency we were washed away in to third by a resurgent Labour Party full of activists on the ground. Look at some of the seats in the South West where we were the natural party of opposition - we're now third...and a distant third!
Tim Farron bears a lot of responsibility. And so do the members who elected him without ever properly probing his weak point - which took all of about 48 hours in the GE to become a huge millstone.
Yes, but our alternative choice was Norman Lamb. I have huge respect for Norman - he is a great guy and has single-handedly propelled mental health way up the political agenda - but being an outstanding team member doesn't necessarily make for a great leader. He is tainted by his support for tuition fees, and sadly he is steady rather than interesting. And his name is Norman.
All true, but as it turned out, the Lib Dems just ended up with a pound-shop version of Jeremy Corbyn. Lamb could have appealed to the sensible centre. And he doesn't have a face that makes you immediately want to oppose anything that comes out of it.
Except that the sensible centre appears to have disappeared.
I'm canvassing in Richmond and Twickenham for the locals next May. I think the LibDems have a reasonable chance of taking it. The Tory party is taking a big hit here for its approach to Brexit. Also, EU nationals can vote in the locals and there are a LOT of them here, and they're angry.
A big WHOOOOSH! as you fail to realise why "a LOT of them" is the reason so many people voted for Brexit....and no longer for the LibDems.
Richmond and Twickenham are areas where a huge amount of money and manpower has been pumped in to by the lib dems - and they still can't be assured of gaining control of the council - stop for a minute and imagine what it's like in the 95% of the country where that level of resource is missing
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Referring to a minister by his forename is no more acceptable than by his surname. The diary secretary knows to call David Davis "the Secretary of State". They should have known to call Davis' counterparts by their title. It slightly amuses me when civil servant friends refer to their bosses by the "Minister" title in general conversation. It's ingrained.
Which is why it probably really was DD himself.
Writing on his Diary Secretary's laptop? I don't think so.
But now I don't see the radical edge from Vince that we need to get back into the limelight. If it was up to me the core message would be 'Government for the little guy' all about a more corporate approach at the top of Government - interviews & appraisals for all gvt ministers and top civil servants, expenses / disciplinary issues outsourced to a business body etc, and a more personal approach at the bottom - far more discretion over bureaucracy at local level, big attacks on welfare sanctions, immigration incompetence etc. Prioritising proper recall procedures for MPs / Councillors, reforming the private member bills to prevent talking out and allowing members of the public a ballot linked to the petitions system to present 'private citizens bills' All citizen first not big machine - I think that would get a hearing.
I also worry about Jo Swinson as leader - the impression I get is that the key policy priorities would be gender-free passports and safe spaces. That just wouldn't be the party for me sorry. On the other hand, Layla Moran looks like a superstar in the making and well worth watching.
Some very good postings in this thread, particularly yours, TheKrakenAwakes', and Barnesian's.
I agree that the Lib Dems' main issues is that they don't currently have a distinct identity. It's very hard to answer the question "What are the Lib Dems for?".
"For the little guy" is not a bad suggestion, though I would caution against making too much of the constitutional/machinery-of-government stuff - the Lib Dems are forever preoccupied with this and hardly any voter cares about it. But yes, "individual fairness" is perhaps a good tack to follow. It steers a course between Corbyn's broad-brush redistribution and the Conservatives' defence of corporate Britain.
Swinson is shrill and has baggage. Layla Moran would be terrific assuming she can hold on to OxWAB, which isn't a given, especially if boundary changes go through.
The problem for the LDs is the ideological gap between the Tories and Labour has noticeably widened compared to 5 years. As such, voting Labour to keep the Tories out (and vice versa) has become more important to many people than giving a 3rd party a look. Of course, this is a problem magnified by FPTP.
It’s no coincidence that the peak LD was 2005 when there were endless complaints of there being no difference between the Tories and New Labour.
The counter-case is 1983.
The Lib Dems were gearing up for 2020 being 1983, and quite possibly rightly so (right down to an impressive poll share delivering relatively few seat gains).
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Referring to a minister by his forename is no more acceptable than by his surname. The diary secretary knows to call David Davis "the Secretary of State". They should have known to call Davis' counterparts by their title. It slightly amuses me when civil servant friends refer to their bosses by the "Minister" title in general conversation. It's ingrained.
Which is why it probably really was DD himself.
Writing on his Diary Secretary's laptop? I don't think so.
The art of dictation is consigned to history?
Yup, I've been using a voice to text app to dictate recently.
Though it does occasionally struggling with my Yorkshire accent.
Cameron has a lot to answer for. I suspect history will put him right up there with Lord North and Neville Chamberlain.
The problem for Cameron's historical position is that the referendum wasn't a one-off mistake, but the culmination of his entire strategy as an elected politician. He appeased the forces that eventually consumed him and acted as their vehicle to gain power.
He kicked the can down the road again and again until he ran out of road.
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Referring to a minister by his forename is no more acceptable than by his surname. The diary secretary knows to call David Davis "the Secretary of State". They should have known to call Davis' counterparts by their title. It slightly amuses me when civil servant friends refer to their bosses by the "Minister" title in general conversation. It's ingrained.
Which is why it probably really was DD himself.
Writing on his Diary Secretary's laptop? I don't think so.
The art of dictation is consigned to history?
No the art of dictation for the civil service includes using proper terminology. I doubt Davis refers to himself as the Secretary of State but his secretary does because that is the title.
The problem for the LDs is the ideological gap between the Tories and Labour has noticeably widened compared to 5 years. As such, voting Labour to keep the Tories out (and vice versa) has become more important to many people than giving a 3rd party a look. Of course, this is a problem magnified by FPTP.
It’s no coincidence that the peak LD was 2005 when there were endless complaints of there being no difference between the Tories and New Labour.
The counter-case is 1983.
Would 1983 have happened without the Labour/SDP schism?
There's been no schism this time. Had May not called the election early then its possible there would have been under Corbyn but that's off the cards now.
I think the full blown schism is off the cards but there's still a lot of effectively homeless Labour MPs, some of whom may get deselected. What will they do?
There already is a border between North and South Ireland as neither the UK nor Republic are in Schengen and so you need a passport to enter both. A FTA which largely avoids tariffs between North and South is not hard Brexit
That's not true. Both the UK and the Republic are in the Common Travel Area (CTA) so there's no border between them.
Not being in Schengen means you need a passport to move between the Republic and Schengen, or North and Schengen, it does not mean you need a passport to move between the Republic and North.
Quite. I regularly travel by ferry between the UK and ROI without a passport, or indeed without any personal identification.
From your own link: Arriving from Northern Ireland: no passport controls are enforced. The border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is open and barely discernable.
Do you think that matches your claim earlier that "There already is a border between North and South Ireland as neither the UK nor Republic are in Schengen and so you need a passport to enter both."?
You certainly need ID to enter the ROI from the UK
Speaking as a party member and candidate in recent council elections who has now resigned from the local party I can tell you that any resurgence won't come from the ground up. I thought it would but the GE being called in the middle of the county elections turned those elections in to a national vote of confidence in the Tories - just a few weeks ahead of the GE. This was pre-Dementia Tax when Theresa May was at her peek of popularity - the result was council gains for the Tories and losses for Lib Dems, who up to that point had been winning council by-elections from all parties.
From that point on the Tories stumbled and the Labour band-wagon began rolling. The decision of the Lib Dem GE campaign to concentrate resources on target seats left every other constituency party under-manned, under-funded and under-appreciated .Come election day in my constituency we were washed away in to third by a resurgent Labour Party full of activists on the ground. Look at some of the seats in the South West where we were the natural party of opposition - we're now third...and a distant third!
Tim Farron bears a lot of responsibility. And so do the members who elected him without ever properly probing his weak point - which took all of about 48 hours in the GE to become a huge millstone.
Yes, but our alternative choice was Norman Lamb. I have huge respect for Norman - he is a great guy and has single-handedly propelled mental health way up the political agenda - but being an outstanding team member doesn't necessarily make for a great leader. He is tainted by his support for tuition fees, and sadly he is steady rather than interesting. And his name is Norman.
All true, but as it turned out, the Lib Dems just ended up with a pound-shop version of Jeremy Corbyn. Lamb could have appealed to the sensible centre. And he doesn't have a face that makes you immediately want to oppose anything that comes out of it.
I was expecting Tim Farron to do something about tuition fees - his opposition was one of the key reasons he was elected leader. However he ducked and fudged from day 1. Vince is actually tackling the issue, he's asked David Howarth to review but clearly indicated he wants a lifelong learning account that can be drawn down for university, vocational, adult learning etc. with a lifetime value. I get the need to make sure it's not all about students, but this seems too vague and broad when so comprehensively outflanked by Labour on the issue.
There already is a border between North and South Ireland as neither the UK nor Republic are in Schengen and so you need a passport to enter both. A FTA which largely avoids tariffs between North and South is not hard Brexit
That's not true. Both the UK and the Republic are in the Common Travel Area (CTA) so there's no border between them.
Not being in Schengen means you need a passport to move between the Republic and Schengen, or North and Schengen, it does not mean you need a passport to move between the Republic and North.
Quite. I regularly travel by ferry between the UK and ROI without a passport, or indeed without any personal identification.
From your own link: Arriving from Northern Ireland: no passport controls are enforced. The border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is open and barely discernable.
Do you think that matches your claim earlier that "There already is a border between North and South Ireland as neither the UK nor Republic are in Schengen and so you need a passport to enter both."?
You certainly need ID to enter the ROI from the UK
No you do not.
You need to carry one while in ROI but you don't need one to get across the border between North and the Republic (don't call them South, they don't like that).
If you travel between mainland Britain and Ireland by sea or by air, you need to satisfy immigration that you are respectively an Irish or British citizen and therefore can travel freely. How do you do that? By showing your passport.
There were travel restrictions between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland during and after WW2. In 2008 the UK Government again proposed to introduce identity checks but this was voted down in the Lords.
Fair do's. The lender is a participant in a free market, they decide who to lend the money to (albeit in a heavily regulated way). The question is really whether it is right that people are stuck in insecurity and unable to accumulate wealth, to support the profitability of banks.
We saw what happens when the government intervenes in the mortgage market in 2007. The Communities Reinvestment Act in the US was largely the trigger for the sub-prime crisis. CRA mortgages were the bulk of the loss making assets in the US. It's better for the government not to fix the mortgage market in any way, but to help people by keeping prices affordable and getting the parasites out of the market.
Max, just out of curiosity, what happens to the (currently large amount of) people who are ineligible for mortgages in your proposed free market system where the private rented sector is obliterated and landlords are taxed out of existence, thereby resulting a major fall in house prices.
You keep making these arguments but you never responded to my comment at 12.24 which set out what I think is the problem with this idea.
Lower prices will help everyone get into owner occupation as affordability becomes less of an issue. You mentioned he'd be looking for a flat in the region of £130k and has £10k saved up. That requires a mortgage of £120k at least, which means he'll need income in excess of £30k, probably higher given the nature of his work. The issue is that he can't get the mortgage he needs for the flat he wants. If property were cheaper he would be able to get the right mortgage.
Cameron has a lot to answer for. I suspect history will put him right up there with Lord North and Neville Chamberlain.
The problem for Cameron's historical position is that the referendum wasn't a one-off mistake, but the culmination of his entire strategy as an elected politician. He appeased the forces that eventually consumed him and acted as their vehicle to gain power.
He kicked the can down the road again and again until he ran out of road.
He should have insisted Brexit would only happen if all four countries voted for it in the referendum.
Would be entirely consistent with what a Conservative and Unionist believes in.
I'm canvassing in Richmond and Twickenham for the locals next May. I think the LibDems have a reasonable chance of taking it. The Tory party is taking a big hit here for its approach to Brexit. Also, EU nationals can vote in the locals and there are a LOT of them here, and they're angry.
A big WHOOOOSH! as you fail to realise why "a LOT of them" is the reason so many people voted for Brexit....and no longer for the LibDems.
Seriously? EU citizens living in the London Borough of Richmond are mostly employed in worthwhile and generally well paid jobs, and other local residents have no problem with this whatsoever. Trying to transplant the perspective from Torquay onto the rest of the country isn't a good look.
I'd suggest that the perspective from Richmond is the one that is out of kilter with the rest of the country.....
Speaking as a party member and candidate in recent council elections who has now resigned from the local party I can tell you that any resurgence won't come from the ground up.
From that point on the Tories stumbled and the Labour band-wagon began rolling. The decision of the Lib Dem GE campaign to concentrate resources on target seats left every other constituency party under-manned, under-funded and under-appreciated .Come election day in my constituency we were washed away in to third by a resurgent Labour Party full of activists on the ground. Look at some of the seats in the South West where we were the natural party of opposition - we're now third...and a distant third!
Tim Farron bears a lot of responsibility. And so do the members who elected him without ever properly probing his weak point - which took all of about 48 hours in the GE to become a huge millstone.
Yes, but our alternative choice was Norman Lamb. I have huge respect for Norman - he is a great guy and has single-handedly propelled mental health way up the political agenda - but being an outstanding team member doesn't necessarily make for a great leader. He is tainted by his support for tuition fees, and sadly he is steady rather than interesting. And his name is Norman.
All true, but as it turned out, the Lib Dems just ended up with a pound-shop version of Jeremy Corbyn. Lamb could have appealed to the sensible centre. And he doesn't have a face that makes you immediately want to oppose anything that comes out of it.
I was expecting Tim Farron to do something about tuition fees - his opposition was one of the key reasons he was elected leader. However he ducked and fudged from day 1. Vince is actually tackling the issue, he's asked David Howarth to review but clearly indicated he wants a lifelong learning account that can be drawn down for university, vocational, adult learning etc. with a lifetime value. I get the need to make sure it's not all about students, but this seems too vague and broad when so comprehensively outflanked by Labour on the issue.
The LibDems' weakness is being sucked into policy detail - which anyone who has visited their conference will know they absolutely enjoy - but missing the big picture.
The end state for tuition fees is that they will be abolished and replaced with a Graduate Tax. As the LibDems wanted from the beginning. But this will now either be implemented by Labour, suddenly, or by the Tories, gradually.
But now I don't see the radical edge from Vince that we need to get back into the limelight. If it was up to me the core message would be 'Government for the little guy' all about a more corporate approach at the top of Government - interviews & appraisals for all gvt ministers and top civil servants, expenses / disciplinary issues outsourced to a business body etc, and a more personal approach at the bottom - far more discretion over bureaucracy at local level, big attacks on welfare sanctions, immigration incompetence etc. Prioritising proper recall procedures for MPs / Councillors, reforming the private member bills to prevent talking out and allowing members of the public a ballot linked to the petitions system to present 'private citizens bills' All citizen first not big machine - I think that would get a hearing.
I also worry about Jo Swinson as leader - the impression I get is that the key policy priorities would be gender-free passports and safe spaces. That just wouldn't be the party for me sorry. On the other hand, Layla Moran looks like a superstar in the making and well worth watching.
Some very good postings in this thread, particularly yours, TheKrakenAwakes', and Barnesian's.
I agree that the Lib Dems' main issues is that they don't currently have a distinct identity. It's very hard to answer the question "What are the Lib Dems for?".
"For the little guy" is not a bad suggestion, though I would caution against making too much of the constitutional/machinery-of-government stuff - the Lib Dems are forever preoccupied with this and hardly any voter cares about it. But yes, "individual fairness" is perhaps a good tack to follow. It steers a course between Corbyn's broad-brush redistribution and the Conservatives' defence of corporate Britain.
Swinson is shrill and has baggage. Layla Moran would be terrific assuming she can hold on to OxWAB, which isn't a given, especially if boundary changes go through.
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Referring to a minister by his forename is no more acceptable than by his surname. The diary secretary knows to call David Davis "the Secretary of State". They should have known to call Davis' counterparts by their title. It slightly amuses me when civil servant friends refer to their bosses by the "Minister" title in general conversation. It's ingrained.
Which is why it probably really was DD himself.
Writing on his Diary Secretary's laptop? I don't think so.
The art of dictation is consigned to history?
Yup, I've been using a voice to text app to dictate recently.
Though it does occasionally struggling with my Yorkshire accent.
I'm canvassing in Richmond and Twickenham for the locals next May. I think the LibDems have a reasonable chance of taking it. The Tory party is taking a big hit here for its approach to Brexit. Also, EU nationals can vote in the locals and there are a LOT of them here, and they're angry.
A big WHOOOOSH! as you fail to realise why "a LOT of them" is the reason so many people voted for Brexit....and no longer for the LibDems.
Seriously? EU citizens living in the London Borough of Richmond are mostly employed in worthwhile and generally well paid jobs, and other local residents have no problem with this whatsoever. Trying to transplant the perspective from Torquay onto the rest of the country isn't a good look.
I'd suggest that the perspective from Richmond is the one that is out of kilter with the rest of the country.....
Election results would seem to bear that out.
Fair enough, I don't deny your perspective. But you were seeking to comment on electoral prospects in Richmond.
I think the present situation with the CTA is legally there is no need to have a passport for UK and ROI citizens travelling between each country whether by sea, land, or air, and clearly there is no legal need for a passport between GB and NI.
However, to get to NI from GB you need to sail or fly to one of two ports or three airports only and to get on the ship or plane you have to show at least photo ID, which in many cases is a passport (not sure if driving licence OK - but with a UK address that's probably a 90% proxy and let's be honest in the real world a good pointer for the authorities to look more closely at the other 10% - I know they're not supposed to do that honest guv. But.)
I think too for several years ROI has checked travel between GB and ROI to check if people pass the test of "ROI/UK citizen" and so don't need a passport to travel. However, just about the only practical way for people to prove they are "ROI/UK" and so don't need a passport is to show a passport to prove it.
All seems to work with a nudge and a wink, and I'd suggest the Brexit teams could do with a dose of the same and make the geography restriction naturally work for us all.
A solid piece from TSE and very little with which I, as an LD, can disagree.
[snip]
As I've said before, the Party I joined in 1980 was destroyed by the Coalition and I do appreciate the irony. There is a new LD Party now with a new generation of activists - some of the traditional areas have revived, others haven't while pockets of new activity have emerged. They are learning the old lesson of building national strength from local strength.
Oddly enough, the "breakthrough" of the Alliance came when you had a "national" party like the SDP grafted on to a "local" party like the Liberals. The SDP brought a lot to that and not just money but a way of functioning at national level that had always evaded the Liberals.
The future ? As TSE suggests, the coming rounds of local elections will be interesting - next year in London will we see further Conservative reverses and will these include Richmond and Kingston returning to the LDs ? Not inconceivable though the headlines would be Labour advancing into Wandsworth (the recent Thamesfield by election suggested a solid swing to Labour though whether its enough to take the Borough remains to be seen).
I would be looking at the 2021 County elections for some insight - the Conservatives had a remarkably good round in 2017 and the extent to which those advances can be held may be indicative of prospects for the GE.
As a LibDem, I agree with all that, including that the Party I joined in 1983 was destroyed by the Coalition.
I'm canvassing in Richmond and Twickenham for the locals next May. I think the LibDems have a reasonable chance of taking it. The Tory party is taking a big hit here for its approach to Brexit. Also, EU nationals can vote in the locals and there are a LOT of them here, and they're angry.
Coalition was always going to destroy the Lib Dems because by building a party from the bottom up, with relatively few things bar expedience keeping its disparate support together, the pressures of government and the compromises of coalition, were going to break those weak bonds and repel the many who joined to oppose the sort of things governments do (it didn't help that it was the Tories that the LDs went into coalition with, but a fag-end Gordon Brown government wouldn't have been any better).
What's so striking is that so many Lib Dems are so insistent on following exactly the same plan that resulted in disaster last time. Of course, in the short term, it might bring gains here and there. Sooner or later though, there'll come a point where they have to choose which big party to back in government. And then it'll all crash down again.
I'm canvassing in Richmond and Twickenham for the locals next May. I think the LibDems have a reasonable chance of taking it. The Tory party is taking a big hit here for its approach to Brexit. Also, EU nationals can vote in the locals and there are a LOT of them here, and they're angry.
A big WHOOOOSH! as you fail to realise why "a LOT of them" is the reason so many people voted for Brexit....and no longer for the LibDems.
Seriously? EU citizens living in the London Borough of Richmond are mostly employed in worthwhile and generally well paid jobs, and other local residents have no problem with this whatsoever. Trying to transplant the perspective from Torquay onto the rest of the country isn't a good look.
I'd suggest that the perspective from Richmond is the one that is out of kilter with the rest of the country.....
Election results would seem to bear that out.
Fair enough, I don't deny your perspective. But you were seeking to comment on electoral prospects in Richmond.
I really wasn't. I was saying that making the point defiantly that there were A LOT of EU citizens in Richmond who could vote there and were angry was a mindset that was not exactly helping the LibDems nationally...
Fair do's. The lender is a participant in a free market, they decide who to lend the money to (albeit in a heavily regulated way). The question is really whether it is right that people are stuck in insecurity and unable to accumulate wealth, to support the profitability of banks.
We saw what happens when the government intervenes in the mortgage market in 2007. The Communities Reinvestment Act in the US was largely the trigger for the sub-prime crisis. CRA mortgages were the bulk of the loss making assets in the US. It's better for the government not to fix the mortgage market in any way, but to help people by keeping prices affordable and getting the parasites out of the market.
Max, just out of curiosity, what happens to the (currently large amount of) people who are ineligible for mortgages in your proposed free market system where the private rented sector is obliterated and landlords are taxed out of existence, thereby resulting a major fall in house prices.
You keep making these arguments but you never responded to my comment at 12.24 which set out what I think is the problem with this idea.
Lower prices will help everyone get into owner occupation as affordability becomes less of an issue. You mentioned he'd be looking for a flat in the region of £130k and has £10k saved up. That requires a mortgage of £120k at least, which means he'll need income in excess of £30k, probably higher given the nature of his work. The issue is that he can't get the mortgage he needs for the flat he wants. If property were cheaper he would be able to get the right mortgage.
Insecure work = unlikely to get a mortgage. Poor Financial history = unlikely to get a mortgage. Criminal convictions = unlikely to get a mortgage. Gone overseas for a while = unlikely to get a mortgage. EU citizen = unlikely to get a mortgage. Approaching retirement = unlikely to get a mortgage as monthly repayments go up. Health problems = unlikely to get a mortgage. Multiple children by different mothers = unlikely to get a mortgage. Dependent partner and kids etc = unlikely to get a mortgage.
You might want to forget about all these people, but for millions of people their personal circumstances mean that there is just no chance whatseover that they can get a mortgage.
Even if the prices go down 50%, which they might well do anyway, this won't solve the problem, because if you have a 10k deposit, you still need to borrow another £50k to meet the £60k asking price. And that is before you take in to account the likelihood of rising interest rates which make the monthly payments even more unaffordable.
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Referring to a minister by his forename is no more acceptable than by his surname. The diary secretary knows to call David Davis "the Secretary of State". They should have known to call Davis' counterparts by their title. It slightly amuses me when civil servant friends refer to their bosses by the "Minister" title in general conversation. It's ingrained.
Which is why it probably really was DD himself.
Writing on his Diary Secretary's laptop? I don't think so.
Why did Davis think it was proper to be trying to arrange meetings with the Irish PM in the first place? PMs deal with PMs, Finance ministers with finance ministers, foreign office ministers with foreign office ministers and etc.
`Tories and Labour being led by two flawed leaders`.
I`m not sure you are right TSE. I think that May is more popular in the country than is given credit for.
And as for Corbyn, we old codgers may view him as a hackneyed dogmatic IRA-sympathising campaigner, but a large chunk of the electorate just don`t see this and, remarkably, see him as a refreshing change.
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Referring to a minister by his forename is no more acceptable than by his surname. The diary secretary knows to call David Davis "the Secretary of State". They should have known to call Davis' counterparts by their title. It slightly amuses me when civil servant friends refer to their bosses by the "Minister" title in general conversation. It's ingrained.
Which is why it probably really was DD himself.
Writing on his Diary Secretary's laptop? I don't think so.
Why did Davis think it was proper to be trying to arrange meetings with the Irish PM in the first place? PMs deal with PMs, Finance ministers with finance ministers, foreign office ministers with foreign office ministers and etc.
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Referring to a minister by his forename is no more acceptable than by his surname. The diary secretary knows to call David Davis "the Secretary of State". They should have known to call Davis' counterparts by their title. It slightly amuses me when civil servant friends refer to their bosses by the "Minister" title in general conversation. It's ingrained.
Which is why it probably really was DD himself.
Writing on his Diary Secretary's laptop? I don't think so.
The art of dictation is consigned to history?
Yup, I've been using a voice to text app to dictate recently.
Though it does occasionally struggling with my Yorkshire accent.
I'm canvassing in Richmond and Twickenham for the locals next May. I think the LibDems have a reasonable chance of taking it. The Tory party is taking a big hit here for its approach to Brexit. Also, EU nationals can vote in the locals and there are a LOT of them here, and they're angry.
A big WHOOOOSH! as you fail to realise why "a LOT of them" is the reason so many people voted for Brexit....and no longer for the LibDems.
Seriously? EU citizens living in the London Borough of Richmond are mostly employed in worthwhile and generally well paid jobs, and other local residents have no problem with this whatsoever. Trying to transplant the perspective from Torquay onto the rest of the country isn't a good look.
I'd suggest that the perspective from Richmond is the one that is out of kilter with the rest of the country.....
Election results would seem to bear that out.
Fair enough, I don't deny your perspective. But you were seeking to comment on electoral prospects in Richmond.
I really wasn't. I was saying that making the point defiantly that there were A LOT of EU citizens in Richmond who could vote there and were angry was a mindset that was not exactly helping the LibDems nationally...
I don't think that the fact that there are a lot of EU citizens living in Richmond was the reason why people (not in Richmond) voted for Brexit, which is what you said, if you look back.
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.
As it's the civil service, I imagine the solution to their incompetence will be to promote them.
No, a glowing reference gets you a sideways transfer to another department.
That’s how DExEU got staffed in the first place.
DExEU's big staffing problems is that
1) No one really wants to work for a department that won't be extant within a couple of years
2) Few want to work for the preening egotist that is David Davis
3) No one wants to be drinking from the poisoned chalice of Brexit. The closer people get to the detail of it, the less appealling it is. DExEU are struggling to fill posts, or to keep people, and recently conscripted 50 from the FCO. Not a happy place.
`Tories and Labour being led by two flawed leaders`.
I`m not sure you are right TSE. I think that May is more popular in the country than is given credit for.
And as for Corbyn, we old codgers may view him as a hackneyed dogmatic IRA-sympathising campaigner, but a large chunk of the electorate just don`t see this and, remarkably, see him as a refreshing change.
Both the leaders are probably putting a positive gloss on their parties right now, but this is more a comment on the latter than the former.
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Referring to a minister by his forename is no more acceptable than by his surname. The diary secretary knows to call David Davis "the Secretary of State". They should have known to call Davis' counterparts by their title. It slightly amuses me when civil servant friends refer to their bosses by the "Minister" title in general conversation. It's ingrained.
Which is why it probably really was DD himself.
I like the suggestion that the diary secretary had no idea Enda Kenny was Taioseach of Ireland and assumed Kenny Whatshisname was some dude Davis had chewed the fat with in the airport lounge on the way back from a meeting somewhere. The Irish would know who Kenny was and the diary secretary had done their job in passing the message on.
Insecure work = unlikely to get a mortgage. Poor Financial history = unlikely to get a mortgage. Criminal convictions = unlikely to get a mortgage. Gone overseas for a while = unlikely to get a mortgage. EU citizen = unlikely to get a mortgage. Approaching retirement = unlikely to get a mortgage as monthly repayments go up. Health problems = unlikely to get a mortgage. Multiple children by different mothers = unlikely to get a mortgage. Dependent partner and kids etc = unlikely to get a mortgage.
You might want to forget about all these people, but for millions of people their personal circumstances mean that there is just no chance whatseover that they can get a mortgage.
Even if the prices go down 50%, which they might well do anyway, this won't solve the problem, because if you have a 10k deposit, you still need to borrow another £50k to meet the £60k asking price. And that is before you take in to account the likelihood of rising interest rates which make the monthly payments even more unaffordable.
OHHH JEREMY CORBYN.
Mortgage rules are onerous, that is true, but the last time they were relaxed and self-certified income was acceptable, we saw the consequences. Also, a lot of those ineligible people you have pointed out suffer from poor life choices, but would be eligible for social housing, which, IMO, is the other side of the coin. Money raised from the additional taxes should be spent on procuring and building millions of social housing units across the country. We need to expand owner occupation, but also expand social housing for secure tenancies and a more secure lifestyle.
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.
As it's the civil service, I imagine the solution to their incompetence will be to promote them.
No, a glowing reference gets you a sideways transfer to another department.
That’s how DExEU got staffed in the first place.
DExEU's big staffing problems is that
1) No one really wants to work for a department that won't be extant within a couple of years
2) Few want to work for the preening egotist that is David Davis
That wasn't my problem.
I applied and pulled out when I found out my salary would be almost halved.
Happy to do my duty, work longer hours for less money to help, but I couldn't pay the mortgage on what the civil service pay.
I was struck by how chipper the PM seemed yesterday. I'm beginning to wonder if behind the scenes we are a lot closer to an exit deal than all the bluff and bluster suggests.
An exit from Brexit deal with the cabinet.
* Canada counts as Hard Brexit
Canada does not count as hard Brexit. A FTA is not hard Brexit to anyone but the most diehard Remainer for whom staying in the single market and leaving free movement in place is sacrosanct
That's not true. Both the UK and the Republic are in the Common Travel Area (CTA) so there's no border between them.
Not being in Schengen means you need a passport to move between the Republic and Schengen, or North and Schengen, it does not mean you need a passport to move between the Republic and North.
Quite. I regularly travel by ferry between the UK and ROI without a passport, or indeed without any personal identification.
I don't. And I've never been asked so presumably I'm not expected to.
I suppose it is a bit like a driving licence. I never carry mine and I've never been asked for it in 55 years of driving. I often go out with no means of identification and I love it. Freedom. That's when I'm a true liberal.
Irish police and customs officials will generally check you to see if you have a passport or birth certificate entering the ROI from the UK
Except there aren't police and customs officials at the border between North and the Republic.
And they don't check your passport or birth certificate(!) when you get the car ferry from Holyhead to Dublin.
A solid piece from TSE and very little with which I, as an LD, can disagree.
[snip]
As I've said before, the Party I joined in 1980 was destroyed by the Coalition and I do appreciate the irony. There is a new LD Party now with a new generation of activists - some of the traditional areas have revived, others haven't while pockets of new activity have emerged. They are learning the old lesson of building national strength from local strength.
Oddly enough, the "breakthrough" of the Alliance came when you had a "national" party like the SDP grafted on to a "local" party like the Liberals. The SDP brought a lot to that and not just money but a way of functioning at national level that had always evaded the Liberals.
The future ? As TSE suggests, the coming rounds of local elections will be interesting - next year in London will we see further Conservative reverses and will these include Richmond and Kingston returning to the LDs ? Not inconceivable though the headlines would be Labour advancing into Wandsworth (the recent Thamesfield by election suggested a solid swing to Labour though whether its enough to take the Borough remains to be seen).
I would be looking at the 2021 County elections for some insight - the Conservatives had a remarkably good round in 2017 and the extent to which those advances can be held may be indicative of prospects for the GE.
As a LibDem, I agree with all that, including that the Party I joined in 1983 was destroyed by the Coalition.
I'm canvassing in Richmond and Twickenham for the locals next May. I think the LibDems have a reasonable chance of taking it. The Tory party is taking a big hit here for its approach to Brexit. Also, EU nationals can vote in the locals and there are a LOT of them here, and they're angry.
Coalition was always going to destroy the Lib Dems because by building a party from the bottom up, with relatively few things bar expedience keeping its disparate support together, the pressures of government and the compromises of coalition, were going to break those weak bonds and repel the many who joined to oppose the sort of things governments do (it didn't help that it was the Tories that the LDs went into coalition with, but a fag-end Gordon Brown government wouldn't have been any better).
What's so striking is that so many Lib Dems are so insistent on following exactly the same plan that resulted in disaster last time. Of course, in the short term, it might bring gains here and there. Sooner or later though, there'll come a point where they have to choose which big party to back in government. And then it'll all crash down again.
What alternative do they have under our system?
As someone else said (Robert Smithson?) they should have pushed for PR in the Lords, to set a precedent.
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.
As it's the civil service, I imagine the solution to their incompetence will be to promote them.
No, a glowing reference gets you a sideways transfer to another department.
That’s how DExEU got staffed in the first place.
DExEU's big staffing problems is that
1) No one really wants to work for a department that won't be extant within a couple of years
2) Few want to work for the preening egotist that is David Davis
That wasn't my problem.
I applied and pulled out when I found out my salary would be almost halved.
Happy to do my duty, work longer hours for less money to help, but I couldn't pay the mortgage on what the civil service pay.
Of course, there was zero flexibility.
A friend of mine works for the DfIT, she's incredibly smart. I don't know why she bothers for what they pay her.
To respond to an earlier post from Richard Nabavi, I think there were three major issues with the Coalition from the LD perspective:
1) Tuition Fees: - an unmitigated political disaster for the Party and personal disaster for Nick Clegg. Whether Clegg supported the notion of free tuition fees and especially at a time when the public finances were in such a disastrous state, it was a tenuous policy at best, the fact was it was the policy with which the LDs were most recognised.
To not only drop the policy but then to argue for the opposite was political suicide. Had the Party been defeated on the floor of the Commons, it could have argued "we tried" but it was bad politics.
2) AV - AV has never been LD policy. It's only slightly worse than FPTP but Labour offered it without a Referendum. Very few LDs were prepared to support it so it left Nick relying on his personal charisma and credibility which had been shattered by tuition fees. As 2016 has shown, however, even if you go into a campaign with seemingly huge levels of personal trust and support, it isn't always possible to sell snow to eskimos or Europe to a sceptical electorate. Without that credibility, the AV campaign was doomed from the start and Clegg was again battered and bruised.
3) Day to Day Governance - the problem with a 2010-style Coalition is the commitment to support all legislation even that which turns up outside the initial Agreement. The initial talks could have taken longer (another week) and firmed up on pieces of legislation which both parties could support and beyond that C&S. Committing both sides to agree to everything was foolish.
As for the argument about "new politics", both the Conservative and Labour parties are coalitions forced together by FPTP. Under a proportional system, you'd have a group of centre -right and right parties in one group and a group of centre-left and left parties in another block as you see in most other countries.
Were mistakes made on the LD side ? Yes, clearly, but the intention from the start was to remain as a distinctive party and for the Coalition to be a one-off in the national interest. The Liberal history of coalition with the Conservatives suggested elements in the party would get too comfortable so you'd get as happened with Herbert Samuel and John Simon elements which would become Liberal Nationals or National Liberals or Liberal Conservatives or whatever. Perhaps the Conservatives thought that might happen again but it didn't.
Next time (and there will be a next time), I'd like to think the Party would be less eager for the Ministerial limousine and more keen on emphasising areas of policy agreement as well as areas of difference. Going into Government doesn't mean having to sell your soul though supping with the Conservative or Labour Devil does require a very long spoon.
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.
As it's the civil service, I imagine the solution to their incompetence will be to promote them.
No, a glowing reference gets you a sideways transfer to another department.
That’s how DExEU got staffed in the first place.
DExEU's big staffing problems is that
1) No one really wants to work for a department that won't be extant within a couple of years
2) Few want to work for the preening egotist that is David Davis
3) No one wants to be drinking from the poisoned chalice of Brexit. The closer people get to the detail of it, the less appealling it is. DExEU are struggling to fill posts, or to keep people, and recently conscripted 50 from the FCO. Not a happy place.
I know exactly how I'd go about planning and managing Brexit projects and preparations, from my programme management experience, and I think I'd do a good job.
But, I'd expect to be allowed to get on with it, and for my advice to be listened to.
I suspect I'd have got frustrated quickly with the politics.
The future ? As TSE suggests, the coming rounds of local elections will be interesting - next year in London will we see further Conservative reverses and will these include Richmond and Kingston returning to the LDs ? Not inconceivable though the headlines would be Labour advancing into Wandsworth (the recent Thamesfield by election suggested a solid swing to Labour though whether its enough to take the Borough remains to be seen).
I would be looking at the 2021 County elections for some insight - the Conservatives had a remarkably good round in 2017 and the extent to which those advances can be held may be indicative of prospects for the GE.
As a LibDem, I agree with all that, including that the Party I joined in 1983 was destroyed by the Coalition.
I'm canvassing in Richmond and Twickenham for the locals next May. I think the LibDems have a reasonable chance of taking it. The Tory party is taking a big hit here for its approach to Brexit. Also, EU nationals can vote in the locals and there are a LOT of them here, and they're angry.
Coalition was always going to destroy the Lib Dems because by building a party from the bottom up, with relatively few things bar expedience keeping its disparate support together, the pressures of government and the compromises of coalition, were going to break those weak bonds and repel the many who joined to oppose the sort of things governments do (it didn't help that it was the Tories that the LDs went into coalition with, but a fag-end Gordon Brown government wouldn't have been any better).
What's so striking is that so many Lib Dems are so insistent on following exactly the same plan that resulted in disaster last time. Of course, in the short term, it might bring gains here and there. Sooner or later though, there'll come a point where they have to choose which big party to back in government. And then it'll all crash down again.
What alternative do they have under our system?
As someone else said (Robert Smithson?) they should have pushed for PR in the Lords, to set a precedent.
STV for local government was the logical choice, as in Scotland. But the MPs were too obsessed with improving their own prospects.
A stronger local government base would have done the LDs huge benefit, over time. Nationwide experience of fairer voting might have built support for a change for GEs. And, since the Tories don't actually care that much about local government, if the LibDem negotiators had played their cards right, I am sure that retreating from national change to local change could have delivered an agreement from the Tories.
Just on a tangent, some reporting on ITV News at Ten annoyed me. Reported a forecast house price rise of 0.3% (example used was £600 on a £200,000 house). But they didn't report on the stamp duty saving. Which is quite relevant.
I was also bemused they led with the very significant debt and deficit numbers, but during the election campaign when Corbyn was promising to tax and spend like there's no tomorrow, Peston (ITV political editor) asked hard-hitting questions like "Will you keep your allotment?" rather than leading with the debt and deficit.
Edited extra bit: more tyre compounds next year, apparently. It sounds too daft to be real, but it seems we'll have hypersofts. And superhard.
Why did Davis think it was proper to be trying to arrange meetings with the Irish PM in the first place? PMs deal with PMs, Finance ministers with finance ministers, foreign office ministers with foreign office ministers and etc.
Depends on the context. I suspect this note was released just now and after Kenny left office, because it illustrates a condescension keenly felt in Ireland in the past couple of weeks.
Cameron has a lot to answer for. I suspect history will put him right up there with Lord North and Neville Chamberlain.
The problem for Cameron's historical position is that the referendum wasn't a one-off mistake, but the culmination of his entire strategy as an elected politician. He appeased the forces that eventually consumed him and acted as their vehicle to gain power.
He kicked the can down the road again and again until he ran out of road.
He should have insisted Brexit would only happen if all four countries voted for it in the referendum.
Would be entirely consistent with what a Conservative and Unionist believes in.
Really. So the English and Welsh (over 50 million people) could be held against their will by less than 10 million? And only a bare majority of those, less than 5 million?
As a LibDem, I agree with all that, including that the Party I joined in 1983 was destroyed by the Coalition.
I'm canvassing in Richmond and Twickenham for the locals next May. I think the LibDems have a reasonable chance of taking it. The Tory party is taking a big hit here for its approach to Brexit. Also, EU nationals can vote in the locals and there are a LOT of them here, and they're angry.
Coalition was always going to destroy the Lib Dems because by building a party from the bottom up, with relatively few things bar expedience keeping its disparate support together, the pressures of government and the compromises of coalition, were going to break those weak bonds and repel the many who joined to oppose the sort of things governments do (it didn't help that it was the Tories that the LDs went into coalition with, but a fag-end Gordon Brown government wouldn't have been any better).
What's so striking is that so many Lib Dems are so insistent on following exactly the same plan that resulted in disaster last time. Of course, in the short term, it might bring gains here and there. Sooner or later though, there'll come a point where they have to choose which big party to back in government. And then it'll all crash down again.
What alternative do they have under our system?
As someone else said (Robert Smithson?) they should have pushed for PR in the Lords, to set a precedent.
Or as I argued - STV in Local Councils (following the example of Scotland). The Tories might well have gone for it on the grounds of 'getting Tories elected in Manchester, Liverpool etc'
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.
As it's the civil service, I imagine the solution to their incompetence will be to promote them.
No, a glowing reference gets you a sideways transfer to another department.
That’s how DExEU got staffed in the first place.
DExEU's big staffing problems is that
1) No one really wants to work for a department that won't be extant within a couple of years
2) Few want to work for the preening egotist that is David Davis
That wasn't my problem.
I applied and pulled out when I found out my salary would be almost halved.
Happy to do my duty, work longer hours for less money to help, but I couldn't pay the mortgage on what the civil service pay.
Of course, there was zero flexibility.
A friend of mine works for the DfIT, she's incredibly smart. I don't know why she bothers for what they pay her.
It depends on your lifestyle and expectations.
For smart people entering the civil service from an NGO from the regions the pay is probably quite good, comparatively. If you're coming from a major profession, or consultancy, currently employed in London, not so much.
The way the civil service get round that is by hiring the latter as consultants on v.expensive day rates, usually from the Big4, when it'd be much cheaper to hire them in-house, but they'd then have to pay them a much higher salary the civil service unions wouldn't wear.
Cameron has a lot to answer for. I suspect history will put him right up there with Lord North and Neville Chamberlain.
The problem for Cameron's historical position is that the referendum wasn't a one-off mistake, but the culmination of his entire strategy as an elected politician. He appeased the forces that eventually consumed him and acted as their vehicle to gain power.
He kicked the can down the road again and again until he ran out of road.
He should have insisted Brexit would only happen if all four countries voted for it in the referendum.
Would be entirely consistent with what a Conservative and Unionist believes in.
Really. So the English and Welsh (over 50 million people) could be held against their will by less than 10 million? And only a bare majority of those, less than 5 million?
Works in America in the Senate, stops the bigger states railroading the smaller states.
Which is why Wyoming (population 585,000) has as many Senate seats as California (population circa 40 million)
Coupled with Vermont (population 625,000) it sees Wyoming and Vermont (combined population 1.2m) be able to outvote California 2:1 despite only having around 1/40th of California's population.
Why did Davis think it was proper to be trying to arrange meetings with the Irish PM in the first place? PMs deal with PMs, Finance ministers with finance ministers, foreign office ministers with foreign office ministers and etc.
Depends on the context. I suspect this note was released just now and after Kenny left office, because it illustrates a condescension keenly felt in Ireland in the past couple of weeks.
I think that you may be conflating Simon Coveney and Ireland. His frustrated leadership ambitions, desire to be centre stage and palpable over-promotion mark him out as an Irish Boris Johnson.
The Irish view is broadly real surprise that we voted to leave.
TBF to Davis that sounds like an idiot diary secretary rather than anything else.
I can easily see a conversation between DD and DS along the lines of "No point in talking to X. Can you see if Kenny is available?" and DS assuming it was a first name not a surname.
Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.
As it's the civil service, I imagine the solution to their incompetence will be to promote them.
No, a glowing reference gets you a sideways transfer to another department.
That’s how DExEU got staffed in the first place.
DExEU's big staffing problems is that
1) No one really wants to work for a department that won't be extant within a couple of years
2) Few want to work for the preening egotist that is David Davis
That wasn't my problem.
I applied and pulled out when I found out my salary would be almost halved.
Happy to do my duty, work longer hours for less money to help, but I couldn't pay the mortgage on what the civil service pay.
Of course, there was zero flexibility.
A friend of mine works for the DfIT, she's incredibly smart. I don't know why she bothers for what they pay her.
It depends on your lifestyle and expectations.
For smart people entering the civil service from an NGO from the regions the pay is probably quite good, comparatively. If you're coming from a major profession, or consultancy, currently employed in London, not so much.
The way the civil service get round that is by hiring the latter as consultants on v.expensive day rates, usually from the Big4, when it'd be much cheaper to hire them in-house, but they'd then have to pay them a much higher salary the civil service unions wouldn't wear.
You're one of the people who supports the public sector pay cap, aren't you?
Cameron has a lot to answer for. I suspect history will put him right up there with Lord North and Neville Chamberlain.
The problem for Cameron's historical position is that the referendum wasn't a one-off mistake, but the culmination of his entire strategy as an elected politician. He appeased the forces that eventually consumed him and acted as their vehicle to gain power.
He kicked the can down the road again and again until he ran out of road.
He should have insisted Brexit would only happen if all four countries voted for it in the referendum.
Would be entirely consistent with what a Conservative and Unionist believes in.
Really. So the English and Welsh (over 50 million people) could be held against their will by less than 10 million? And only a bare majority of those, less than 5 million?
Only a bare majority voted for Brexit, so you're overegging the maths a bit...
Mr. Eagles, imagine if that had been in place. The majority would've been overruled by a minority because Scottish and Northern Irish votes counted more.
And that's with Scotland having devolution, with nothing corresponding for England.
How would UKIP have polled, with Farage still there and Britain's democratic decision decided not by the popular vote but a blocking vote from one part of the UK?
Edited extra bit: *two parts, but my point stands.
You might want to forget about all these people, but for millions of people their personal circumstances mean that there is just no chance whatseover that they can get a mortgage.
Even if the prices go down 50%, which they might well do anyway, this won't solve the problem, because if you have a 10k deposit, you still need to borrow another £50k to meet the £60k asking price. And that is before you take in to account the likelihood of rising interest rates which make the monthly payments even more unaffordable.
OHHH JEREMY CORBYN.
Mortgage rules are onerous, that is true, but the last time they were relaxed and self-certified income was acceptable, we saw the consequences. Also, a lot of those ineligible people you have pointed out suffer from poor life choices, but would be eligible for social housing, which, IMO, is the other side of the coin. Money raised from the additional taxes should be spent on procuring and building millions of social housing units across the country. We need to expand owner occupation, but also expand social housing for secure tenancies and a more secure lifestyle.
So then, you are advocating for a significant fall in house prices partially engineered by punitive taxation on landlords, which is nonetheless going to lead to an increase in tax revenues (along with the obliteration of the private rented sector) that then results in sufficient revenue to promote a massive increase in social housing that provides for everyone excluded from the mortgage market.
It seems a bit far fetched.
Why not: a) keep the private rented sector as it basically works well enough, and just make tenancies more secure? b) encourage institutional investment in new build private rented sector (ie rather than individual landlords) c) Find ways of taking over poor quality leasehold housing through co-operatives/ community ownership etc? d) Expand shared equity schemes for people who are unable to access mortgages or are on low incomes, ie through credit unions. e) stop putting people in the position where they have to take out mortgages as the only way of obtaining secure housing, when they may not be ready to do so (ie when they are not in secure relationships). f) reduce the transaction costs and time involved in buying and selling property. g) find a way of promoting a sustainable reduction in house prices, whilst returning interest rates to a more realistic level.
Mr. Eagles, imagine if that had been in place. The majority would've been overruled by a minority because Scottish and Northern Irish votes counted more.
And that's with Scotland having devolution, with nothing corresponding for England.
How would UKIP have polled, with Farage still there and Britain's democratic decision decided not by the popular vote but a blocking vote from one part of the UK?
Edited extra bit: *two parts, but my point stands.
We don't need another layer of elected bureaucracy, proper EV4L will do the trick.
Farage and other Leavers are prepared to destroy the UK to achieve their dream, I'd have no problems calling them out for their treachery.
The Liberal Democrats are positioned perfectly as an economically centre-left pro-Remaim party. The problem is that most Remainers have allowed their anger at Brexit to focus on punishing the Tories by voting Labour, even while Corbyn is much more anti-EU than May.
Cameron has a lot to answer for. I suspect history will put him right up there with Lord North and Neville Chamberlain.
The problem for Cameron's historical position is that the referendum wasn't a one-off mistake, but the culmination of his entire strategy as an elected politician. He appeased the forces that eventually consumed him and acted as their vehicle to gain power.
He kicked the can down the road again and again until he ran out of road.
He should have insisted Brexit would only happen if all four countries voted for it in the referendum.
Would be entirely consistent with what a Conservative and Unionist believes in.
Really. So the English and Welsh (over 50 million people) could be held against their will by less than 10 million? And only a bare majority of those, less than 5 million?
Works in America in the Senate, stops the bigger states railroading the smaller states.
Which is why Wyoming (population 585,000) has as many Senate seats as California (population circa 40 million)
Coupled with Vermont (population 625,000) it sees Wyoming and Vermont (combined population 1.2m) be able to outvote California 2:1 despite only having around 1/40th of California's population.
Mr. Eagles, so you want an extra layer of bureaucracy, only you want it just for the Scots with the equivalent for the English being a fragmented array of fiefdoms rather than the political equal.
The Liberal Democrats are positioned perfectly as an economically centre-left pro-Remaim party. The problem is that most Remainers have allowed their anger at Brexit to focus on punishing the Tories by voting Labour, even while Corbyn is much more anti-EU than May.
Not this Remainer, nor many others like me.
I voted LD at the GE because my Labour MP (John Cryer) was pro-Brexit.
Corbyn is diffidently in favour of the EU, as reflected in his tepid support for Remain.
It's hard to say what May really thinks. She was certainly pro-Remain before the referendum, though she kept a low profile. I suspect her of flying the most suitable flag of convenience, but that may be a bit harsh.
Mr. Eagles, so you want an extra layer of bureaucracy, only you want it just for the Scots with the equivalent for the English being a fragmented array of fiefdoms rather than the political equal.
It's unsustainable in the long term.
Yes, because of its size, Scotland doesn't have the sheer number of major cities England does, so it seems appropriate to have differing systems.
For example the issues facing Manchester are differing to the ones facing London
Scotland is best served by having a First Minister, England is served by having strong (metro) Mayors.
No, a glowing reference gets you a sideways transfer to another department.
That’s how DExEU got staffed in the first place.
DExEU's big staffing problems is that
1) No one really wants to work for a department that won't be extant within a couple of years
2) Few want to work for the preening egotist that is David Davis
That wasn't my problem.
I applied and pulled out when I found out my salary would be almost halved.
Happy to do my duty, work longer hours for less money to help, but I couldn't pay the mortgage on what the civil service pay.
Of course, there was zero flexibility.
A friend of mine works for the DfIT, she's incredibly smart. I don't know why she bothers for what they pay her.
It depends on your lifestyle and expectations.
For smart people entering the civil service from an NGO from the regions the pay is probably quite good, comparatively. If you're coming from a major profession, or consultancy, currently employed in London, not so much.
The way the civil service get round that is by hiring the latter as consultants on v.expensive day rates, usually from the Big4, when it'd be much cheaper to hire them in-house, but they'd then have to pay them a much higher salary the civil service unions wouldn't wear.
You're one of the people who supports the public sector pay cap, aren't you?
The starting salary for a senior civil servant was about £65k when I last looked, in about 2013. You obviously don't do that job for the money, but it does have some advantages ie in the pension.
It is more a case that a lot of the people who work in finance/insurance/ real estate industries and their various spin offs are paid far more than everyone else in the real economy. For instance, quite senior roles in local government ( a job where you are actually responsible for real life and death issues) hover around the £40k mark, possibly more but not significantly so in London. Against that, being a SCS is a great job because there is more grandeur and less real life responsibility.
Plus we should give the Northern Irish a veto on Brexit,
Do you with to remain: i) in the UK? or ii) in the EU?
The Irish proposal is quite remarkable: it is a state seeking to divide its neighbour economically. This despite the fact that only 15 per cent of Northern Irish exports go to the Republic while 60 per cent go to the rest of the UK.
Comments
Arriving from Northern Ireland: no passport controls are enforced. The border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is open and barely discernable.
Do you think that matches your claim earlier that "There already is a border between North and South Ireland as neither the UK nor Republic are in Schengen and so you need a passport to enter both."?
I suppose it is a bit like a driving licence. I never carry mine and I've never been asked for it in 55 years of driving. I often go out with no means of identification and I love it. Freedom. That's when I'm a true liberal.
But civil servants make mistakes and had it not been published I doubt either Kenny or Davis would either have known or been bothered by this. Davis won't have sent this email it would have been sent as discussed by a civil servant, similarly Kenny won't have received the email either it would have been received by a civil servant.
"Topping up pensions" is in many cases actually having anything meaningful at all to live off in old age. I doubt many sat there like a panto villain thinking "how can I blood suck the youth of today, - I know BTL. Let's all cackle in a manic fashion".
It's a mess all round, and there's no magic bullet, though as I keep banging on, so many distortions have low interest rates lurking somewhere as a major factor.
You keep making these arguments but you never responded to my comment at 12.24 which set out what I think is the problem with this idea.
You need to carry one while in ROI but you don't need one to get across the border between North and the Republic (don't call them South, they don't like that).
1) No one really wants to work for a department that won't be extant within a couple of years
2) Few want to work for the preening egotist that is David Davis
It’s no coincidence that the peak LD was 2005 when there were endless complaints of there being no difference between the Tories and New Labour.
I have the unfortunate habit in missing out words.
There's been no schism this time. Had May not called the election early then its possible there would have been under Corbyn but that's off the cards now.
I agree that the Lib Dems' main issues is that they don't currently have a distinct identity. It's very hard to answer the question "What are the Lib Dems for?".
"For the little guy" is not a bad suggestion, though I would caution against making too much of the constitutional/machinery-of-government stuff - the Lib Dems are forever preoccupied with this and hardly any voter cares about it. But yes, "individual fairness" is perhaps a good tack to follow. It steers a course between Corbyn's broad-brush redistribution and the Conservatives' defence of corporate Britain.
Swinson is shrill and has baggage. Layla Moran would be terrific assuming she can hold on to OxWAB, which isn't a given, especially if boundary changes go through.
Though it does occasionally struggling with my Yorkshire accent.
There were travel restrictions between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland during and after WW2. In 2008 the UK Government again proposed to introduce identity checks but this was voted down in the Lords.
Would be entirely consistent with what a Conservative and Unionist believes in.
Election results would seem to bear that out.
The end state for tuition fees is that they will be abolished and replaced with a Graduate Tax. As the LibDems wanted from the beginning. But this will now either be implemented by Labour, suddenly, or by the Tories, gradually.
FFS.
Ireland
Schroedinger's Border again.
I think the present situation with the CTA is legally there is no need to have a passport for UK and ROI citizens travelling between each country whether by sea, land, or air, and clearly there is no legal need for a passport between GB and NI.
However, to get to NI from GB you need to sail or fly to one of two ports or three airports only and to get on the ship or plane you have to show at least photo ID, which in many cases is a passport (not sure if driving licence OK - but with a UK address that's probably a 90% proxy and let's be honest in the real world a good pointer for the authorities to look more closely at the other 10% - I know they're not supposed to do that honest guv. But.)
I think too for several years ROI has checked travel between GB and ROI to check if people pass the test of "ROI/UK citizen" and so don't need a passport to travel. However, just about the only practical way for people to prove they are "ROI/UK" and so don't need a passport is to show a passport to prove it.
All seems to work with a nudge and a wink, and I'd suggest the Brexit teams could do with a dose of the same and make the geography restriction naturally work for us all.
What's so striking is that so many Lib Dems are so insistent on following exactly the same plan that resulted in disaster last time. Of course, in the short term, it might bring gains here and there. Sooner or later though, there'll come a point where they have to choose which big party to back in government. And then it'll all crash down again.
Insecure work = unlikely to get a mortgage. Poor Financial history = unlikely to get a mortgage. Criminal convictions = unlikely to get a mortgage. Gone overseas for a while = unlikely to get a mortgage. EU citizen = unlikely to get a mortgage. Approaching retirement = unlikely to get a mortgage as monthly repayments go up. Health problems = unlikely to get a mortgage. Multiple children by different mothers = unlikely to get a mortgage. Dependent partner and kids etc = unlikely to get a mortgage.
You might want to forget about all these people, but for millions of people their personal circumstances mean that there is just no chance whatseover that they can get a mortgage.
Even if the prices go down 50%, which they might well do anyway, this won't solve the problem, because if you have a 10k deposit, you still need to borrow another £50k to meet the £60k asking price. And that is before you take in to account the likelihood of rising interest rates which make the monthly payments even more unaffordable.
OHHH JEREMY CORBYN.
I`m not sure you are right TSE. I think that May is more popular in the country than is given credit for.
And as for Corbyn, we old codgers may view him as a hackneyed dogmatic IRA-sympathising campaigner, but a large chunk of the electorate just don`t see this and, remarkably, see him as a refreshing change.
https://twitter.com/JazzTrombonist/status/933064222778335232
I applied and pulled out when I found out my salary would be almost halved.
Happy to do my duty, work longer hours for less money to help, but I couldn't pay the mortgage on what the civil service pay.
Of course, there was zero flexibility.
As someone else said (Robert Smithson?) they should have pushed for PR in the Lords, to set a precedent.
To respond to an earlier post from Richard Nabavi, I think there were three major issues with the Coalition from the LD perspective:
1) Tuition Fees: - an unmitigated political disaster for the Party and personal disaster for Nick Clegg. Whether Clegg supported the notion of free tuition fees and especially at a time when the public finances were in such a disastrous state, it was a tenuous policy at best, the fact was it was the policy with which the LDs were most recognised.
To not only drop the policy but then to argue for the opposite was political suicide. Had the Party been defeated on the floor of the Commons, it could have argued "we tried" but it was bad politics.
2) AV - AV has never been LD policy. It's only slightly worse than FPTP but Labour offered it without a Referendum. Very few LDs were prepared to support it so it left Nick relying on his personal charisma and credibility which had been shattered by tuition fees. As 2016 has shown, however, even if you go into a campaign with seemingly huge levels of personal trust and support, it isn't always possible to sell snow to eskimos or Europe to a sceptical electorate. Without that credibility, the AV campaign was doomed from the start and Clegg was again battered and bruised.
3) Day to Day Governance - the problem with a 2010-style Coalition is the commitment to support all legislation even that which turns up outside the initial Agreement. The initial talks could have taken longer (another week) and firmed up on pieces of legislation which both parties could support and beyond that C&S. Committing both sides to agree to everything was foolish.
As for the argument about "new politics", both the Conservative and Labour parties are coalitions forced together by FPTP. Under a proportional system, you'd have a group of centre -right and right parties in one group and a group of centre-left and left parties in another block as you see in most other countries.
Were mistakes made on the LD side ? Yes, clearly, but the intention from the start was to remain as a distinctive party and for the Coalition to be a one-off in the national interest. The Liberal history of coalition with the Conservatives suggested elements in the party would get too comfortable so you'd get as happened with Herbert Samuel and John Simon elements which would become Liberal Nationals or National Liberals or Liberal Conservatives or whatever. Perhaps the Conservatives thought that might happen again but it didn't.
Next time (and there will be a next time), I'd like to think the Party would be less eager for the Ministerial limousine and more keen on emphasising areas of policy agreement as well as areas of difference. Going into Government doesn't mean having to sell your soul though supping with the Conservative or Labour Devil does require a very long spoon.
But, I'd expect to be allowed to get on with it, and for my advice to be listened to.
I suspect I'd have got frustrated quickly with the politics.
A stronger local government base would have done the LDs huge benefit, over time. Nationwide experience of fairer voting might have built support for a change for GEs. And, since the Tories don't actually care that much about local government, if the LibDem negotiators had played their cards right, I am sure that retreating from national change to local change could have delivered an agreement from the Tories.
I was also bemused they led with the very significant debt and deficit numbers, but during the election campaign when Corbyn was promising to tax and spend like there's no tomorrow, Peston (ITV political editor) asked hard-hitting questions like "Will you keep your allotment?" rather than leading with the debt and deficit.
Edited extra bit: more tyre compounds next year, apparently. It sounds too daft to be real, but it seems we'll have hypersofts. And superhard.
For smart people entering the civil service from an NGO from the regions the pay is probably quite good, comparatively. If you're coming from a major profession, or consultancy, currently employed in London, not so much.
The way the civil service get round that is by hiring the latter as consultants on v.expensive day rates, usually from the Big4, when it'd be much cheaper to hire them in-house, but they'd then have to pay them a much higher salary the civil service unions wouldn't wear.
Which is why Wyoming (population 585,000) has as many Senate seats as California (population circa 40 million)
Coupled with Vermont (population 625,000) it sees Wyoming and Vermont (combined population 1.2m) be able to outvote California 2:1 despite only having around 1/40th of California's population.
I think that you may be conflating Simon Coveney and Ireland. His frustrated leadership ambitions, desire to be centre stage and palpable over-promotion mark him out as an Irish Boris Johnson.
The Irish view is broadly real surprise that we voted to leave.
And that's with Scotland having devolution, with nothing corresponding for England.
How would UKIP have polled, with Farage still there and Britain's democratic decision decided not by the popular vote but a blocking vote from one part of the UK?
Edited extra bit: *two parts, but my point stands.
So then, you are advocating for a significant fall in house prices partially engineered by punitive taxation on landlords, which is nonetheless going to lead to an increase in tax revenues (along with the obliteration of the private rented sector) that then results in sufficient revenue to promote a massive increase in social housing that provides for everyone excluded from the mortgage market.
It seems a bit far fetched.
Why not:
a) keep the private rented sector as it basically works well enough, and just make tenancies more secure?
b) encourage institutional investment in new build private rented sector (ie rather than individual landlords)
c) Find ways of taking over poor quality leasehold housing through co-operatives/ community ownership etc?
d) Expand shared equity schemes for people who are unable to access mortgages or are on low incomes, ie through credit unions.
e) stop putting people in the position where they have to take out mortgages as the only way of obtaining secure housing, when they may not be ready to do so (ie when they are not in secure relationships).
f) reduce the transaction costs and time involved in buying and selling property.
g) find a way of promoting a sustainable reduction in house prices, whilst returning interest rates to a more realistic level.
Farage and other Leavers are prepared to destroy the UK to achieve their dream, I'd have no problems calling them out for their treachery.
I'm so old I remember when Remain pointed out this problem, but we were told it was project fear/nothing to worry about.
In England we have the new powerful Mayors which are more effective, plus EV4L will sort out any democratic deficit.
There is no border and there wont be a border. The ROI won't be able to afford one under their new post Brexit EU contributions.
Europhile fretting about the NI border reminds me of an old joke :
Customer : I'd like a vodka no tonic please
Barman : I'm sorry sir, we are out of tonic.
Customer : In that case I'd like a vodka without lemonade then please.
It's unsustainable in the long term.
I voted LD at the GE because my Labour MP (John Cryer) was pro-Brexit.
Corbyn is diffidently in favour of the EU, as reflected in his tepid support for Remain.
It's hard to say what May really thinks. She was certainly pro-Remain before the referendum, though she kept a low profile. I suspect her of flying the most suitable flag of convenience, but that may be a bit harsh.
For example the issues facing Manchester are differing to the ones facing London
Scotland is best served by having a First Minister, England is served by having strong (metro) Mayors.
You obviously don't do that job for the money, but it does have some advantages ie in the pension.
It is more a case that a lot of the people who work in finance/insurance/ real estate industries and their various spin offs are paid far more than everyone else in the real economy. For instance, quite senior roles in local government ( a job where you are actually responsible for real life and death issues) hover around the £40k mark, possibly more but not significantly so in London. Against that, being a SCS is a great job because there is more grandeur and less real life responsibility.
i) in the UK?
or
ii) in the EU?
The Irish proposal is quite remarkable: it is a state seeking to divide its neighbour economically. This despite the fact that only 15 per cent of Northern Irish exports go to the Republic while 60 per cent go to the rest of the UK.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/the-irish-stance-against-brexit-is-a-dangerous-gamble/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=251118_Weekly_Highlights_47_NONSUBS