politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The reshuffle has left TMay weaker but has it hastened her dep

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jasongroves1/status/951077219014791168

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/brookestimes/status/951065874840072192

What do we want? the #Matt Private Members Bill. When do we want it? Now.

The comparison between that pathetic effort and Matt's cartoon about not asking the dog to move from the seat because, when he failed to do so it would undermine his authority is painful. One is funny, the other,...just isn't.

Can I move an amendment to include Brant also?

Did he not die 10 years ago? I wasn't planning to ban historical cartoons, just those that think they are topical.

We could get him out of retirement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50HKLZHOQfA&list=PLqPHnWiE-WeyWgNe9wEyn9gfRS4Lvlh66

The Day Today was simply inspired TV and he had a good part in that. But he's still dead. So unless Terry Pratchett type rules apply no amendment is necessary.

Ishmael_Z said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jasongroves1/status/951077219014791168

That's quite a clever response - just stand back as the Daily Mail supporting euro-sceptic Right tear into one of Britain's best-loved businessmen.

A clever quotation from someone who killed 45,000,000 people with batty left-wingery? Massively droll (if not quite up there with a good Adamstoon).

Cyclefree said:

TheJezziah said:

Just out of interest with the McVey thing.

Is the argument that he said this...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11229909/Labour-distances-itself-from-MPs-lynching-remarks.html
____________________________________
He said: “I spoke at a packed public meeting... there was a whole group in the audience that completely kicked off quite critical of the whole concept, because they were arguing ‘Why are sacking her? Why aren’t we lynching the b******?’.”
___________________________________

Or that he said something else?

Specifically in regards to the lynching part, the stain on the humanity insult is a bit low in my opinion but hardly sackable stuff.

That is part of it. But according to the papers she is now facing more abuse suggesting death etc. Given what happened to Jo Cox, it is utterly wrong that any MP should face this kind of vile abuse. Labour should make clear that it is wrong and that none of its MPs or members should do such a thing or condone it and should call it out as wrong. Jess Phillips has said as much - and good for her for doing so.

Disagree with the policy by all means but violent mysogynist abuse and threats of MPs is beyond the pale.

The criticism of McDonnell is that he has not been willing clearly to disassociate himself from these comments and that he seems or has seemed equivocal about threats of violence against political opponents I don't know whether this is fair criticism in the case of McVey. But McDonnell has been quite relaxed about supporting other sorts of political violence, as we know. And Corbyn is a bit too inclined to adopt a Nelsonian blind eye when it comes to wrong behaviour by his supporters.

But given that it has started again, I would have thought it would be entirely appropriate for Corbyn to make it clear in the strongest possible terms that no member of his party should behave in such a fashion and if they do they will be disciplined. Mysogyny, let alone violent mysogyny, should have no place in the Labour Party, at least if its proclaimed values are to mean something.

Stark_Dawning said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jasongroves1/status/951077219014791168

That's quite a clever response - just stand back as the Daily Mail supporting euro-sceptic Right tear into one of Britain's best-loved businessmen.

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/brookestimes/status/951065874840072192

What do we want? the #Matt Private Members Bill. When do we want it? Now.

The comparison between that pathetic effort and Matt's cartoon about not asking the dog to move from the seat because, when he failed to do so it would undermine his authority is painful. One is funny, the other,...just isn't.

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

It would be a start.

There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.

Agree it’s worth having.
20k gross income seems too high to me - especially given the number of part time workers.
The numbers working aged 65+ are going to increase, so tax would earn more over time.

I can imagine this policy would go down badly with those over 65 who are a reliable voting block and go Tory - that’s probably why this hasn’t happened. “I’ve paid in all my life and now they move the goalposts etcetc”

Yeah, £20K might be too high. On the other hand some under-65 women are also past retirement age, which would boost the numbers. Probably somewhere between £1bn and £1.5bn at a rough estimate.

You are right about the politics, but compared with other ways of raising new revenue I'd have thought this was pretty uncontroversial.

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Kinder gentler politics....

Jeremy Corbyn accused of fostering hate as Esther McVey faces renewed abuse

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/10/jeremy-corbyn-accused-fostering-hate-esther-mcvey-faces-renewed/

Is McVey a kinder or gentler type of figure

Makes Toby Young look like an Angel

The left despised Thatcher who they considered Satan with pearls but she won 3 general elections

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Kinder gentler politics....

Jeremy Corbyn accused of fostering hate as Esther McVey faces renewed abuse

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/10/jeremy-corbyn-accused-fostering-hate-esther-mcvey-faces-renewed/

Is McVey a kinder or gentler type of figure

Makes Toby Young look like an Angel

The left despised Thatcher who they considered Satan with pearls but she won 3 general elections

Some on the Left seem to consider women or ethnic minorities who support the Tories as Uncle Toms, and deserving of everything they get.

But, I really don't understand the particular hatred towards Tory women.

RochdalePioneers said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Corbyn is hopeless

Corbyn did very well today. He spoke more slowly and had the close attention of the house. May was forced back on her recitation of statistics.

Statistics are fine. They are spending more money than ever on the NHS. Yet its patently clear that there are deep and serious cuts at the front line, forcing her to apologise for the impact of them. Yet she clings on to the "more money" line even when having to apologise for delivering less money.

Where is the money disappearing to? All these service contracts and provider organisations don't pay for themselves you know...

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Kinder gentler politics....

Jeremy Corbyn accused of fostering hate as Esther McVey faces renewed abuse

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/10/jeremy-corbyn-accused-fostering-hate-esther-mcvey-faces-renewed/

Is McVey a kinder or gentler type of figure

Makes Toby Young look like an Angel

The left despised Thatcher who they considered Satan with pearls but she won 3 general elections

Some on the Left seem to consider women or ethnic minorities who support the Tories as Uncle Toms, and deserving of everything they get.

But, I really don't understand the particular hatred towards Tory women.

JonathanD said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

It would be a start.

There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.

Agree it’s worth having.
20k gross income seems too high to me - especially given the number of part time workers.
The numbers working aged 65+ are going to increase, so tax would earn more over time.

I can imagine this policy would go down badly with those over 65 who are a reliable voting block and go Tory - that’s probably why this hasn’t happened. “I’ve paid in all my life and now they move the goalposts etcetc”

Yeah, £20K might be too high. On the other hand some under-65 women are also past retirement age, which would boost the numbers. Probably somewhere between £1bn and £1.5bn at a rough estimate.

You are right about the politics, but compared with other ways of raising new revenue I'd have thought this was pretty uncontroversial.

If we're going to do that, we might as well scrap National Insurance and merge it with income tax and put the basic/higher rates up to 22% and 42% respectively. It would have the added advantage in effectively acting as a tax cut for the lowest paid because the IT threshold is significantly higher than the NI threshold.

You then have an employment insurance tax just for employers on top, but I'd like to see that cut in the long term to around 10% (rather than 13.9% or whatever it is).

Will never happen of course, like many sensible HM Treasury reforms, because of the political optics.

No, we should be returning NI to insurance principles as social insurance for pensions, unemployment and healthcare not ending it

Hypothecated taxes are lazy dishonesty. Keep tax simple.

TheJezziah said:

Response to cycle free

This is a general trend in society unfortunately. There have been 3 big kicking off points that have really inflamed passions politically: Scottish indy, Brexit and Corbyn. The first happened before Corbyn, the second the criticisms of Corbyn seems to come from both extremes so hard to argue his part in his one. The third is obviously him, I doubt many would seriously claim he tried to become this divisive indeed he tried to take many with him at first and they repaid him by trying to replace him. I would argue that much of the negative atmosphere around Corbyn or not was driven by those who really couldn't accept his victory in the leadership to start with but the third one does involve him.

[Snipped]

Given the outrage about McDonnell seemingly just repeating a statement why has Jess got off so easy with this, why do even people like you who seem to be against voilence against MPs hold her up as some example?

Surely we want more Corbyn's who do not directly insult opponents or use violent language against them and less Jess Phillips who do so if we want a less violent atmosphere around MPs?

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

Utter rot.

Cyclefree said:

I did not know that about Jess Phillips. That is wrong of her.

TheJezziah said:

Response to cycle free

This is a general trend in society unfortunately. There have been 3 big kicking off points that have really inflamed passions politically (on top of passions that are already there) Scottish indy, Brexit and Corbyn. The first happened before Corbyn, the second the criticisms of Corbyn seems to come from both extremes so hard to argue his part in his one. The third is obviously him, I doubt many would seriously claim he tried to become this divisive indeed he tried to take many with him at first and they repaid him by trying to replace him. I would argue that much of the negative atmosphere around Corbyn or not was driven by those who really couldn't accept his victory in the leadership to start with but the third one does involve him.

Give the wide range of characters abused and that much of this is pre Corbyn rise and or not really much to do with Corbyn in terms of Brexit and considering the fact Dianne Abbot gets more abuse than everyone outside of May and Corbyn put together I would argue that the constant attempts to put it at Corbyns door are nothing but pure propaganda and actually make the situation worse.

There are unfortunately lots of groups at it from Corbyn supporters to all other parties and trains of thought. All of them are wrong and should be condemned.

I think there are better to people to pick out for a call against violence against MPs that 'I'd stab him in the front' Jess Phillips and no that isn't her just repeating what a bunch of other people have said that is her statement of what she would like to do. Whether the fact she didn't actually mean stabbing so that's okay but McDonnell repeated a comment about lynching where he obviously meant he wanted her killed (in the comment he was repeating and has stated wasn't his own words or beliefs)

Given the outrage about McDonnell seemingly just repeating a statement why has Jess got off so easy with this, why do even people like you who seem to be against voilence against MPs hold her up as some example?

Surely we want more Corbyn's who do not directly insult opponents or use violent language against them and less Jess Phillips who do so if we want a less violent atmosphere around MPs?

This is where it is hard to feel that rather than an actual issue people want to get to the bottom off people are just playing their own politics with the issue.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/951095560580288512

HYUFD said:

Stocky said:

Mike says that May may like to continue to the next election but I cannot see how this would work.

She will either fight or not fight the next election. If she doesn`t fight it then she will have to step down well before the next election for a successor to establish him/herself.

So she either goes well before 2022 or she stays to fight the next election as leader.

My guess is that she will stay on past the next election (and I`m on Jeremy Hunt to (eventually) be the next leader - he`s playing his cards well at the moment).

She will go certainly by the end of the transition period most likely replaced by Davis or Boris with Gove also a contender if he does not back the latter

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

Utter rot.

No, entirely correct and entirely in accordance with what most western nations do ie have a proper system of hypothecated social insurance

Tosh, it's just an employment tax... that ONLY applies to income derived from labour that clobbers regular workers.

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

Utter rot.

No, entirely correct and entirely in accordance with what most western nations do ie have a proper system of hypothecated social insurance

Tosh, it's just an employment tax... that ONLY applies to income derived from labour that clobbers regular workers.

It is deducted from salary exactly as pension payments are and entirely correctly.

Every other western nation has a social insurance payment deducted from wages to cover unemployment benefits, state pensions, state healthcare and social care and we must ensure National Insurance is exactly the same

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/951095560580288512

When Tim looks back upon his life

David_Evershed said:

The Office of National Statistics reports today on Household disposable income and inequality.

It says
"There has been a small decline in income inequality in the last 10 years."

See https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/householddisposableincomeandinequalityfinancialyearending2017

Tissue_Price said:

Cyclefree said:

I did not know that about Jess Phillips. That is wrong of her.

IIRC, she was asked if she would "stab Corbyn in the back" at some point in the future, and she replied that "no, I would stab him in the front."

It's practically the oldest political metaphor there is (with apologies to Julius Caesar, for whom it was a touch more literal). The story has been used as pure whataboutery by those trying to excuse McDonnell and others.

Cyclefree said:

bigjohnowls said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Kinder gentler politics....

Jeremy Corbyn accused of fostering hate as Esther McVey faces renewed abuse

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/10/jeremy-corbyn-accused-fostering-hate-esther-mcvey-faces-renewed/

Is McVey a kinder or gentler type of figure

Makes Toby Young look like an Angel

I'm going to call you out on this. Whether McVey is kind or gentle is irrelevant.

No-one should face this kind of abuse. Threats of violence against an MP, a female MP are wrong.

A female MP was murdered in 2016 as a result of people fostering a climate of hate. Just because the MP on the receiving end now is a Tory does not justify it. You should be ashamed of implying it, even as a joke.

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Stocky said:

Mike says that May may like to continue to the next election but I cannot see how this would work.

She will either fight or not fight the next election. If she doesn`t fight it then she will have to step down well before the next election for a successor to establish him/herself.

So she either goes well before 2022 or she stays to fight the next election as leader.

My guess is that she will stay on past the next election (and I`m on Jeremy Hunt to (eventually) be the next leader - he`s playing his cards well at the moment).

She will go certainly by the end of the transition period most likely replaced by Davis or Boris with Gove also a contender if he does not back the latter

To be honest they are the past. Listening to Hunt on the NHS in the house today he was very impressive. This last few days has finished the chances of the old guard and there are some really good prospects coming into view. Give it 6 months and the position will be much clearer

The biggest swing from the Tories in the polls since the general election has not been to Labour but to UKIP, Hunt is not going to win them back, Boris or Davis might.

tlg86 said:

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

As predicted by Sean Fear there were big upward revisions of past construction output:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/bulletins/constructionoutputingreatbritain/november2017#latest-revisions

It looks like construction output will be 5% higher in 2017 than in 2016, which was itself 4% higher than in 2015.

It seems that the "there seems to be a lot of construction work happening near me" annecdotes were correct.

I just love to say I told you so. Because the chance comes around so rarely.

Are you going to win your bet?

stodge said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Just like a rebalancing of the sectors of the economy, but also we need this to change...Where more and more people go from 40hrs a week to 30,20,10hrs a week, rather than the vast majority going 40->0 overnight.

There's a lot to be said for a "gradual" retirement along the lines you suggest and some larger organisations are implementing this "pre retirement" strategy.

I have a friend who is over pension age and is still employed because, frankly, he likes to work and I wonder how he would cope with retirement. That being said, he gets his pension, free travel (he's in London) and pays no NI and that doesn't sit well with me.

If you want to work, fine, no one should stop you but this is a Boris-esque notion of having your cake and eating it. If you are in work you should be treated the same - we are still fighting to get equal pay across the genders, we should have equal pay across the ages too.

As a corollary, another rationale for older people working in London is the cost of living in London. We talk a lot about younger people being priced out of London - older people are trapped in London and forced to continue working to pay for their prison.

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

JonathanD said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

It would be a start.

T.

Agree it’s worth having.
20k gross income seems too high to me - especially given the number of part time workers.
The numbers working aged 65+ are going to increase, so tax would earn more over time.

I can imagine this policy would go down badly with those over 65 who are a reliable voting block and go Tory - that’s probably why this hasn’t happened. “I’ve paid in all my life and now they move the goalposts etcetc”

Yeah, £20K might be too high. On the other hand some under-65 women are also past retirement age, which would boost the numbers. Probably somewhere between £1bn and £1.5bn at a rough estimate.

You are right about the politics, but compared with other ways of raising new revenue I'd have thought this was pretty uncontroversial.

If we're going to do that, we might as well scrap National Insurance and merge it with income tax and put the basic/higher rates up to 22% and 42% respectively. It would have the added advantage in effectively acting as a tax cut for the lowest paid because the IT threshold is significantly higher than the NI threshold.

You then have an employment insurance tax just for employers on top, but I'd like to see that cut in the long term to around 10% (rather than 13.9% or whatever it is).

Will never happen of course, like many sensible HM Treasury reforms, because of the political optics.

No, we should be returning NI to insurance principles as social insurance for pensions, unemployment and healthcare not ending it

Hypothecated taxes are lazy dishonesty. Keep tax simple.

The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

Most other nations use social insurance properly for pensions, welfare, social care and healthcare as should we

Even by your standards this is just nonsense. Not least because the demand is coming from older people, relatively few of whom pay any NI at all.

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

JonathanD said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rkrkrk said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

rottenborough said:

How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

It would be a start.

T.

Agree it’s worth having.
20k gross income seems too high to me - especially given the number of part time workers.
The numbers working aged 65+ are going to increase, so tax would earn more over time.

I can imagine this policy would go down badly with those over 65 who are a reliable voting block and go Tory - that’s probably why this hasn’t happened. “I’ve paid in all my life and now they move the goalposts etcetc”

Yeah, £20K might be too high. On the other hand some under-65 women are also past retirement age, which would boost the numbers. Probably somewhere between £1bn and £1.5bn at a rough estimate.

You are right about the politics, but compared with other ways of raising new revenue I'd have thought this was pretty uncontroversial.

If we're going to do that, we might as well scrap National Insurance and merge it with income tax and put the basic/higher rates up to 22% and 42% respectively. It would have the added advantage in effectively acting as a tax cut for the lowest paid because the IT threshold is significantly higher than the NI threshold.

You then have an employment insurance tax just for employers on top, but I'd like to see that cut in the long term to around 10% (rather than 13.9% or whatever it is).

Will never happen of course, like many sensible HM Treasury reforms, because of the political optics.

No, we should be returning NI to insurance principles as social insurance for pensions, unemployment and healthcare not ending it

Hypothecated taxes are lazy dishonesty. Keep tax simple.

The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

Most other nations use social insurance properly for pensions, welfare, social care and healthcare as should we

Even by your standards this is just nonsense. Not least because the demand is coming from older people, relatively few of whom pay any NI at all.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

JonathanD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Hunt may just have played a blinder by getting TM to include Social care under health. If he can take the green paper through Parliament and emerge successfully he will at a stroke demolish labour's weaponising of the NHS and give the conservatives a much better chance of winning the next GE.

I heard some time ago that he had said that Health would be his last job in government and that seems to be the case, maybe other than leader

No, the "problem" is social care is local Government responsibility and the money just isn't there to cope with the rising demands. If left-wing Marxist authorities like Surrey County Council can complain they haven't money to adequately fund social care provision, you can be sure many other Councils are suffering.

It will of course be disproportionate - those areas with a higher percentage of elderly people are likely to be facing the worst of the problems.

Is Hunt genuinely proposing to take Social Care provision out of local authority hands into those of central Government ? Does that mean the funding goes as well - what about the assessment process ? Of course, many Councils, such as Surrey, would face huge re-organisation if Social Care provision was transferred back into the NHS but there might be more money for it as well.

Will there be a network of national Care Homes perhaps clustered around hospitals, GPs and other Health provision ? It's an interesting idea and worthy of consideration - organising dementia care services at a national level to properly allocate resources and provide appropriate premises (often the biggest problem) would be a challenge but a positive step.

The funding for social care must come from a new model and so must the adminstration. This is the big question and hopefully the green paper that Hunt will bring forward will be a start

Over 65s can start paying National Insurance. Funding problem solved.

I have no problem with anyone in employment irrespective of age paying NI

HYUFD said:

Slackbladder said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

Utter rot.

No, entirely correct and entirely in accordance with what most western nations do ie have a proper system of hypothecated social insurance

Tosh, it's just an employment tax... that ONLY applies to income derived from labour that clobbers regular workers.

It is deducted from salary exactly as pension payments are and entirely correctly.

Every other western nation has a social insurance payment deducted from wages to cover unemployment benefits, state pensions, state healthcare and social care and we must ensure National Insurance is exactly the same

and in exactly the same way which Income Tax is as well....

But fundamentally there is NO 'National Insurance' pot where its used for X/Y/Z, it's just general taxation. If it were then maybe people could see what it was used on.

No. National Insurance should be properly hypothecated for social and welfare costs, leaving income tax to fund defence, police, education, culture etc.

Then we can properly check both are spent for what they are supposed to be

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/brookestimes/status/951065874840072192

What do we want? the #Matt Private Members Bill. When do we want it? Now.

The comparison between that pathetic effort and Matt's cartoon about not asking the dog to move from the seat because, when he failed to do so it would undermine his authority is painful. One is funny, the other,...just isn't.

Like the New European, Osborne and his team are too dogmatic to know how to be funny.

FrancisUrquhart said:

McDonnell knows what he is doing. His "I'm only repeating what other people said, that's all" stuff is as believable as I didn't see that 6ft tall Hammer and Sickle banner right next to me, and I'm not a Marxist even though you have me on video saying it.

It is why he is far more dangerous than Jezza.

TheJezziah said:

Tissue_Price said:

Cyclefree said:

I did not know that about Jess Phillips. That is wrong of her.

IIRC, she was asked if she would "stab Corbyn in the back" at some point in the future, and she replied that "no, I would stab him in the front."

It's practically the oldest political metaphor there is (with apologies to Julius Caesar, for whom it was a touch more literal). The story has been used as pure whataboutery by those trying to excuse McDonnell and others.

If people can call for McDonnell to be sacked for repeating comments It would seem fairly consistent that they would criticse Jess for her own violent calls, she could have easily have used a different metaphor or put it a different way as could have many others who have been criticised for their language. If we really want to stamp out that kind of talk we have to ask for it from those who we like the political aims of as well as those we dislike otherwise it becomes just about partisanship rather than the thing it is about to start with.

rpjs said:

I understand that here in the US you can defer drawing social security (old age pension) when you reach eligibility and get it at a higher rate when you decide to do so. ..

FF43 said:

I think Jeremy Hunt taking on social care is likely to be a mistake. There is certainly a need to coordinate social care and health care. Devising the wonkish social care policy that addresses all interests is a different job from ensuring there are doctors to see patients. Hunt has been in charge of the seeing the doctor bit while the service has got worse. The (very high) risk is that Hunt gets bogged down in social care policy while medical care deteriorates further. It would be better for Hunt to focus on whatever deliverables are seen as important while someone else, who talks to him, tries to take some of the pressure off through social care policy.

TheJezziah said:

One of the reasons people focus on Corbyn is because he and McDonnell have a long history of associating with people who do think that violence in the pursuit of political ends is justified.
..............................................................................

You could make that argument about anyone who supports the armed forces in a roundabout way as well, in many places an armed struggle already exists, to ignore that would ignore the problems the place faces....

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Stocky said:

Mike says that May may like to continue to the next election but I cannot see how this would work.

She will either fight or not fight the next election. If she doesn`t fight it then she will have to step down well before the next election for a successor to establish him/herself.

So she either goes well before 2022 or she stays to fight the next election as leader.

My guess is that she will stay on past the next election (and I`m on Jeremy Hunt to (eventually) be the next leader - he`s playing his cards well at the moment).

She will go certainly by the end of the transition period most likely replaced by Davis or Boris with Gove also a contender if he does not back the latter

To be honest they are the past. Listening to Hunt on the NHS in the house today he was very impressive. This last few days has finished the chances of the old guard and there are some really good prospects coming into view. Give it 6 months and the position will be much clearer

The biggest swing from the Tories in the polls since the general election has not been to Labour but to UKIP, Hunt is not going to win them back, Boris or Davis might.

It is over for the old guard and for Boris and Davis.

No it is not, as I said Boris is no more 'old guard' than Hunt and it is Tory to UKIP voters the Tories need to focus on, those who voted for Corbyn in June will almost all certainly vote for him again next time regardless of the Tory leader.

The need for the new leader post Brexit is to regain the remainers, UKIP is dying and will be gone by summer 2019

Tissue_Price said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/951095560580288512

When Tim looks back upon his life

They didn't quite succeed

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Stocky said:

Mike says that May may like to continue to the next election but I cannot see how this would work.

She will either fight or not fight the next election. If she doesn`t fight it then she will have to step down well before the next election for a successor to establish him/herself.

So she either goes well before 2022 or she stays to fight the next election as leader.

My guess is that she will stay on past the next election (and I`m on Jeremy Hunt to (eventually) be the next leader - he`s playing his cards well at the moment).

She will go certainly by the end of the transition period most likely replaced by Davis or Boris with Gove also a contender if he does not back the latter

To be honest they are the past. Listening to Hunt on the NHS in the house today he was very impressive. This last few days has finished the chances of the old guard and there are some really good prospects coming into view. Give it 6 months and the position will be much clearer

The biggest swing from the Tories in the polls since the general election has not been to Labour but to UKIP, Hunt is not going to win them back, Boris or Davis might.

It is over for the old guard and for Boris and Davis.

No it is not, as I said Boris is no more 'old guard' than Hunt and it is Tory to UKIP voters the Tories need to focus on, those who voted for Corbyn in June will almost all certainly vote for him again next time regardless of the Tory leader.

The need for the new leader post Brexit is to regain the remainers, UKIP is dying and will be gone by summer 2019

No it is not. Remainers are not suddenly going to switch to a Brexit backing Tory Party, especially if they have already voted for Corbyn. The only switchers from Labour to Tory likely are those angered by the dementia tax.

The only chance the Tories have next time of a 4th successive government is to refight the 1992 general election ie where Major held almost all the 1987 Tory vote and scrapped the poll tax ie hold all the 2017 Tory vote and scrap the dementia tax policy and hammer Corbyn on tax, especially IHT

We are not going to agree on next leader but as a voting member I will not be voting for Boris, Davis, or any of the tired old guard

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

McDonnell knows what he is doing. His "I'm only repeating what other people said, that's all" stuff is as believable as I didn't see that 6ft tall Hammer and Sickle banner right next to me, and I'm not a Marxist even though you have me on video saying it.

It is why he is far more dangerous than Jezza.

So we should fire ministers (or shadow cabinet ministers in this case) because they cleverly say bad stuff they really mean whilst sort of not saying it...

How far should we go with this thought policing... and should we only apply it to politicians that don't sit with our political views?

The defence of not really meaning it applied to Jess Phillips by people who like her would equally be applied by those who like Corbyn, or Farage, or McDonnell to them. The trick is to come up with a consistent rule which doesn't take into account if they are a 'goody' or a 'baddy'

Cyclefree said:

TheJezziah said:

...........................................................................
Corbyn talks a good talk on this (no personal abuse etc). But I am a bit cynical about this. He seems to think that it is enough for him to say that violent language is wrong but he does not criticise let alone discipline those on his side who do it. This sends out mixed signals, at best.
........................................................................

He has called out abuse of MPs and other political figures and people found to be breaking the rules have been barred from the party. Corbyn isn't actually (or wasn't anyway) of the suspension/discipline committee for banning members and such so that wouldn't be him unless we are specifically talking about Labour party MPs?

He hasn't really had full control of the party also the comments McDonnell is criticised for happened before he became leader. Is it Ed's fault?

No - they have not all been barred from the party. Livingstone should, IMO, have been expelled but hasn't been.

But this is an argument that Corbyn is too weak to control his party on this issue. Really? Would there really have been opposition from his opponents to him taking strong action on this?

Richard_Nabavi said:

rpjs said:

I understand that here in the US you can defer drawing social security (old age pension) when you reach eligibility and get it at a higher rate when you decide to do so. ..

So you can in the UK. The increment you got for deferment used to be fantastically generous for those who could afford to defer. Sadly for me, but correctly, Osborne changed the rates with effect from 1 April 2016 and it's now not worth doing for most people.