politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Thoughts from a Big Beast

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Thoughts from a Big Beast

On Monday evening, Ken Clarke, described by Intelligence² as a Big Beast of British politics, was being interviewed by John Humphreys, though even Humphreys was scarcely able to get a word in, as Ken opined, entertainingly and at length, on Brexit, Boris, elections and a life in politics.

Read the full story here

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1201952406243811328?s=20

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1201979739042398208?s=20

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1201979739042398208?s=20

Benpointer

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

Tabman

I agree with most of that. Only one I disagree with is the FPTP point.

HYUFD

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

And those with median wealth in the UK are wealthier than 90% of the world's population, so what

RobD

Thanks for the header, Cyclefree

rcs1000

On the subject of Trump, the IRS story has the potential to be much bigger than Ukraine. Ultimately noone really cares about Ukraine (and pretty much everyone thinks Hunter Biden was foolish to take a directorship in a politically sensitive foreign company).

But pressuring the IRS on a tax return. That's a much bigger story.

RobD

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

I wonder what the relative contributions of those groups is to the exchequer.

Gasman

I hadn't realised Macmillan was so far ahead of his time, applying to join an organisation that wouldn't exist until after he had died.

Pedantic maybe, but important to remember that the EU is not the same as the EEC, or the EC. The status quo is rarely on offer for long.

JBriskinindyref2

Everyone likes Ken Clarke

Andy_JS

In the previous thread a lot of Labour supporters were talking about wealth and inequality. If that's a crucial issue for voters, why do they think it is that the biggest swings from Labour to the Tories at the election are likely to be in less wealthy areas like Stoke-on-Trent, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, etc, whereas pretty wealthy constituencies like Chipping Barnet, Cambridge and Canterbury are likely to be pretty good for Labour?

rcs1000

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

I wonder what the relative contributions of those groups is to the exchequer.

I find it entirely unsurprising. People only really begin to accumulate assets in their late 20s. When I left university, I had debt... And a nice CD player... And a collection of Pink Floyd CDs.

It probably took me four or five years to get my net assets above zero.

A pensioner on a state pension living in an owned one bedroom flat in Glasgow has greater net assets than the bottom find million put together, because there are always going to be lots of people with zero or negative net worth.

ozymandias

Andy_JS said:

In the previous thread a lot of Labour supporters were talking about wealth and inequality. If that's a crucial issue for voters, why do they think it is that the biggest swings from Labour to the Tories at the election are likely to be in less wealthy areas like Stoke-on-Trent, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, etc, whereas pretty wealthy constituencies like Chipping Barnet, Cambridge and Canterbury are likely to be pretty good for Labour?

It’s the aspirational working class versus the Petty Bourgeoisie.

IanB2

Andy_JS said:

In the previous thread a lot of Labour supporters were talking about wealth and inequality. If that's a crucial issue for voters, why do they think it is that the biggest swings from Labour to the Tories at the election are likely to be in less wealthy areas like Stoke-on-Trent, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, etc, whereas pretty wealthy constituencies like Chipping Barnet, Cambridge and Canterbury are likely to be pretty good for Labour?

You saw the focus group, I am sure. Because they perceive wealthy London remainers are those most opposed to Brexit, they somehow think Brexit is going to be in their interests.

Benpointer

Andy_JS said:

In the previous thread a lot of Labour supporters were talking about wealth and inequality. If that's a crucial issue for voters, why do they think it is that the biggest swings from Labour to the Tories at the election are likely to be in less wealthy areas like Stoke-on-Trent, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, etc, whereas pretty wealthy constituencies like Chipping Barnet, Cambridge and Canterbury are likely to be pretty good for Labour?

It's a very good question.

Maybe poor voters don't care about the mega-rich. Maybe they don't believe anything can be done about it. Maybe they just don't like what Labour are proposing. Maybe they have been scared off progressive taxes by the mega-rich controlled press. I don't know.

But it is a good question.

rcs1000

Gasman said:

I hadn't realised Macmillan was so far ahead of his time, applying to join an organisation that wouldn't exist until after he had died.

Pedantic maybe, but important to remember that the EU is not the same as the EEC, or the EC. The status quo is rarely on offer for long.

The core principle, of ever closer union, was there from the start. Remember Hugh Gaitskell?

PaulM

Didn't Ken Clarke say recently that he has never used email in his life ?

kle4

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1201952406243811328?s=20

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1201979739042398208?s=20

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1201979739042398208?s=20

If he didn't want to and it was a snub, perhaps it was for that time he kept the Queen waiting.

egg

rcs1000 said:

Gasman said:

I hadn't realised Macmillan was so far ahead of his time, applying to join an organisation that wouldn't exist until after he had died.

Pedantic maybe, but important to remember that the EU is not the same as the EEC, or the EC. The status quo is rarely on offer for long.

The core principle, of ever closer union, was there from the start. Remember Hugh Gaitskell?

Fight, fight, and fight again... to join the European superstate we love?

egg

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1201952406243811328?s=20

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1201979739042398208?s=20

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1201979739042398208?s=20

If he didn't want to and it was a snub, perhaps it was for that time he kept the Queen waiting.

I went down with melania once, on a trip to Newquay.
Baaaaaaaad business.

kle4

Maybe it would be different if I'd known Clarke when he was a minister in the 80s and 90s, but as an avuncular elder statesmen he has always seem pretty likeable. And as a coalition supporter that he was jokingly referred to by Clegg as the fifth LD in Cabinet probably helped with that.

Benpointer

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

I wonder what the relative contributions of those groups is to the exchequer.

I find it entirely unsurprising. People only really begin to accumulate assets in their late 20s. When I left university, I had debt... And a nice CD player... And a collection of Pink Floyd CDs.

It probably took me four or five years to get my net assets above zero.

A pensioner on a state pension living in an owned one bedroom flat in Glasgow has greater net assets than the bottom find million put together, because there are always going to be lots of people with zero or negative net worth.

Well it doesn't seem to be creating a country at ease with itself at the moment.

Stark_Dawning

Ken: what a man! The irony for the Tories is that, had it not been for Brexit, they'd now be about to win a whopping landslide against the hapless Jezza. Instead, having pissed off half the nation, they're now reduced to feeding off of scraps and begging to be lent the votes of people who largely despise them. Even if they pull it off it can't be repeated. The political abyss beckons.

MarqueeMark

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

I wonder what the relative contributions of those groups is to the exchequer.

I find it entirely unsurprising. People only really begin to accumulate assets in their late 20s. When I left university, I had debt... And a nice CD player... And a collection of Pink Floyd CDs.

It probably took me four or five years to get my net assets above zero.

A pensioner on a state pension living in an owned one bedroom flat in Glasgow has greater net assets than the bottom find million put together, because there are always going to be lots of people with zero or negative net worth.

From Pink Floyd to Radiohead.

Where do you think it all went wrong?

kle4

Benpointer said:

Andy_JS said:

In the previous thread a lot of Labour supporters were talking about wealth and inequality. If that's a crucial issue for voters, why do they think it is that the biggest swings from Labour to the Tories at the election are likely to be in less wealthy areas like Stoke-on-Trent, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, etc, whereas pretty wealthy constituencies like Chipping Barnet, Cambridge and Canterbury are likely to be pretty good for Labour?

It's a very good question.

Maybe poor voters don't care about the mega-rich. Maybe they don't believe anything can be done about it. Maybe they just don't like what Labour are proposing. Maybe they have been scared off progressive taxes by the mega-rich controlled press. I don't know.

But it is a good question.

And credit to you that you have not simply dismissed it, or notwithstanding the press part, gods forbid used some kind of false consciousness argument.

geoffw

The story about Corbyn's pin-striped suit (on Guido, I know I know) is reminiscent of Harold Wilson and the Gannex raincoat.
The owner of the Gannex manufacturer was Joseph (to become Lord) Kagan while Jeremy's suit is made by a company owned by an Imran Khan (not the Imran Khan presumably). Perhaps ermine awaits Mr Khan likewise.

egg

RobD said:

Thanks for the header, Cyclefree

Funny picture. Ken and his wife look like they were travelling on the blue ship that crashed into the red ship, and they’ve been marooned.

argyllrs

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

I wonder what the relative contributions of those groups is to the exchequer.

I find it entirely unsurprising. People only really begin to accumulate assets in their late 20s. When I left university, I had debt... And a nice CD player... And a collection of Pink Floyd CDs.

It probably took me four or five years to get my net assets above zero.

A pensioner on a state pension living in an owned one bedroom flat in Glasgow has greater net assets than the bottom find million put together, because there are always going to be lots of people with zero or negative net worth.

From Pink Floyd to Radiohead.

Where do you think it all went wrong?

Nothing after Radiohead is where it all went wrong

rcs1000

egg said:

rcs1000 said:

Gasman said:

I hadn't realised Macmillan was so far ahead of his time, applying to join an organisation that wouldn't exist until after he had died.

Pedantic maybe, but important to remember that the EU is not the same as the EEC, or the EC. The status quo is rarely on offer for long.

The core principle, of ever closer union, was there from the start. Remember Hugh Gaitskell?

Fight, fight, and fight again... to join the European superstate we love?

What does federation mean? It means that powers are taken from national governments and to federal parliaments. It means - I repeat it - that, if we go into this, we are no more than a state (as it were) in the United States of Europe, such as Texas and California. They are remarkably friendly examples; you do not find every state as rich or having such good weather as those two! But I could take others; it would be the same as in Australia, where you have Western Australia, for example, and New South Wales. We should be like them. This is what it means; it does mean the end of Britain as an independent nation state. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, but we must recognise that this is so...

We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history.

YBarddCwsc

What a fascinating story about forgery and the LibDem's Chief of Staff, Rosie Cobb.

Once upon time there was a little crook. His name was Chris Davies. He was a Tory MP for Brecon & Radnorshire and he was caught forging some receipts.

It was a LibDem target seat, so all the LibDems on pb.com were in uproar. IanB2 reminisced about other crooks he had caught forging their expense claims. Cyclefree ascended her pulpit. Moral indignation raged through pb.com about the nasty little Tory chiseller.

(Nick Palmer was an honourable exception).

I said Chris Davies was a little crook, and the LibDems perhaps ought to be careful because, sooner or later, someone in the LibDems would be caught forging something.

Well, well, well.

That day has come -- sooner than I expected, I admit. Any comments from the morally outraged LibDems? It is all very quiet.

MikeL

Who is the lady in the picture with Clarke?

rcs1000

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

I wonder what the relative contributions of those groups is to the exchequer.

I find it entirely unsurprising. People only really begin to accumulate assets in their late 20s. When I left university, I had debt... And a nice CD player... And a collection of Pink Floyd CDs.

It probably took me four or five years to get my net assets above zero.

A pensioner on a state pension living in an owned one bedroom flat in Glasgow has greater net assets than the bottom find million put together, because there are always going to be lots of people with zero or negative net worth.

From Pink Floyd to Radiohead.

Where do you think it all went wrong?

I'm currently listening to Antics by Interpol. It's not as good as Radiohead, but it's not bad.

MikeL

Poverty and inequality have always rated pretty low in the MORI issues index.

Pulpstar

MikeL said:

Who is the lady in the picture with Clarke?

Looks like @cyclefree to me.

geoffw

egg said:

RobD said:

Thanks for the header, Cyclefree

Funny picture. Ken and his wife look like they were travelling on the blue ship that crashed into the red ship, and they’ve been marooned.

Didn't Ken's wife die a year or two ago?

Foxy

Benpointer said:

Andy_JS said:

In the previous thread a lot of Labour supporters were talking about wealth and inequality. If that's a crucial issue for voters, why do they think it is that the biggest swings from Labour to the Tories at the election are likely to be in less wealthy areas like Stoke-on-Trent, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, etc, whereas pretty wealthy constituencies like Chipping Barnet, Cambridge and Canterbury are likely to be pretty good for Labour?

It's a very good question.

Maybe poor voters don't care about the mega-rich. Maybe they don't believe anything can be done about it. Maybe they just don't like what Labour are proposing. Maybe they have been scared off progressive taxes by the mega-rich controlled press. I don't know.

But it is a good question.

The inequality is more by age than social class, but Brexit has always been about world view rather than economics.

I am not sure that the retired CDE voters of Hartlepool and Stoke are really aspirational.

Alistair

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

I wonder what the relative contributions of those groups is to the exchequer.

I find it entirely unsurprising. People only really begin to accumulate assets in their late 20s. When I left university, I had debt... And a nice CD player... And a collection of Pink Floyd CDs.

It probably took me four or five years to get my net assets above zero.

A pensioner on a state pension living in an owned one bedroom flat in Glasgow has greater net assets than the bottom find million put together, because there are always going to be lots of people with zero or negative net worth.

But it hasn't always been thus.

When baby boomers were young the average young person had more wealth than the average OAP.

As boomers aged so did move the wealth distribution.

HaroldO

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

I wonder what the relative contributions of those groups is to the exchequer.

I find it entirely unsurprising. People only really begin to accumulate assets in their late 20s. When I left university, I had debt... And a nice CD player... And a collection of Pink Floyd CDs.

It probably took me four or five years to get my net assets above zero.

A pensioner on a state pension living in an owned one bedroom flat in Glasgow has greater net assets than the bottom find million put together, because there are always going to be lots of people with zero or negative net worth.

From Pink Floyd to Radiohead.

Where do you think it all went wrong?

I'm currently listening to Antics by Interpol. It's not as good as Radiohead, but it's not bad.

I got that when it came out, just as I was moving more into metal. The album before that is better imho.

rcs1000

YBarddCwsc said:

What a fascinating story about forgery and the LibDem's Chief of Staff, Rosie Cobb.

Once upon time there was a little crook. His name was Chris Davies. He was a Tory MP for Brecon & Radnorshire and he was caught forging some receipts.

It was a LibDem target seat, so all the LibDems on pb.com were in uproar. IanB2 reminisced about other crooks he had caught forging their expense claims. Cyclefree ascended her pulpit. Moral indignation raged through pb.com about the nasty little Tory chiseller.

(Nick Palmer was an honourable exception).

I said Chris Davies was a little crook, and the LibDems perhaps ought to be careful because, sooner or later, someone in the LibDems would be caught forging something.

Well, well, well.

That day has come -- sooner than I expected, I admit. Any comments from the morally outraged LibDems? It is all very quiet.

Yeah, but one was a Tory MP, and I've never heard of the other.

If someone you've never heard of shoplifts a pair of earrings, it's not a story. If it's David Cameron, then it's a bit story.

GIN1138

Dr Wollaston was on LBC with Ian Dale this evening and the video currently has 25 "Thumbs Up" Vs 242 "Tumbs Down"

Not sure she's exactly endeared herself to LBC listeners...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GSeHUd1c5Y

MaxPB

rcs1000 said:

egg said:

rcs1000 said:

Gasman said:

I hadn't realised Macmillan was so far ahead of his time, applying to join an organisation that wouldn't exist until after he had died.

Pedantic maybe, but important to remember that the EU is not the same as the EEC, or the EC. The status quo is rarely on offer for long.

The core principle, of ever closer union, was there from the start. Remember Hugh Gaitskell?

Fight, fight, and fight again... to join the European superstate we love?

What does federation mean? It means that powers are taken from national governments and to federal parliaments. It means - I repeat it - that, if we go into this, we are no more than a state (as it were) in the United States of Europe, such as Texas and California. They are remarkably friendly examples; you do not find every state as rich or having such good weather as those two! But I could take others; it would be the same as in Australia, where you have Western Australia, for example, and New South Wales. We should be like them. This is what it means; it does mean the end of Britain as an independent nation state. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, but we must recognise that this is so...

We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history.

But the issue is that the Eurocrats are trying to achieve that without spelling out in direct terms what it means, they are turning up the temperature of the water and hoping the people don't notice before it is too late. Given all of the brexit travails, it probably is already too late, especially for the Eurozone countries.

rcs1000

HaroldO said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

I wonder what the relative contributions of those groups is to the exchequer.

I find it entirely unsurprising. People only really begin to accumulate assets in their late 20s. When I left university, I had debt... And a nice CD player... And a collection of Pink Floyd CDs.

It probably took me four or five years to get my net assets above zero.

A pensioner on a state pension living in an owned one bedroom flat in Glasgow has greater net assets than the bottom find million put together, because there are always going to be lots of people with zero or negative net worth.

From Pink Floyd to Radiohead.

Where do you think it all went wrong?

I'm currently listening to Antics by Interpol. It's not as good as Radiohead, but it's not bad.

I got that when it came out, just as I was moving more into metal. The album before that is better imho.

Agreed. Interpol peaked with their first album, and each subsequent one is a bit worse.

Cookie

I don't agree with Ken about Europe, and never have (he was, it should be remembered, in favour of joining the Euro). But I do, it seems, agree with him about pretty much everything else.

Which is a pity, because for Ken his views on Europe are the ones which trump everything else. But not a huge pity because I have never had the chance of voting for him (or not) and now presumably never will.

Still, I can't help having slightly mixed feelings about the man: he could, if had had tempered his views on Europe just a tad - not renounced them, just toned them down a bit - he would have been a shoo-in for leading his party. The fact that he did not do so is both highly admirable and highly regrettable.

YBarddCwsc

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

What a fascinating story about forgery and the LibDem's Chief of Staff, Rosie Cobb.

Once upon time there was a little crook. His name was Chris Davies. He was a Tory MP for Brecon & Radnorshire and he was caught forging some receipts.

It was a LibDem target seat, so all the LibDems on pb.com were in uproar. IanB2 reminisced about other crooks he had caught forging their expense claims. Cyclefree ascended her pulpit. Moral indignation raged through pb.com about the nasty little Tory chiseller.

(Nick Palmer was an honourable exception).

I said Chris Davies was a little crook, and the LibDems perhaps ought to be careful because, sooner or later, someone in the LibDems would be caught forging something.

Well, well, well.

That day has come -- sooner than I expected, I admit. Any comments from the morally outraged LibDems? It is all very quiet.

Yeah, but one was a Tory MP, and I've never heard of the other.

If someone you've never heard of shoplifts a pair of earrings, it's not a story. If it's David Cameron, then it's a bit story.

Come on.

No-one had heard of Chris Davies before the LibDems began to tub-thump.

The comparison of Chris Davies to David Cameron is just laughable.

rcs1000

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

What a fascinating story about forgery and the LibDem's Chief of Staff, Rosie Cobb.

Once upon time there was a little crook. His name was Chris Davies. He was a Tory MP for Brecon & Radnorshire and he was caught forging some receipts.

It was a LibDem target seat, so all the LibDems on pb.com were in uproar. IanB2 reminisced about other crooks he had caught forging their expense claims. Cyclefree ascended her pulpit. Moral indignation raged through pb.com about the nasty little Tory chiseller.

(Nick Palmer was an honourable exception).

I said Chris Davies was a little crook, and the LibDems perhaps ought to be careful because, sooner or later, someone in the LibDems would be caught forging something.

Well, well, well.

That day has come -- sooner than I expected, I admit. Any comments from the morally outraged LibDems? It is all very quiet.

Yeah, but one was a Tory MP, and I've never heard of the other.

If someone you've never heard of shoplifts a pair of earrings, it's not a story. If it's David Cameron, then it's a bit story.

Come on.

No-one had heard of Chris Davies before the LibDems began to tub-thump.

The comparison of Chris Davies to David Cameron is just laughable.

One is an MP. One is a functionary of a minor political party.

egg

rcs1000 said:

HaroldO said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

I wonder what the relative contributions of those groups is to the exchequer.

I find it entirely unsurprising. People only really begin to accumulate assets in their late 20s. When I left university, I had debt... And a nice CD player... And a collection of Pink Floyd CDs.

It probably took me four or five years to get my net assets above zero.

A pensioner on a state pension living in an owned one bedroom flat in Glasgow has greater net assets than the bottom find million put together, because there are always going to be lots of people with zero or negative net worth.

From Pink Floyd to Radiohead.

Where do you think it all went wrong?

I'm currently listening to Antics by Interpol. It's not as good as Radiohead, but it's not bad.

I got that when it came out, just as I was moving more into metal. The album before that is better imho.

Agreed. Interpol peaked with their first album, and each subsequent one is a bit worse.

For something neatly between Floyd and Radiohead, are you familiar with this?

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2003/jul/25/popandrock.artsfeatures2

Cookie

Stark_Dawning said:

Ken: what a man! The irony for the Tories is that, had it not been for Brexit, they'd now be about to win a whopping landslide against the hapless Jezza. Instead, having pissed off half the nation, they're now reduced to feeding off of scraps and begging to be lent the votes of people who largely despise them. Even if they pull it off it can't be repeated. The political abyss beckons.

I think were it not for Brexit then we would still have whatever vehicle Nigel Farage was using burbling along at a steady 15%-ish in the polls.

YBarddCwsc

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

What a fascinating story about forgery and the LibDem's Chief of Staff, Rosie Cobb.

Once upon time there was a little crook. His name was Chris Davies. He was a Tory MP for Brecon & Radnorshire and he was caught forging some receipts.

It was a LibDem target seat, so all the LibDems on pb.com were in uproar. IanB2 reminisced about other crooks he had caught forging their expense claims. Cyclefree ascended her pulpit. Moral indignation raged through pb.com about the nasty little Tory chiseller.

(Nick Palmer was an honourable exception).

I said Chris Davies was a little crook, and the LibDems perhaps ought to be careful because, sooner or later, someone in the LibDems would be caught forging something.

Well, well, well.

That day has come -- sooner than I expected, I admit. Any comments from the morally outraged LibDems? It is all very quiet.

Yeah, but one was a Tory MP, and I've never heard of the other.

If someone you've never heard of shoplifts a pair of earrings, it's not a story. If it's David Cameron, then it's a bit story.

Come on.

No-one had heard of Chris Davies before the LibDems began to tub-thump.

The comparison of Chris Davies to David Cameron is just laughable.

One is an MP. One is a functionary of a minor political party.

So what? Forgery is forgery.

One forged a receipt (although he had actually spent the money).

The other forged some emails and got letters sent from solicitors to a completely blameless organisation threatening legal action.

I'd say Rosie's crime was more serious, actually.

rcs1000

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

egg said:

rcs1000 said:

Gasman said:

I hadn't realised Macmillan was so far ahead of his time, applying to join an organisation that wouldn't exist until after he had died.

Pedantic maybe, but important to remember that the EU is not the same as the EEC, or the EC. The status quo is rarely on offer for long.

The core principle, of ever closer union, was there from the start. Remember Hugh Gaitskell?

Fight, fight, and fight again... to join the European superstate we love?

What does federation mean? It means that powers are taken from national governments and to federal parliaments. It means - I repeat it - that, if we go into this, we are no more than a state (as it were) in the United States of Europe, such as Texas and California. They are remarkably friendly examples; you do not find every state as rich or having such good weather as those two! But I could take others; it would be the same as in Australia, where you have Western Australia, for example, and New South Wales. We should be like them. This is what it means; it does mean the end of Britain as an independent nation state. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, but we must recognise that this is so...

We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history.

But the issue is that the Eurocrats are trying to achieve that without spelling out in direct terms what it means, they are turning up the temperature of the water and hoping the people don't notice before it is too late. Given all of the brexit travails, it probably is already too late, especially for the Eurozone countries.

My point is that the tin has always said that: It wasn't hidden.

The EEC planned a single currency from the early 1970s with the fall of Bretton Woods and the rise of the "snake".

Now, it's suited politicians to pretend it wasn't happening. But the direction of the EEC/EC/EU was set at creation.

Luckyguy1983

JBriskinindyref2 said:

Everyone likes Ken Clarke

I don't know him, but I'm not especially favourably disposed.

It was an interesting summary of his thoughts though, and great photo of you both.

MikeL

Pulpstar said:

MikeL said:

Who is the lady in the picture with Clarke?

Looks like @cyclefree to me.

Ah OK - thanks.

Fysics_Teacher

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

Do you have a source for that figure? I’m curious as to how the wealth is defined (does it include pension rights for example).

Andy_JS

Average of all polls from the last week:

Con 43%
Lab 33%
LD 13%
Grn 3%
BRX 3%
SNP 3%
Others 2%

rcs1000

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

What a fascinating story about forgery and the LibDem's Chief of Staff, Rosie Cobb.

Once upon time there was a little crook. His name was Chris Davies. He was a Tory MP for Brecon & Radnorshire and he was caught forging some receipts.

It was a LibDem target seat, so all the LibDems on pb.com were in uproar. IanB2 reminisced about other crooks he had caught forging their expense claims. Cyclefree ascended her pulpit. Moral indignation raged through pb.com about the nasty little Tory chiseller.

(Nick Palmer was an honourable exception).

I said Chris Davies was a little crook, and the LibDems perhaps ought to be careful because, sooner or later, someone in the LibDems would be caught forging something.

Well, well, well.

That day has come -- sooner than I expected, I admit. Any comments from the morally outraged LibDems? It is all very quiet.

Yeah, but one was a Tory MP, and I've never heard of the other.

If someone you've never heard of shoplifts a pair of earrings, it's not a story. If it's David Cameron, then it's a bit story.

Come on.

No-one had heard of Chris Davies before the LibDems began to tub-thump.

The comparison of Chris Davies to David Cameron is just laughable.

One is an MP. One is a functionary of a minor political party.

So what? Forgery is forgery.

One forged a receipt (although he had actually spent the money).

The other forged some emails and got letters sent from solicitors to a completely blameless organisation threatening legal action.

I'd say Rosie's crime was more serious, actually.

Oh, absolutely. Her crime (assuming it is proved) is much more serious, and jail time may be appropriate.

My point is that one was an elected official, one of just 650 MPs in the UK. And one is a functionary at a minor political party. It's a question of what is newsworthy.

bigjohnowls

kle4 said:

Maybe it would be different if I'd known Clarke when he was a minister in the 80s and 90s, but as an avuncular elder statesmen he has always seem pretty likeable. And as a coalition supporter that he was jokingly referred to by Clegg as the fifth LD in Cabinet probably helped with that.

KC was one of the best SoS for Health during my 32 years in the NHS.

Much better than some Labour ones like Alun Milburn.

Cookie

Benpointer said:

Andy_JS said:

In the previous thread a lot of Labour supporters were talking about wealth and inequality. If that's a crucial issue for voters, why do they think it is that the biggest swings from Labour to the Tories at the election are likely to be in less wealthy areas like Stoke-on-Trent, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, etc, whereas pretty wealthy constituencies like Chipping Barnet, Cambridge and Canterbury are likely to be pretty good for Labour?

It's a very good question.

Maybe poor voters don't care about the mega-rich. Maybe they don't believe anything can be done about it. Maybe they just don't like what Labour are proposing. Maybe they have been scared off progressive taxes by the mega-rich controlled press. I don't know.

But it is a good question.

Could it be that we are not talking about the super-poor but the quite-poor - and that the quite-poor want to be absolutely richer rather than relatively richer - and they think while Corbyn-Labour might have a good chance of achieving the latter, Johnson-Tory has a better chance of achieving the former?
But I think that while it's still connected to material interests, it's more visceral than that - "the politicians I believe will most advance my interests are the one with whom I can most easily identify and which seem to most like me" - and for the WWC in Scunthorpe and Stoke it's increasingly difficult to slot the modern Labour party into that category.

Luckyguy1983

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

What a fascinating story about forgery and the LibDem's Chief of Staff, Rosie Cobb.

Once upon time there was a little crook. His name was Chris Davies. He was a Tory MP for Brecon & Radnorshire and he was caught forging some receipts.

It was a LibDem target seat, so all the LibDems on pb.com were in uproar. IanB2 reminisced about other crooks he had caught forging their expense claims. Cyclefree ascended her pulpit. Moral indignation raged through pb.com about the nasty little Tory chiseller.

(Nick Palmer was an honourable exception).

I said Chris Davies was a little crook, and the LibDems perhaps ought to be careful because, sooner or later, someone in the LibDems would be caught forging something.

Well, well, well.

That day has come -- sooner than I expected, I admit. Any comments from the morally outraged LibDems? It is all very quiet.

Yeah, but one was a Tory MP, and I've never heard of the other.

If someone you've never heard of shoplifts a pair of earrings, it's not a story. If it's David Cameron, then it's a bit story.

Come on.

No-one had heard of Chris Davies before the LibDems began to tub-thump.

The comparison of Chris Davies to David Cameron is just laughable.

One is an MP. One is a functionary of a minor political party.

So what? Forgery is forgery.

One forged a receipt (although he had actually spent the money).

The other forged some emails and got letters sent from solicitors to a completely blameless organisation threatening legal action.

I'd say Rosie's crime was more serious, actually.

A lot more serious. And Chris Davies was probably just in a hurry. Getting receipts for your expense report can be a complete pain.

Fysics_Teacher

Alistair said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

I wonder what the relative contributions of those groups is to the exchequer.

I find it entirely unsurprising. People only really begin to accumulate assets in their late 20s. When I left university, I had debt... And a nice CD player... And a collection of Pink Floyd CDs.

It probably took me four or five years to get my net assets above zero.

A pensioner on a state pension living in an owned one bedroom flat in Glasgow has greater net assets than the bottom find million put together, because there are always going to be lots of people with zero or negative net worth.

But it hasn't always been thus.

When baby boomers were young the average young person had more wealth than the average OAP.

As boomers aged so did move the wealth distribution.

In part this might be due to older generations dying earlier. I owned my own house out right before I was 35, but I would rather have had at least one parent or grand parent still alive.

bigjohnowls

geoffw said:

The story about Corbyn's pin-striped suit (on Guido, I know I know) is reminiscent of Harold Wilson and the Gannex raincoat.
The owner of the Gannex manufacturer was Joseph (to become Lord) Kagan while Jeremy's suit is made by a company owned by an Imran Khan (not the Imran Khan presumably). Perhaps ermine awaits Mr Khan likewise.

Some Yorkshire MP bought it for him.

MarqueeMark

GIN1138 said:

Dr Wollaston was on LBC with Ian Dale this evening and the video currently has 25 "Thumbs Up" Vs 242 "Tumbs Down"

Not sure she's exactly endeared herself to LBC listeners...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GSeHUd1c5Y

That's about the proportion on the Totnes doorsteps!

YBarddCwsc

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rcs1000 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

What a fascinating story about forgery and the LibDem's Chief of Staff, Rosie Cobb.

Once upon time there was a little crook. His name was Chris Davies. He was a Tory MP for Brecon & Radnorshire and he was caught forging some receipts.

It was a LibDem target seat, so all the LibDems on pb.com were in uproar. IanB2 reminisced about other crooks he had caught forging their expense claims. Cyclefree ascended her pulpit. Moral indignation raged through pb.com about the nasty little Tory chiseller.

(Nick Palmer was an honourable exception).

I said Chris Davies was a little crook, and the LibDems perhaps ought to be careful because, sooner or later, someone in the LibDems would be caught forging something.

Well, well, well.

That day has come -- sooner than I expected, I admit. Any comments from the morally outraged LibDems? It is all very quiet.

Yeah, but one was a Tory MP, and I've never heard of the other.

If someone you've never heard of shoplifts a pair of earrings, it's not a story. If it's David Cameron, then it's a bit story.

Come on.

No-one had heard of Chris Davies before the LibDems began to tub-thump.

The comparison of Chris Davies to David Cameron is just laughable.

One is an MP. One is a functionary of a minor political party.

So what? Forgery is forgery.

One forged a receipt (although he had actually spent the money).

The other forged some emails and got letters sent from solicitors to a completely blameless organisation threatening legal action.

I'd say Rosie's crime was more serious, actually.

Oh, absolutely. Her crime (assuming it is proved) is much more serious, and jail time may be appropriate.

My point is that one was an elected official, one of just 650 MPs in the UK. And one is a functionary at a minor political party. It's a question of what is newsworthy.

Pb.com is not the Daily Mail online, with zeleb-fuck stories.

This is a website for political geeks. Newsworthiness has nothing to do with it,

I am waiting for the LibDems who hounded Chris Davies to hound Rosie Cobb.

Myself, I urged some understanding for Chris Davies, and I am happy to extend the same understanding to Rosie Cobb, She no doubt found one lie snowballing into more lies and forgery and legal action. I feel sorry for her, just as I did for Chris Davies.

Andy_JS

I wish the pollsters would ask people who they would choose if they had to preference Conservative and Labour. I think at least 25% of LD voters would prefer Johnson over Corbyn, (probably more).

AramintaMoonbeamQC

bigjohnowls said:

kle4 said:

Maybe it would be different if I'd known Clarke when he was a minister in the 80s and 90s, but as an avuncular elder statesmen he has always seem pretty likeable. And as a coalition supporter that he was jokingly referred to by Clegg as the fifth LD in Cabinet probably helped with that.

KC was one of the best SoS for Health during my 32 years in the NHS.

Much better than some Labour ones like Alun Milburn.

Isn't his daughter a nurse? I seem to recall that she was at the time. He probably had a better insight than most, along with being a decent person.

Philip_Thompson

Ken Clarke was a great politician who should have been party leader and possibly PM. One of the greatest politicians of all time.

He is also long overdue his retirement and its not a shame he is retiring now.

Stereotomy

Andy_JS said:

I wish the pollsters would ask people who they would choose if they had to preference Conservative and Labour. I think at least 25% of LD voters would prefer Johnson over Corbyn, (probably more).

Remaining lib dems maybe

RobD

Andy_JS said:

Average of all polls from the last week:

Con 43%
Lab 33%
LD 13%
Grn 3%
BRX 3%
SNP 3%
Others 2%

That's a lot of threes.

kyf_100

rcs1000 said:

HaroldO said:

rcs1000 said:

MarqueeMark said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

I wonder what the relative contributions of those groups is to the exchequer.

I find it entirely unsurprising. People only really begin to accumulate assets in their late 20s. When I left university, I had debt... And a nice CD player... And a collection of Pink Floyd CDs.

It probably took me four or five years to get my net assets above zero.

A pensioner on a state pension living in an owned one bedroom flat in Glasgow has greater net assets than the bottom find million put together, because there are always going to be lots of people with zero or negative net worth.

From Pink Floyd to Radiohead.

Where do you think it all went wrong?

I'm currently listening to Antics by Interpol. It's not as good as Radiohead, but it's not bad.

I got that when it came out, just as I was moving more into metal. The album before that is better imho.

Agreed. Interpol peaked with their first album, and each subsequent one is a bit worse.

Interpol were magical back in the day but I find them very hard to listen to now. The soundtrack of too much cocaine and heartbreak.

Have you heard the most recent Beach House album? It's darker and more satisfying than anything they've released before.

Fysics_Teacher

Apparently Jesus has scored twice against Burnley according to the BBC...

MikeL

If correct, this is interesting:

"Another candidate said the party had not bothered to include a promised rail fare reduction announced on Monday on their campaign Facebook page, because it was just likely to increase voter scepticism about whether the party’s programme is deliverable."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/03/labour-plan-to-tackle-rip-off-britain-would-save-families-6700

Fysics_Teacher

RobD said:

Andy_JS said:

Average of all polls from the last week:

Con 43%
Lab 33%
LD 13%
Grn 3%
BRX 3%
SNP 3%
Others 2%

That's a lot of threes.

70% of the digits.

Floater

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7752923/Jeremy-Corbyn-bomb-makers-friend-IRA-terrorist-admirer-Corbyn.html

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1201862033639116800

Journalism involves like speaking to people.

Brom

Benpointer said:

Andy_JS said:

In the previous thread a lot of Labour supporters were talking about wealth and inequality. If that's a crucial issue for voters, why do they think it is that the biggest swings from Labour to the Tories at the election are likely to be in less wealthy areas like Stoke-on-Trent, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, etc, whereas pretty wealthy constituencies like Chipping Barnet, Cambridge and Canterbury are likely to be pretty good for Labour?

It's a very good question.

Maybe poor voters don't care about the mega-rich. Maybe they don't believe anything can be done about it. Maybe they just don't like what Labour are proposing. Maybe they have been scared off progressive taxes by the mega-rich controlled press. I don't know.

But it is a good question.

I’ve always assumed a lot of the hard working aspirational working classes/lower middle classes dislike the feckless and workshy more than the rich. The tabloids certainly send out this message and if you live outside pockets of wealth then you’re more likely to encounter that dole scrounger/benefits cheat locally who will rile you than that snooty Tory multi millionaire.

For a lot of folk I suspect Labour have drifted towards offering too much to those who don’t deserve it and too little to those who do.

NorthernPowerhouse

Fysics_Teacher said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

Do you have a source for that figure? I’m curious as to how the wealth is defined (does it include pension rights for example).

If you work in asda and have a 90% mortgage you are better off than a junior doctor doing his foundation year 2, in fact, an oxford grad with £40k of debt will probably rank amongst the very poorest in society. But they're not really.

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1201990240455413761

Sunil_Prasannan

geoffw said:

egg said:

RobD said:

Thanks for the header, Cyclefree

Funny picture. Ken and his wife look like they were travelling on the blue ship that crashed into the red ship, and they’ve been marooned.

Didn't Ken's wife die a year or two ago?

2015. It's Cyclefree with Ken in the photo.

PeterC

geoffw said:

egg said:

RobD said:

Thanks for the header, Cyclefree

Funny picture. Ken and his wife look like they were travelling on the blue ship that crashed into the red ship, and they’ve been marooned.

Didn't Ken's wife die a year or two ago?

That's right.

NorthernPowerhouse

MikeL said:

Poverty and inequality have always rated pretty low in the MORI issues index.

And they are currently both at their lowest for forty year.

brokenwheel

Andy_JS said:

I wish the pollsters would ask people who they would choose if they had to preference Conservative and Labour. I think at least 25% of LD voters would prefer Johnson over Corbyn, (probably more).

That's effectively what the favoured PM question is.

YBarddCwsc

MikeL said:

If correct, this is interesting:

"Another candidate said the party had not bothered to include a promised rail fare reduction announced on Monday on their campaign Facebook page, because it was just likely to increase voter scepticism about whether the party’s programme is deliverable."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/03/labour-plan-to-tackle-rip-off-britain-would-save-families-6700

The morph-ing of the Labour Party into Moneysavingexpert.com has been one of the strangest things about this election.

There are retail offers on train fares. There is free super-fast broadband. There is more money saving on childcare and utility bills. WASPI women can grab their cash with a handy calculator on the Labour party website. Students can reclaim tuition fees -- and you can get a bit more cash back if you click through on the link on the Labour party website.

It seems Labour's vision for the future of Britain is Martin Lewis on steroids.

Fysics_Teacher

NorthernPowerhouse said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Benpointer said:

Re "Spreading the Wealth". There's some way to go.

The six (SIX!) wealthiest people in this country own more than the 13.9m poorest.

Do you have a source for that figure? I’m curious as to how the wealth is defined (does it include pension rights for example).

If you work in asda and have a 90% mortgage you are better off than a junior doctor doing his foundation year 2, in fact, an oxford grad with £40k of debt will probably rank amongst the very poorest in society. But they're not really.

On graduation day at a top American university student loans can mean each person graduating is worth more than the whole year group. Negative numbers are strange.

Sunil_Prasannan

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1201990240455413761

It's supposed to be President of the United States. The States aren't electing 50 separate presidents, are they?

kle4

Sunil_Prasannan said:

geoffw said:

egg said:

RobD said:

Thanks for the header, Cyclefree

Funny picture. Ken and his wife look like they were travelling on the blue ship that crashed into the red ship, and they’ve been marooned.

Didn't Ken's wife die a year or two ago?

2015. It's Cyclefree with Ken in the photo.

I hate it when the mystery of a poster is lost! That's why I don't post my photo, so people are free to imagine that I am 6ft 3 with good posture.

Charles

rcs1000 said:

egg said:

rcs1000 said:

Gasman said:

I hadn't realised Macmillan was so far ahead of his time, applying to join an organisation that wouldn't exist until after he had died.

Pedantic maybe, but important to remember that the EU is not the same as the EEC, or the EC. The status quo is rarely on offer for long.

The core principle, of ever closer union, was there from the start. Remember Hugh Gaitskell?

Fight, fight, and fight again... to join the European superstate we love?

What does federation mean? It means that powers are taken from national governments and to federal parliaments. It means - I repeat it - that, if we go into this, we are no more than a state (as it were) in the United States of Europe, such as Texas and California. They are remarkably friendly examples; you do not find every state as rich or having such good weather as those two! But I could take others; it would be the same as in Australia, where you have Western Australia, for example, and New South Wales. We should be like them. This is what it means; it does mean the end of Britain as an independent nation state. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, but we must recognise that this is so...

We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history.

your maths is off

2019 - 871 > 1000

Richard_Nabavi

Ken Clarke - what a wonderful, wonderful politician. In the depressing days of the 1990s, when ministers were on the ropes (and some on the take), it was always a real breath of fresh air when Ken Clarke appeared on the radio: straight talking, immense good sense, a fine judgement of the issues, and an optimistic view of life. I remember one interview (I think this was later, in the Blair years) where he was being asked about some confected scandal about hospital closures; instead of the expected party line of criticising the Blair government, he said airily "Nothing to see here, sometimes you need to rationalise things. I've closed more hospitals than you've had hot dinners."

Hard to argue with anything he says now, on Brexit (where he has been scrupulous in trying to make the best of what he sees as a bad decision), or anything else. I hope we'll have the benefit of his wise words to years to come.

NorthernPowerhouse

YBarddCwsc said:

MikeL said:

If correct, this is interesting:

"Another candidate said the party had not bothered to include a promised rail fare reduction announced on Monday on their campaign Facebook page, because it was just likely to increase voter scepticism about whether the party’s programme is deliverable."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/03/labour-plan-to-tackle-rip-off-britain-would-save-families-6700

The morph-ing of the Labour Party into Moneysavingexpert.com has been one of the strangest things about this election.

There are retail offers on train fares. There is free super-fast broadband. There is more money saving on childcare and utility bills. WASPI women can grab their cash with a handy calculator on the Labour party website. Students can reclaim tuition fees -- and you can get a bit more cash back if you click through on the link on the Labour party website.

It seems Labour's vision for the future of Britain is Martin Lewis on steroids.

Martin Lewis's solution to tuition fees is to rename them as 'graduate contribution scheme'....

SirBenjamin

Philip_Thompson said:

Ken Clarke was a great politician who should have been party leader and possibly PM. One of the greatest politicians of all time.

He is also long overdue his retirement and its not a shame he is retiring now.

Assuming his health is good, I wouldn't completely rule out Ken doing an Alan Clark and coming back for a final fling. Particularly if things don't go as well as we'd like next Thursday and a micromajority or hung parliament means that we get another GE in 2-3 years time.

I don't think he's going to like not being in parliament. There's only so much Jazz one can listen to and only so many cigars to be smoked.

ReggieCide

I couldn't agree with Ms C's last para more. Let's hope MM gives him a voice; a test for BBC's journalistic pretences

Fysics_Teacher

SirBenjamin said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Ken Clarke was a great politician who should have been party leader and possibly PM. One of the greatest politicians of all time.

He is also long overdue his retirement and its not a shame he is retiring now.

Assuming his health is good, I wouldn't completely rule out Ken doing an Alan Clark and coming back for a final fling. Particularly if things don't go as well as we'd like next Thursday and a micromajority or hung parliament means that we get another GE in 2-3 years time.

I don't think he's going to like not being in parliament. There's only so much Jazz one can listen to and only so many cigars to be smoked.

He must be a prime candidate for the Lords, surely?

kle4

SirBenjamin said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Ken Clarke was a great politician who should have been party leader and possibly PM. One of the greatest politicians of all time.

He is also long overdue his retirement and its not a shame he is retiring now.

Assuming his health is good, I wouldn't completely rule out Ken doing an Alan Clark and coming back for a final fling. Particularly if things don't go as well as we'd like next Thursday and a micromajority or hung parliament means that we get another GE in 2-3 years time.

I don't think he's going to like not being in parliament. There's only so much Jazz one can listen to and only so many cigars to be smoked.

Not that I endorse the use of the upper house as a retirement complex, but if Clarke misses parliament he's surely a shoe-in for a Peerage if he wants one, notwithstanding Boris is a vindictive sort.

Stereotomy

https://twitter.com/SamGyimah/status/1201975824599146497?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

Huh.

Brom

YBarddCwsc said:

MikeL said:

If correct, this is interesting:

"Another candidate said the party had not bothered to include a promised rail fare reduction announced on Monday on their campaign Facebook page, because it was just likely to increase voter scepticism about whether the party’s programme is deliverable."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/03/labour-plan-to-tackle-rip-off-britain-would-save-families-6700

The morph-ing of the Labour Party into Moneysavingexpert.com has been one of the strangest things about this election.

There are retail offers on train fares. There is free super-fast broadband. There is more money saving on childcare and utility bills. WASPI women can grab their cash with a handy calculator on the Labour party website. Students can reclaim tuition fees -- and you can get a bit more cash back if you click through on the link on the Labour party website.

It seems Labour's vision for the future of Britain is Martin Lewis on steroids.

I quite like that description.

kle4

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1201862033639116800

Journalism involves like speaking to people.

Media people smiling while standing next to politicians, this can only be a sign of the machinations of the state!

rottenborough

Ken Clarke photos:

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/gallery/rushcliffe-mp-ken-clarke-career-3283074

kle4

Stereotomy said:

https://twitter.com/SamGyimah/status/1201975824599146497?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

Huh.

Interesting approach.

Richard_Nabavi

YBarddCwsc said:

The morph-ing of the Labour Party into Moneysavingexpert.com has been one of the strangest things about this election.

There are retail offers on train fares. There is free super-fast broadband. There is more money saving on childcare and utility bills. WASPI women can grab their cash with a handy calculator on the Labour party website. Students can reclaim tuition fees -- and you can get a bit more cash back if you click through on the link on the Labour party website.

It seems Labour's vision for the future of Britain is Martin Lewis on steroids.

Labour's vision is more like those scamsters who try to pass themselves off as Martin Lewis in order to defraud the gullible.

ReggieCide

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

egg said:

rcs1000 said:

Gasman said:

I hadn't realised Macmillan was so far ahead of his time, applying to join an organisation that wouldn't exist until after he had died.

Pedantic maybe, but important to remember that the EU is not the same as the EEC, or the EC. The status quo is rarely on offer for long.

The core principle, of ever closer union, was there from the start. Remember Hugh Gaitskell?

Fight, fight, and fight again... to join the European superstate we love?

What does federation mean? It means that powers are taken from national governments and to federal parliaments. It means - I repeat it - that, if we go into this, we are no more than a state (as it were) in the United States of Europe, such as Texas and California. They are remarkably friendly examples; you do not find every state as rich or having such good weather as those two! But I could take others; it would be the same as in Australia, where you have Western Australia, for example, and New South Wales. We should be like them. This is what it means; it does mean the end of Britain as an independent nation state. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, but we must recognise that this is so...

We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history.

your maths is off

2019 - 871 > 1000

Bullshit maths is a pretty common currency with some posters on here

dodrade

Philip_Thompson said:

Ken Clarke was a great politician who should have been party leader and possibly PM. One of the greatest politicians of all time.

He is also long overdue his retirement and its not a shame he is retiring now.

Clarke's reputation seems to have grown largely since he left the Conservative front bench, a lot of people praising him now had little time for him as Health Secretary or Chancellor.

MarqueeMark

SirBenjamin said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Ken Clarke was a great politician who should have been party leader and possibly PM. One of the greatest politicians of all time.

He is also long overdue his retirement and its not a shame he is retiring now.

Assuming his health is good, I wouldn't completely rule out Ken doing an Alan Clark and coming back for a final fling. Particularly if things don't go as well as we'd like next Thursday and a micromajority or hung parliament means that we get another GE in 2-3 years time.

I don't think he's going to like not being in parliament. There's only so much Jazz one can listen to and only so many cigars to be smoked.

Nearly 10,000 species of birds to see worldwide though. I visited a birdwatching lodge in Gabon some years back - Ken had been there the week before.

kle4

rottenborough said:

Ken Clarke photos:

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/gallery/rushcliffe-mp-ken-clarke-career-3283074

Why are they all black and white? It's like looking at footage of football in the mid 90s, and it looks like the 70s.

ReggieCide

kle4 said:

Stereotomy said:

https://twitter.com/SamGyimah/status/1201975824599146497?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

Huh.

Interesting approach.

This bloke really has lost his marbles. Maybe it's what becoming a LibDem does for you or is it vice versa?