politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the third Thursday of May exactly a year ago Mrs May launch

SystemSystem Posts: 12,562
edited May 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the third Thursday of May exactly a year ago Mrs May launched the Conservative manifesto

On the third Thursday of May exactly a year ago Mrs. May was enjoying huge leads in the polls as she travelled to key Tory target of Halifax (LAB GE2015 majority 428) to launch the Conservative manifesto.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,581
    Dark times. I do agree that it was bold, and work does need to be done in that area. Trying to do it without either side screaming about the other stealing people's houses is going to be tough.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,663
    edited May 2018
    My first trading diary on YouTube: Why I'm Bearish on US Natural Gas Prices

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2_FnN7Q8A&feature=youtu.be

    Please watch and subscribe :)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,772
    The 'dementia tax' plan was one of the most toxic policies in political history.

    Never again will a major political party even consider assessing a person's home to pay for personal at home dementia care costs after the damage it did to May's general election campaign
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    The Tory Dementia Tax ??? .... I forgot all about it ....
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited May 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    My first trading diary on YouTube: Why I'm Bearish on US Natural Gas Prices

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2_FnN7Q8A&feature=youtu.be

    Please watch and subscribe :)

    Meanwhile it's worthy of note that this site may never be accused of not approaching betting outwith of a big tent approach.

    Robert Smithson's advocacy of a hairy gay men's farting forum is commendable although I'd suggest staying in the big tent might be injurious to certain sensory perceptions. It's a ill wind that blows ....
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,203
    rcs1000 said:

    My first trading diary on YouTube: Why I'm Bearish on US Natural Gas Prices

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2_FnN7Q8A&feature=youtu.be

    Please watch and subscribe :)

    Great arguments, but I don't recognise anywhere on that background map :-)
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    The slogan Forward Together on the lectern. Did it not seem to anyone else that the white background makes it look like the word Together has been pasted in at the last minute to cover up some other word?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    rcs1000 said:

    My first trading diary on YouTube: Why I'm Bearish on US Natural Gas Prices

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2_FnN7Q8A&feature=youtu.be

    Please watch and subscribe :)

    Why subscribe? Many Youtube videos ask viewers to subscribe so it must matter, but why?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,891
    I must admit that at the time I thought the move was laudable – the Tories being ready to use their apparent strong position to take on one of the toughest issues of the day, funding elderly care, with a very clear proposal that wasn’t going to be popular.

    Presumably you didn't think it laudable enough to disown the opportunistic homophobic leader of your party?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    JackW said:

    The Tory Dementia Tax ??? .... I forgot all about it ....

    Its in the long grass...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,147
    Gadfly said:

    rcs1000 said:

    My first trading diary on YouTube: Why I'm Bearish on US Natural Gas Prices

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2_FnN7Q8A&feature=youtu.be

    Please watch and subscribe :)

    Great arguments, but I don't recognise anywhere on that background map :-)
    I'm not sure I'd want a large cloud entitled 'Bearish Natural Gas' just behind me...
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,080
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    My first trading diary on YouTube: Why I'm Bearish on US Natural Gas Prices

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2_FnN7Q8A&feature=youtu.be

    Please watch and subscribe :)

    Why subscribe? Many Youtube videos ask viewers to subscribe so it must matter, but why?
    More eyeballs for adverts?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,663
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    My first trading diary on YouTube: Why I'm Bearish on US Natural Gas Prices

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2_FnN7Q8A&feature=youtu.be

    Please watch and subscribe :)

    Why subscribe? Many Youtube videos ask viewers to subscribe so it must matter, but why?
    Because they only share a portion of advertising revenue with you once you get to 1,000 subscribers. Until then, they keep it all.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,147
    In betting news (sort of):

    Fixed-odds betting stakes 'to be cut to £2' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44148285
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    logical_song said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    My first trading diary on YouTube: Why I'm Bearish on US Natural Gas Prices

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2_FnN7Q8A&feature=youtu.be

    Please watch and subscribe :)

    Why subscribe? Many Youtube videos ask viewers to subscribe so it must matter, but why?
    More eyeballs for adverts?
    That would be viewers, not subscribers. Subscribers might get automatic notification of new uploads, perhaps.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    logical_song said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    My first trading diary on YouTube: Why I'm Bearish on US Natural Gas Prices

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2_FnN7Q8A&feature=youtu.be

    Please watch and subscribe :)

    Why subscribe? Many Youtube videos ask viewers to subscribe so it must matter, but why?
    More eyeballs for adverts?
    That would be viewers, not subscribers. Subscribers might get automatic notification of new uploads, perhaps.
    Ah, rcs1000 has explained it is to do with Youtube sharing advertising revenue with the channel owner.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,057
    JackW said:

    The Tory Dementia Tax ??? .... I forgot all about it ....

    Nothing has changed...

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    ydoethur said:

    In betting news (sort of):

    Fixed-odds betting stakes 'to be cut to £2' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44148285

    The social effects of these machines is appalling, though in my view there may also be a political impact as they suck cash out of communities.

    That said, it is likely that betting shops will close, which means job losses.

    It is said that Esther McVey opposed plans to cut FOBT stakes, so those who have backed or laid her for next leader should take note. Less worthily, some have linked this to her on/off and now back on again relationship with Philip Davies MP, who is close to the bookies.

    This bad news for bookmakers immediately follows the US Supreme Court's ruling that our cousins in the Land of the Free should be free to bet.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,723
    Good morning, everyone.

    If that had been her only screw-up, she still could've won a majority.

    Mildly surprised, but pleased, the fixed odds stakes have been cut to £2. Whilst good, one side-effect will probably be more harm for the High Street. That needs addressing.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,946
    RobD said:

    Dark times. I do agree that it was bold, and work does need to be done in that area. Trying to do it without either side screaming about the other stealing people's houses is going to be tough.

    The Granny house theft policy was the game changer along with the best Labour manifesto since 1948.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,788
    The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

    But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,080
    DavidL said:

    The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

    But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

    Doesn't that argument apply as much to cancer care as dementia care?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,057
    DavidL said:

    The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

    But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

    It was just about the only positive thing in the Tory manifesto. There were other bad aspects as summarised by Jezza here a few days later, in an impromptu speech that in retrospect turned the election campaign. It ends with the first appearance of a famous song:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2017/may/21/jeremy-corbyn-music-festival-tranmere-rovers-ground-video
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,093
    Interesting, and rather disrurbing story about Cohen’s bank records:
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/missing-files-motivated-the-leak-of-michael-cohens-financial-records

    So it was a whistleblower motivated by the apparent ‘disappearance’ of some from the system.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,714
    Each party has now put forward reasonably plausible solutions to the social care issue which have been attacked as "death taxes" and got punished in the polls. But it's pretty generally accepted that there's a problem which something like this needs to address. A Royal Commission with all-party support does seem appropriate here.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,080
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    logical_song said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    My first trading diary on YouTube: Why I'm Bearish on US Natural Gas Prices

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2_FnN7Q8A&feature=youtu.be

    Please watch and subscribe :)

    Why subscribe? Many Youtube videos ask viewers to subscribe so it must matter, but why?
    More eyeballs for adverts?
    That would be viewers, not subscribers. Subscribers might get automatic notification of new uploads, perhaps.
    Yes, that's it. I'm only subscribed to a few but I do get notified when there's a new video.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,788
    Correct call on FOBTs by the way. Hopefully it will see a massive reduction in the availability of this menace. It probably does mean many betting shops will close, particularly in poorer areas but that is a price well worth paying to avoid the social damage these things cause.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,096
    bigjohnowls said:

    RobD said:

    Dark times. I do agree that it was bold, and work does need to be done in that area. Trying to do it without either side screaming about the other stealing people's houses is going to be tough.

    The Granny house theft policy was the game changer along with the best Labour manifesto since 1948.
    Many houses are sold to pay for care already. The mistake was raising the issue and springing the new surprise policy during the election, without any consultation, consideration or ground work.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,132
    DavidL said:

    Correct call on FOBTs by the way. Hopefully it will see a massive reduction in the availability of this menace. It probably does mean many betting shops will close, particularly in poorer areas but that is a price well worth paying to avoid the social damage these things cause.

    Best time for a policy-induced loss of jobs, with record employment and low unemployment.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,775
    It is wonderful news, David.

    Perhaps the big bookies will now return to their traditional role of giving odds and laying bets. As for the shops, been in one recently? They are toilets. If they all closed tomorrow nobody would miss them. The staff will find better jobs in more worthwhile outlets. Win, win,win.

    Well done the Government!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,194
    NickPalmer said:

    Each party has now put forward reasonably plausible solutions to the social care issue which have been attacked as "death taxes" and got punished in the polls. But it's pretty generally accepted that there's a problem which something like this needs to address. A Royal Commission with all-party support does seem appropriate here.

    There was a commission a few years ago wasn’t there? And it’s report got kicked into the long grass.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,788
    logical_song said:

    DavidL said:

    The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

    But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

    Doesn't that argument apply as much to cancer care as dementia care?
    I don't think so although I can see the argument. My mum died of cancer but other than the last 4-5 days when she was in a hospice she lived at home looking after herself. She had some help from Marie Curie personnel but it was minimal. In comparison her mum, who died of dementia, was in residential care for nearly 8 years before she died.

    There is a debate to be had about what risks are to be shared (medical care costs) and which are not but large untaxed legacies increasing inequality into the next generation are completely the wrong priority and May was right to point this out. Unfortunately, as we have seen on so many other things she is no salesman.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,683
    DavidL said:

    The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

    But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

    I think such reforms can be done but they need to be heavily trailed and tested first, and public support slowly built.

    If you try and bounce them on the voters during an election campaign, they will smell a rat and vote accordingly.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,147
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting, and rather disrurbing story about Cohen’s bank records:
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/missing-files-motivated-the-leak-of-michael-cohens-financial-records

    So it was a whistleblower motivated by the apparent ‘disappearance’ of some from the system.

    Must be too early in the morning. I was wondering what there could be about Corbyn's bank records that was disturbing!

    Have a good morning everyone.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,714
    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    DavidL said:

    The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

    But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

    The dementia tax was not in itself the problem but Theresa May's and the Conservatives' failure to defend or explain the policy was. Then they ditched it, which made a nonsense of their "strong and stable" slogan, which was used some 18 times in the manifesto. Lynton Crosby directed the so-called campaign but somehow all the blame was heaped on Nick and Fiona.

    Crosby's non-campaign campaign also failed to say anything at all about Brexit, which was ostensibly the reason for calling the election in the first place. The result is there is no settled policy to bind the cabinet or party together. New Labour always used to put the tricky stuff in the manifesto, safe in the knowledge no-one ever reads it, so that in the event of a tight vote the whips could remind backbenchers they were elected to send small boys up chimneys or whatever else was buried in the small print on page 94.

    All the Tories have is that Brexit should be smooth and orderly (half a dozen times in the manifesto) and who could argue with that? It perfectly encapsulates Jacob Rees-Mogg's view, as well as Ken Clarke's.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,788
    Casino_Royale said:

    DavidL said:

    The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

    But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

    I think such reforms can be done but they need to be heavily trailed and tested first, and public support slowly built.

    If you try and bounce them on the voters during an election campaign, they will smell a rat and vote accordingly.
    Hard to argue with that (unless, like Mike, you have sold Tory seats on a spread betting site!)
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,714
    OldKingCole said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Each party has now put forward reasonably plausible solutions to the social care issue which have been attacked as "death taxes" and got punished in the polls. But it's pretty generally accepted that there's a problem which something like this needs to address. A Royal Commission with all-party support does seem appropriate here.

    There was a commission a few years ago wasn’t there? And it’s report got kicked into the long grass.
    Yes, and there was an attempt agreed at Ministerial level to reach a cross-party consensus (Andy Burnham and Norman Lamb were involved IIRC, can't remember which Conservative). I vaguelky recall it got vetoed by the Conservative leadership at the time.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,677
    Very proud of Matt Hancock and Tracey Crouch today.

    Have both in my portfolio as successors to Mrs May.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    Peter_the_Punter said:

    It is wonderful news, David.

    Perhaps the big bookies will now return to their traditional role of giving odds and laying bets. As for the shops, been in one recently? They are toilets. If they all closed tomorrow nobody would miss them. The staff will find better jobs in more worthwhile outlets. Win, win,win.

    Well done the Government!

    Yes, well done the Conservatives. They have put people's lives above free market dogma and the big corporations.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,677
    On topic, nothing has changed.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,924
    Germans startled at new Italian governments demand for 250bn Euro debt write down


    www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/eurokrise/italien-kommentar-der-albtraum-der-eurozone-15593594.html
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,194
    DavidL said:

    logical_song said:

    DavidL said:

    The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

    But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

    Doesn't that argument apply as much to cancer care as dementia care?
    I don't think so although I can see the argument. My mum died of cancer but other than the last 4-5 days when she was in a hospice she lived at home looking after herself. She had some help from Marie Curie personnel but it was minimal. In comparison her mum, who died of dementia, was in residential care for nearly 8 years before she died.

    There is a debate to be had about what risks are to be shared (medical care costs) and which are not but large untaxed legacies increasing inequality into the next generation are completely the wrong priority and May was right to point this out. Unfortunately, as we have seen on so many other things she is no salesman.
    Agree. My parents needed some, but not a lot, of support but both my in-laws both ended their lives in care homes, one there for three years, as as result of dementia and consequent physical as well as mental collapse, the other four, the result of a severe, totally disabling stroke.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,487
    DavidL said:

    Correct call on FOBTs by the way. Hopefully it will see a massive reduction in the availability of this menace. It probably does mean many betting shops will close, particularly in poorer areas but that is a price well worth paying to avoid the social damage these things cause.

    Far too many of them in any event.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,194
    NickPalmer said:

    OldKingCole said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Each party has now put forward reasonably plausible solutions to the social care issue which have been attacked as "death taxes" and got punished in the polls. But it's pretty generally accepted that there's a problem which something like this needs to address. A Royal Commission with all-party support does seem appropriate here.

    There was a commission a few years ago wasn’t there? And it’s report got kicked into the long grass.
    Yes, and there was an attempt agreed at Ministerial level to reach a cross-party consensus (Andy Burnham and Norman Lamb were involved IIRC, can't remember which Conservative). I vaguelky recall it got vetoed by the Conservative leadership at the time.
    IIRC it involved something like their 2017 manifesto and was seen as a vote loser for them if they’d gone along with it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,096
    On topic, what a long year....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,040
    So the FOBT reforms will need Parliamentary approval but the most important issue facing the country will not.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,924
    Voodoo poll

    No wins televised debate on abortion change, Varadkar has sulk with RTE

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/you-cannot-have-this-whooping-jeering-and-hollering-on-such-a-sensitive-matter-ministers-attack-rt-after-debate-win-for-no-36915427.html
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,229
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Very proud of Matt Hancock and Tracey Crouch today.

    Have both in my portfolio as successors to Mrs May.

    Very impressive isn’t it! I had written Hancock off, but he seems to be very diligent and have an ear for politics which marks him out in the current cabinet.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,924
    TOPPING said:

    So the FOBT reforms will need Parliamentary approval but the most important issue facing the country will not.

    we don't need to debate taxing bankers more heavily :-)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,194
    OldKingCole said:

    NickPalmer said:

    OldKingCole said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Each party has now put forward reasonably plausible solutions to the social care issue which have been attacked as "death taxes" and got punished in the polls. But it's pretty generally accepted that there's a problem which something like this needs to address. A Royal Commission with all-party support does seem appropriate here.

    There was a commission a few years ago wasn’t there? And it’s report got kicked into the long grass.
    Yes, and there was an attempt agreed at Ministerial level to reach a cross-party consensus (Andy Burnham and Norman Lamb were involved IIRC, can't remember which Conservative). I vaguelky recall it got vetoed by the Conservative leadership at the time.
    IIRC it involved something like their 2017 manifesto and was seen as a vote loser for them if they’d gone along with it.
    Found a useful reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/288026.stm
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,723
    Mr. Topping, the referendum was voted to be held by the Commons, and its result was likewise endorsed.

    The EU-philes were not complaining that the Commons didn't conduct negotiations when it came to throwing away powers they'd be entrusted by the electorate.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,723
    Mr. Brooke, do you think the Republic might vote to retain the status quo on abortion?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,613
    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,743
    DavidL said:

    logical_song said:

    DavidL said:

    The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

    But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

    Doesn't that argument apply as much to cancer care as dementia care?
    I don't think so although I can see the argument. My mum died of cancer but other than the last 4-5 days when she was in a hospice she lived at home looking after herself. She had some help from Marie Curie personnel but it was minimal. In comparison her mum, who died of dementia, was in residential care for nearly 8 years before she died.

    There is a debate to be had about what risks are to be shared (medical care costs) and which are not but large untaxed legacies increasing inequality into the next generation are completely the wrong priority and May was right to point this out. Unfortunately, as we have seen on so many other things she is no salesman.
    Not sure the Tories are going to be the party to deal with untaxed legacies or increasing generational inequality!

    I agree we need some version of wealth tax/higher inheritance tax/higher taxes on capital. And that reducing inequality is desirable.

    I want us to pool our risks and pay together from general taxation.
    To my mind that applies equally for social care as for health, disability allowance and all the rest of welfare. It could happen to any of us and as a society we should be happy to pay to insure that risk.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,743
    Peter_the_Punter said:

    It is wonderful news, David.

    Perhaps the big bookies will now return to their traditional role of giving odds and laying bets. As for the shops, been in one recently? They are toilets. If they all closed tomorrow nobody would miss them. The staff will find better jobs in more worthwhile outlets. Win, win,win.

    Well done the Government!

    Excellent decision and in the face of determined lobbying.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Very proud of Matt Hancock and Tracey Crouch today.

    Have both in my portfolio as successors to Mrs May.

    TSE just hands the duo the black spot .... poor buggers !!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,677
    Mortimer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Very proud of Matt Hancock and Tracey Crouch today.

    Have both in my portfolio as successors to Mrs May.

    Very impressive isn’t it! I had written Hancock off, but he seems to be very diligent and have an ear for politics which marks him out in the current cabinet.
    Matt’s learned from the very best. You don’t get to be George Osborne’s Chief of Staff without being top notch.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,683
    DavidL said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    DavidL said:

    The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

    But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

    I think such reforms can be done but they need to be heavily trailed and tested first, and public support slowly built.

    If you try and bounce them on the voters during an election campaign, they will smell a rat and vote accordingly.
    Hard to argue with that (unless, like Mike, you have sold Tory seats on a spread betting site!)
    I bought them and consequently lost a shedload on the spreads!

    It put me off those as well to be honest. I don’t like not being in control even if the wins could potentially be much larger.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,924
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Brooke, do you think the Republic might vote to retain the status quo on abortion?

    No I think Yes will win but the margin may be much tighter than first thought
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,677
    So a year ago Jim Messina and Sir Lynton Crosby thought the Tories on course for a majority of 290 seats.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,040
    edited May 2018
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Topping, the referendum was voted to be held by the Commons, and its result was likewise endorsed.

    The EU-philes were not complaining that the Commons didn't conduct negotiations when it came to throwing away powers they'd be entrusted by the electorate.

    No one is saying we're not leaving, Morris.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    logical_song said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    logical_song said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    My first trading diary on YouTube: Why I'm Bearish on US Natural Gas Prices

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2_FnN7Q8A&feature=youtu.be

    Please watch and subscribe :)

    Why subscribe? Many Youtube videos ask viewers to subscribe so it must matter, but why?
    More eyeballs for adverts?
    That would be viewers, not subscribers. Subscribers might get automatic notification of new uploads, perhaps.
    Yes, that's it. I'm only subscribed to a few but I do get notified when there's a new video.
    Reminders will come in handy for RCS's channel if he keeps to the rate of one new video every eight years.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,743
    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Absolute bargain if we could get the price Vince and Dave sold it for.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,772
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    So a year ago Jim Messina and Sir Lynton Crosby thought the Tories on course for a majority of 290 seats.

    Pre manifesto, post manifesto as I posted at the time Messina said there were more undecideds than he had ever known and by then Crosby was already talking about 'putting barnacles on the boat' rather than taking them off
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,723
    Mr. Topping, ha. No. Not leaving. Because when we voted to leave the EU that absolutely meant we were voting to have our trade dictated by the very organisation we'd voted not to be part of anymore.

    It's indefensible. Even if you really love the EU and genuinely believe we're better off closer, it makes sense to be in the single market and out of the customs union, not the other way around.

    It's wretched. I'll still vote Conservative as long as that far left lunatic is leader of Labour, but once he's gone, if we're in the customs union and there's no plan to change it, I'll be voting elsewhere/spoiling my ballot.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited May 2018
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Very proud of Matt Hancock and Tracey Crouch today.

    Have both in my portfolio as successors to Mrs May.

    Have you factored in Matt Hancock's, erm, high hairline? Apparently that's what counts these days. He will need May to go soon.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,065
    DavidL said:

    The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

    But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

    One commitment that gets overlooked, but which polling showed was very unpopular, was abolishing free school lunches? Why? The savings were, in the scheme of things, peanuts, but the proposal really upset parents.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,692
    HYUFD said:

    The 'dementia tax' plan was one of the most toxic policies in political history.

    Never again will a major political party even consider assessing a person's home to pay for personal at home dementia care costs after the damage it did to May's general election campaign

    I’m not so sure. They’ll be called wealth taxes or something but houses will be taxed more to pay for stuff like this.

    I am with @DavidL on this: while there needs to be collective provision, people with wealth - including valuable homes - should not expect others less well off than them to pay so that they can preserve their wealth. They should use their wealth first before expecting others to contribute.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,772
    DavidL said:

    The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

    But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

    Maybe but in future extra fu do g for social care will come from higher council tax and national insurance, probably also extended to over 65s still in work.

    The 'dementia tax' idea has gone for good
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.
    Who do you think stuffs envelopes through the door each day? The letter fairies? Every voter uses Royal Mail but their costs are high because of the universal service to people who insist on living out in the country, so commercial rivals can and have cherry-picked the lucrative parcels trade.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.
    Who do you think stuffs envelopes through the door each day? The letter fairies? Every voter uses Royal Mail but their costs are high because of the universal service to people who insist on living out in the country, so commercial rivals can and have cherry-picked the lucrative parcels trade.
    What envelopes?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,772
    edited May 2018
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    DavidL said:

    The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

    But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

    The dementia tax was not in itself the problem but Theresa May's and the Conservatives' failure to defend or explain the policy was. Then they ditched it, which made a nonsense of their "strong and stable" slogan, which was used some 18 times in the manifesto. Lynton Crosby directed the so-called campaign but somehow all the blame was heaped on Nick and Fiona.

    Crosby's non-campaign campaign also failed to say anything at all about Brexit, which was ostensibly the reason for calling the election in the first place. The result is there is no settled policy to bind the cabinet or party together. New Labour always used to put the tricky stuff in the manifesto, safe in the knowledge no-one ever reads it, so that in the event of a tight vote the whips could remind backbenchers they were elected to send small boys up chimneys or whatever else was buried in the small print on page 94.

    All the Tories have is that Brexit should be smooth and orderly (half a dozen times in the manifesto) and who could argue with that? It perfectly encapsulates Jacob Rees-Mogg's view, as well as Ken Clarke's.
    No the dementia tax was the problem and a torpedo aimed at Tory and swing voters in the Home Counties and London who were horrified at the thought of losing much of the windfall Osborne had offered by raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million.

    The manifesto was clear that the Tories would leave the EU, the single market and end free movement
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,132
    It needs a Royal Commission.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,065
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.
    Who do you think stuffs envelopes through the door each day? The letter fairies? Every voter uses Royal Mail but their costs are high because of the universal service to people who insist on living out in the country, so commercial rivals can and have cherry-picked the lucrative parcels trade.
    It's email that's killing them.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,374
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.
    Who do you think stuffs envelopes through the door each day? The letter fairies? Every voter uses Royal Mail but their costs are high because of the universal service to people who insist on living out in the country, so commercial rivals can and have cherry-picked the lucrative parcels trade.
    1. The only thing stuffed through the door each day is junk mail.

    2. Amazon seems to cope with its next-day service to those of us living out in the country. No cherry-picking for them....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,772
    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail unlike the East Coast mainline is doing much better as a privatised entity
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    AlastairMeeks said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.
    Who do you think stuffs envelopes through the door each day? The letter fairies? Every voter uses Royal Mail but their costs are high because of the universal service to people who insist on living out in the country, so commercial rivals can and have cherry-picked the lucrative parcels trade.
    What envelopes?
    Bills mainly. :(
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,692
    AlastairMeeks said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.
    Who do you think stuffs envelopes through the door each day? The letter fairies? Every voter uses Royal Mail but their costs are high because of the universal service to people who insist on living out in the country, so commercial rivals can and have cherry-picked the lucrative parcels trade.
    What envelopes?
    I recently used Royal Mail to send something to my son, guranteed to arrive before 1 pm the following day. And paid handsomely for the privilege.

    Did it arrive?

    Of course not. It arrived some 3 days later. It would have been quicker for me to walk to Manchester and deliver it by hand.

    I have put in an official complaint (by email this time) and request for the return of my money. As yet no reply. I don’t often use the post but and tend only to do so when I need to return parcels or get something delivered and need certainty re delivery. Am not inclined to use this service again if this is what happens.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,772
    Sean_F said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.
    Who do you think stuffs envelopes through the door each day? The letter fairies? Every voter uses Royal Mail but their costs are high because of the universal service to people who insist on living out in the country, so commercial rivals can and have cherry-picked the lucrative parcels trade.
    It's email that's killing them.
    Actually Royal Mail is now making a pretty healthy profit precisely because it still delivers the final mile for many parcel deliveries which are expanding through online orders even as email declines and Royal Mail also owns a successful and growing parcels business in continental Europe too
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,096
    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.
    Who do you think stuffs envelopes through the door each day? The letter fairies? Every voter uses Royal Mail but their costs are high because of the universal service to people who insist on living out in the country, so commercial rivals can and have cherry-picked the lucrative parcels trade.
    1. The only thing stuffed through the door each day is junk mail.

    2. Amazon seems to cope with its next-day service to those of us living out in the country. No cherry-picking for them....
    I think you'll find Amazon is quite sharp in choosing a private courier or Royal Mail depending on the respective pricings. Amazon also had the habit of posting a lot of stuff out of Northern Ireland, where labour costs are cheaper but RM prices (but not its costs) the same (this was some time ago and may no longer be accurate).
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    HYUFD said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    DavidL said:

    The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

    But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

    The dementia tax was not in itself the problem but Theresa May's and the Conservatives' failure to defend or explain the policy was. Then they ditched it, which made a nonsense of their "strong and stable" slogan, which was used some 18 times in the manifesto. Lynton Crosby directed the so-called campaign but somehow all the blame was heaped on Nick and Fiona.

    Crosby's non-campaign campaign also failed to say anything at all about Brexit, which was ostensibly the reason for calling the election in the first place. The result is there is no settled policy to bind the cabinet or party together. New Labour always used to put the tricky stuff in the manifesto, safe in the knowledge no-one ever reads it, so that in the event of a tight vote the whips could remind backbenchers they were elected to send small boys up chimneys or whatever else was buried in the small print on page 94.

    All the Tories have is that Brexit should be smooth and orderly (half a dozen times in the manifesto) and who could argue with that? It perfectly encapsulates Jacob Rees-Mogg's view, as well as Ken Clarke's.
    No the dementia tax was the problem and a torpedo aimed at Tory and swing voters in the Home Counties and London who were horrified at the thought of losing much of the windfall Osborne had offered by raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million.

    The manifesto was clear that the Tories would leave the EU, the single market and end free movement
    On its own, and with an argument and some explanation, no, like a million other faux-outraged hashtagged policies, it was not a torpedo.

    Add the incompetence and the ditching, then you have a problem.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,129
    So the Tory nanny state has decided that we can't be trusted to gamble £3.

    Isn't there meant to be a Libertarian strand to the Conservatives?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,229
    HYUFD said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    DavidL said:

    The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

    But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

    The dementia tax was not in itself the problem but Theresa May's and the Conservatives' failure to defend or explain the policy was. Then they ditched it, which made a nonsense of their "strong and stable" slogan, which was used some 18 times in the manifesto. Lynton Crosby directed the so-called campaign but somehow all the blame was heaped on Nick and Fiona.

    Crosby's non-campaign campaign also failed to say anything at all about Brexit, which was ostensibly the reason for calling the election in the first place. The result is there is no settled policy to bind the cabinet or party together. New Labour always used to put the tricky stuff in the manifesto, safe in the knowledge no-one ever reads it, so that in the event of a tight vote the whips could remind backbenchers they were elected to send small boys up chimneys or whatever else was buried in the small print on page 94.

    All the Tories have is that Brexit should be smooth and orderly (half a dozen times in the manifesto) and who could argue with that? It perfectly encapsulates Jacob Rees-Mogg's view, as well as Ken Clarke's.
    No the dementia tax was the problem and a torpedo aimed at Tory and swing voters in the Home Counties and London who were horrified at the thought of losing much of the windfall Osborne had offered by raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million.

    The manifesto was clear that the Tories would leave the EU, the single market and end free movement
    Swing voters in the home counties? Eh?

    Have you looked at a map of the results from that election?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    On topic, it’s never a good idea to make voters contemplate a time when they will have Alzheimer’s and be doubly incontinent. Sunlit uplands get more votes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,772
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.
    People use Royal Mail for parcels and letters they still use and libraries are a vital tool for those who could not otherwise afford internet access etc, the jobless and elderly and for some young people the only peaceful place they can find yo do their homework as well as containing archives, local studies putting on talks and exhibitions and traditional book borrowing along now with dvds
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.
    Who do you think stuffs envelopes through the door each day? The letter fairies? Every voter uses Royal Mail but their costs are high because of the universal service to people who insist on living out in the country, so commercial rivals can and have cherry-picked the lucrative parcels trade.
    It's email that's killing them.
    Actually Royal Mail is now making a pretty healthy profit precisely because it still delivers the final mile for many parcel deliveries which are expanding through online orders even as email declines and Royal Mail also owns a successful and growing parcels business in continental Europe too
    Its the junk mail Royal mail makes a lot of, its getting worse every year, (I mean the crap they sort themselves and hand you in a bundle every week.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,772
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Topping, ha. No. Not leaving. Because when we voted to leave the EU that absolutely meant we were voting to have our trade dictated by the very organisation we'd voted not to be part of anymore.

    It's indefensible. Even if you really love the EU and genuinely believe we're better off closer, it makes sense to be in the single market and out of the customs union, not the other way around.

    It's wretched. I'll still vote Conservative as long as that far left lunatic is leader of Labour, but once he's gone, if we're in the customs union and there's no plan to change it, I'll be voting elsewhere/spoiling my ballot.

    No it does not, it completely disrespect the Leave vote to stay in the single market and keep free movement in place when immigration control was what got Leave a majority.

    The Customs Union is just an obsession for a few Leave ideologues
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    HYUFD said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.
    People use Royal Mail for parcels and letters they still use and libraries are a vital tool for those who could not otherwise afford internet access etc, the jobless and elderly and for some young people the only peaceful place they can find yo do their homework as well as containing archives, local studies putting on talks and exhibitions and traditional book borrowing along now with dvds
    One in three has used a library in the last year for which we have statistics. For everyone else, they’re ornamental.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,772
    edited May 2018
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    The 'dementia tax' plan was one of the most toxic policies in political history.

    Never again will a major political party even consider assessing a person's home to pay for personal at home dementia care costs after the damage it did to May's general election campaign

    I’m not so sure. They’ll be called wealth taxes or something but houses will be taxed more to pay for stuff like this.

    I am with @DavidL on this: while there needs to be collective provision, people with wealth - including valuable homes - should not expect others less well off than them to pay so that they can preserve their wealth. They should use their wealth first before expecting others to contribute.
    As a dementia tax or wealth tax no way, certainly from the Tories side as it would be political suicide.

    As a stealth tax through steadily rising council tax then maybe.

    Increasing social care costs As I have said can be paid through higher national insurance primarily extended too to the over 65s in work and council tax
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,176
    AlastairMeeks said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.
    People use Royal Mail for parcels and letters they still use and libraries are a vital tool for those who could not otherwise afford internet access etc, the jobless and elderly and for some young people the only peaceful place they can find yo do their homework as well as containing archives, local studies putting on talks and exhibitions and traditional book borrowing along now with dvds
    One in three has used a library in the last year for which we have statistics. For everyone else, they’re ornamental.
    I'm surprised as many as one in three use a library. It sounds like they might be a valuable resource for a large part of the population.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Surely these terminals are the only thing keeping some betting shops viable.

    I like a gamble but betting shops don't bring anything positive to a commercial/shopping area.

    Gamble online on your sofa in your underpants like normal people..
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,772
    AlastairMeeks said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.
    People use Royal Mail for parcels and letters they still use and libraries are a vital tool for those who could not otherwise afford internet access etc, the jobless and elderly and for some young people the only peaceful place they can find yo do their homework as well as containing archives, local studies putting on talks and exhibitions and traditional book borrowing along now with dvds
    One in three has used a library in the last year for which we have statistics. For everyone else, they’re ornamental.
    For those 1 in 3 they are often vital.

    As a millionaire lawyer living in central London I can understand they may be less so but for a pensioner or someone out of work living in a small market town they are a vital resource
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    FF43 said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.
    People use Royal Mail for parcels and letters they still use and libraries are a vital tool for those who could not otherwise afford internet access etc, the jobless and elderly and for some young people the only peaceful place they can find yo do their homework as well as containing archives, local studies putting on talks and exhibitions and traditional book borrowing along now with dvds
    One in three has used a library in the last year for which we have statistics. For everyone else, they’re ornamental.
    I'm surprised as many as one in three use a library. It sounds like they might be a valuable resource for a large part of the population.
    Used in the last year. That doesn’t mean frequent use. I can’t find chapter and verse but I recall that it’s one in eight who visited in the last month.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,723
    Mr. HYUFD, disagree. Held the view for years that there's a broad spectrum of acceptable leaving options. My only firm red line, which I've held, is that being in the customs union whilst leaving the EU is insane.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,772
    SquareRoot said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.
    Who do you think stuffs envelopes through the door each day? The letter fairies? Every voter uses Royal Mail but their costs are high because of the universal service to people who insist on living out in the country, so commercial rivals can and have cherry-picked the lucrative parcels trade.
    It's email that's killing them.
    Actually Royal Mail is now making a pretty healthy profit precisely because it still delivers the final mile for many parcel deliveries which are expanding through online orders even as email declines and Royal Mail also owns a successful and growing parcels business in continental Europe too
    Its the junk mail Royal mail makes a lot of, its getting worse every year, (I mean the crap they sort themselves and hand you in a bundle every week.
    That is also profitable for them and fair enough it helps them still deliver the handwritten letters which are less profitable but for many still a very personal communication tool
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,040
    edited May 2018
    TGOHF said:

    Surely these terminals are the only thing keeping some betting shops viable.

    I like a gamble but betting shops don't bring anything positive to a commercial/shopping area.

    Gamble online on your sofa in your underpants like normal people..

    And @SandyRentool it's a tricky one. I am naturally against any "for their own good" legislation (chocolate oranges, anyone?) but it is undeniable that these machines can and do bring misery to a non-trivial percentage of users.

    But as you note - can the 2.10 from Southwell (AW) maintain the high street betting industry? Not so sure.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,677
    AlastairMeeks said:

    FF43 said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    NickPalmer said:

    We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

    I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.
    Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.
    People use Royal Mail for parcels and letters they still use and libraries are a vital tool for those who could not otherwise afford internet access etc, the jobless and elderly and for some young people the only peaceful place they can find yo do their homework as well as containing archives, local studies putting on talks and exhibitions and traditional book borrowing along now with dvds
    One in three has used a library in the last year for which we have statistics. For everyone else, they’re ornamental.
    I'm surprised as many as one in three use a library. It sounds like they might be a valuable resource for a large part of the population.
    Used in the last year. That doesn’t mean frequent use. I can’t find chapter and verse but I recall that it’s one in eight who visited in the last month.
    https://librariestaskforce.blog.gov.uk/2016/05/10/changing-patterns-of-library-use/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,772
    edited May 2018
    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    DavidL said:

    The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

    But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

    The dementia tax was not in itself the problem but Theresa May's and the Conservatives' failure to defend or explain the policy was. Then they ditched it, which made a nonsense of their "strong and stable" slogan, which was used some 18 times in the manifesto. Lynton Crosby directed the so-called campaign but somehow all the blame was heaped on Nick and Fiona.

    Crosby's non-campaign campaign also failed to say anything at all about Brexit, which was ostensibly the reason for calling the election in the first place. The result is there is no settled policy to bind the cabinet or party together. New Labour always used to put the tricky stuff in the manifesto, safe in the knowledge no-one ever reads it, so that in the event of a tight vote the whips could remind backbenchers they were elected to send small boys up chimneys or whatever else was buried in the small print on page 94.

    All the Tories have is that Brexit should be smooth and orderly (half a dozen times in the manifesto) and who could argue with that? It perfectly encapsulates Jacob Rees-Mogg's view, as well as Ken Clarke's.
    No the dementia tax was the problem and a torpedo aimed at Tory and swing voters in the Home Counties and London who were horrified at the thought of losing much of the windfall Osborne had offered by raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million.

    The manifesto was clear that the Tories would leave the EU, the single market and end free movement
    Swing voters in the home counties? Eh?

    Have you looked at a map of the results from that election?
    I said the Home Counties and London where the Tories lost a disproportionate number of seats from Brighton Kemptown, Canterbury, Bedford and Reading to Croydon Central, Enfield Southgate and Kensington and Battersea and Kingston upon Thames and Twickenham
This discussion has been closed.