Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
This.
Thames Water alone are spending billions (with a B ) on renewing Victorian infrastructure to keep the taps flowing in London. Similar projects are underway in other areas and with other utilities, replacing what was neglected for decades under public ownership.
Nationalise the utilities again, and they’re competing for capital with more public-friendly projects such as health and education.
Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
Where are the Labour moderates?
Singing 'Oh Jeremy Corbyn' with fixed grins.
Trying not to be first one to stop applauding his speech.
Mrs May's strategy so far is to deny those choices so she doesn't have to face up to them. That might get her through until March 2019, but it isn't a sustainable position. (Which is one reason why I think she might choose to go right after formal Brexit).
My central prediction is that we will end up with (3) pseudo-Brexit. But we are a long way from getting consensus for that position and in particular the Conservative Party is a long way from that consensus. It may not get there by 2022.
But to get from here to there without facing up to those choices in the meantime requires the collusion of the EU27 and they have absolutely no interest in doing that. UK politics will have to break somewhere.
Thanks. I didn't make the important point that options (2) rejoining the EU and (3) Single Market and/or Customs Union would be at the discretion of the EU and on their terms. However the EU generally does want us in their camp and I think would be prepared to offer enough to make it happen, bearing in mind any such negotiation would be as an application from us to them. My assumption would need to be tested. They would prefer us as members but I think they would be OK with us as part of their system on a take it or leave it basis.
FWIW I think the EU will push us to the edge of the cliff and then offer an EEA-type deal with the UK accepting EU rules and budgetary payments with no say in the political institutions.
We have already accepted an EEA style deal for 2 years but yougov this week had 52% of UK voters opposing any transition deal longer than 2 years
That says to me people are on the borderline of accepting an even longer transition deal, depending on how it is sold and how things develop over the next few months.
Perhaps so, but a bare majority were opposed to anything longer than 2 years, if that drops a bit it the numbers go somewhere. Granted its not as close on the border as I perhaps thought, but the basic premise is the same - if opposition to longer than 2 years drops just a little bit, its no longer a majority and then its up for grabs as to what people want.
Yes but they want 2 years maximum now if and when that time nears completion they want to extend it that is up to them, they don't now
Yet even on that poll voters want 6/12 industries to be in private hands, more than the 5/12 in public hands with 1 split
Maybe, although frankly I'm not sure I'd even put all of them in the same category. One of the private ones is travel agents, is that really qualitatively similar to water providers?
A true socialist economy requires a majority of industry and services to be in state hands, if Corbyn and McDonnell could get support for that they would do it
Why have they not mentioned prisons? One thing I really agree should not be in private hands in the prison service or its estate. This is a state thing. No question in my mind.
But no mention from McD.
That's because the public don't associate it with rising bills, which all this support for nationalisation basically is. It's another response to austerity.
If asked the public would probably back publically owned prisons executing murderers, that does not mean the public is always right!
The big problem of the EEA/EFTA option is the number of people it satisfies is relatively small. The number of people pushing for this during the referendum was tiny - both sides were describing it as the worst of all worlds. Heading down this path is like settling a custody dispute by chopping the child in half. On paper its a compromise but in reality everyone is deeply unsatisfied... and well, you killed the child.
The genie is out of the bottle. If you wanted to remain in the EU and think Brexit can only be a disaster then your best strategy is to let us 'idiots' mess everything up before again taking control to the relief of a grateful nation. If you spend the next 18 months yanking the steering wheel who do you think Leavers are going to blame if we veer off the road and crash?
If you want to finally settle the issue let the Leavers do Brexit and do it in the way they want to do it, not in a way that you see as least damaging. Test the idea to destruction and settle the argument forever - fudging Brexit or cancelling it is just kicking the can down the road storing up problems for the future. If it turns out you were wrong then you can be pleasantly surprised and it won't matter that you weren't a supporter initially.
Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
This.
Thames Water alone are spending billions (with a B ) on renewing Victorian infrastructure to keep the taps flowing in London. Similar projects are underway in other areas and with other utilities, replacing what was neglected for decades under public ownership.
Nationalise the utilities again, and they’re competing for capital with more public-friendly projects such as health and education.
The Thames Tideway project is guaranteed by the taxpayer. Thames Water is not taking any risk.
So on this poll the contest between the likely final 2 put to the membership by Tory MPs, Boris and Davis, would be won by Boris.
As for 'complacency' if you are a Tory member you are hardly likely to say Corbyn is likely to become PM otherwise what is the point of being a Tory member, if you asked Labour members whether they thought Boris would win the next general election you would get an equally low response
I don't agree there. It's perfectly possible to say - in a private poll - that you expect the other lot to win. I'm pretty sure that there'd have been a majority of Tory members expecting a Labour victory at the next GE in 2000.
I find the results extremely worrying. It *is* complacency on a huge level.
I also worry about the leadership poll but then with no obvious alternative and the last safety-first choice having proven less than sure-footed, I can understand it even though I strongly disagree.
No even in 2001 a lot of Tory members I campaigned with expected to win. If you don't go into an election believing you can win it was is the point if fighting it?
Boris is the clear choice of the public to succeed May in the polls and no surprise Tory members also back him, they want a charismatic Leaver to lead them after Remainers Cameron and May
Boris would be a bloody disaster. Even if he's a effective campainger, he'd be an appalling prime minister.
As for 'why enter if you don't think you can win', firstly, there's always the chance you're wrong - it's the difference between what you expect and what's possible - and secondly, there are lesser targets: winning a few seats, making gains in share, winning specific arguments with the public, gaining members. Even just 'defending what we have as best we can'. None of these deliver the big prize this time but they're still useful secondaries.
Corbyn would be even worse and Boris at least has charisma
If you aim for second place and solely defence you get third and losses. I may disagree with Corbyn and Momentum but at least they always aim to win and campaign hard which is more than can be said for some defeatist Tory whingers!
Agreed - I may be a blue Blue, but there's nothing like the prospect of a crazy communist being elected to fire me up and want to take those Maomentum clowns head on.
To privatise requires the election of a party with the policy of privatising. Nationalisation remains the status quo until political upheaval changes it ('permanent' was perhaps a poorly chosen word).
But we could rejoin if a party proposes it and forms a government.
But we won't, because the EU - sans the UK - is only going in one direction: to much greater integration, the euro for everyone, Schengen for everyone, harmonised tax rates (sorry, Ireland), an EU army, elected EU presidents, EU Treasury, etc etc etc. Without us there to stop it, this is inevitable.
So any party proposing a return to the EU would be proposing the end of meaningful British sovereignty. This will not win a General Election, to put it mildly.
What we might join is some kind of EFTA/EEA/Associate Member periphery. But I think that's where Brexit is taking us, anyhow.
I hope I'm wrong, but if a disorderly Brexit leads to a long economic slump, it might be possible.
Meh. Maybe in 20 years, after a total apocalypse, but according to Elon Musk we're all going to be living on Mars by then, so whatevs.
Once we're out, we're out. For a generation at the very least.
Would a trip to Mars be a travel writer’s wet dream?
Dunno. I'll let you know when I get back from my Times Travel trip to the Danakil Depression, in Ethiopia, late next month.
Because the Danakil Depression is probably about as close as you can get to an alien planet, on this earth.
Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
Ditto for universities. They will face cuts if their entire funding stream is from the government directly rather than student's paying. Possibly massive cuts if Brexit has buggered up government finances. Those cuts may be a price worth paying in order to have free education for over 18s. But voters should be appraised of the consequences.
Where are the Labour moderates?
My father was a university professor and my sister is a teacher. The difference between the way the 2 are run is large. The universities have a pension fund, teachers don't. Universities invest in property directly, schools use PFI. Universities see summer as money making opportunity, schools are closed etc.
Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
This.
Thames Water alone are spending billions (with a B ) on renewing Victorian infrastructure to keep the taps flowing in London. Similar projects are underway in other areas and with other utilities, replacing what was neglected for decades under public ownership.
Nationalise the utilities again, and they’re competing for capital with more public-friendly projects such as health and education.
The Thames Tideway project is guaranteed by the taxpayer. Thames Water is not taking any risk.
So on this poll the contest between the likely final 2 put to the membership by Tory MPs, Boris and Davis, would be won by Boris.
As for 'complacency' if you are a Tory member you are hardly likely to say Corbyn is likely to become PM otherwise what is the point of being a Tory member, if you asked Labour members whether they thought Boris would win the next general election you would get an equally low response
I don't agree there. It's perfectly possible to say - in a private poll - that you expect the other lot to win. I'm pretty sure that there'd have been a majority of Tory members expecting a Labour victory at the next GE in 2000.
I find the results extremely worrying. It *is* complacency on a huge level.
I also worry about the leadership poll but then with no obvious alternative and the last safety-first choice having proven less than sure-footed, I can understand it even though I strongly disagree.
No even in 2001 a lot of Tory members I campaigned with expected to win. If you don't go into an election believing you can win it was is the point if fighting it?
Boris is the clear choice of the public to succeed May in the polls and no surprise Tory members also back him, they want a charismatic Leaver to lead them after Remainers Cameron and May
Boris would be a bloody disaster. Even if he's a effective campainger, he'd be an appalling prime minister.
As for 'why enter if you don't think you can win', firstly, there's always the chance you're wrong - it's the difference between what you expect and what's possible - and secondly, there are lesser targets: winning a few seats, making gains in share, winning specific arguments with the public, gaining members. Even just 'defending what we have as best we can'. None of these deliver the big prize this time but they're still useful secondaries.
Corbyn would be even worse and Boris at least has charisma
If you aim for second place and solely defence you get third and losses. I may disagree with Corbyn and Momentum but at least they always aim to win and campaign hard which is more than can be said for some defeatist Tory whingers!
Agreed - I may be a blue Blue, but there's nothing like the prospect of a crazy communist being elected to fire me up and want to take those Maomentum clowns head on.
Yes if you aren't ready for the fight don't enter the battle
Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
This.
Thames Water alone are spending billions (with a B ) on renewing Victorian infrastructure to keep the taps flowing in London. Similar projects are underway in other areas and with other utilities, replacing what was neglected for decades under public ownership.
Nationalise the utilities again, and they’re competing for capital with more public-friendly projects such as health and education.
The Thames Tideway project is guaranteed by the taxpayer. Thames Water is not taking any risk.
For whatever reason, governments (both Tory and Labour) have found it politically much easier to guarantee major infrastructure investments after privatisation than was possible during nationalised ownership. The railways are perhaps the best example. Few in the rail industry believe a fraction of the massive investment the sector has had over the past 20 years would have been permitted under British Rail.
If the Tories want to beat Corbyn -its quite simple. 1). Skip a generation and appoint a younger leader from the backbenchers or junior ranks. 2). Abandon Thatcherism and issue a Robert Peel style Tamworth Manifesto for the 21st century redefining Conservatism and making the party more like the German Christian Democrats. 3). Steal Corbyn's thunder. Abolish tuition fees, make existing debt easier and initiate a housing scheme helping the young to get on the housing ladder.
If they do not do these things, and prefer instead to retain May or replace her with weary old on the rebound Davies, Blonde buffoon Johnson, or Amber Red Green, then they will lose to Corbyn -and after 5 years of disaster will be back with a landslide anyway.
Labour will have its own problems after either Corbyn crashes and burns at the next election, or after his disastrous premiership.
Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
This.
Thames Water alone are spending billions (with a B ) on renewing Victorian infrastructure to keep the taps flowing in London. Similar projects are underway in other areas and with other utilities, replacing what was neglected for decades under public ownership.
Nationalise the utilities again, and they’re competing for capital with more public-friendly projects such as health and education.
The Thames Tideway project is guaranteed by the taxpayer. Thames Water is not taking any risk.
Trudeau's Canada is one of the few western nations with little right or left-wing populism at the moment, perhaps because as a vast nation with relatively few people it is not that bothered by immigration and as it avoided the worst of the 2008 Crash it has less resentment of the rich and less inequality
There’s a big difference between government providing guarantees for a major project, and actually having to find the money themselves.
Plus it's not the case that Thames Water is not taking risk - they are taking the execution risk.
We've actually got this structure of highly-regulated semi-monopolies in the utilities sector right - we are getting much of the advantage of private-sector efficiency, with the public well-protected against the suppliers exploiting their semi-monopoly position or becoming lazy and complacent. Prices are competitive (about the EU average for electricity, for example).
Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
This.
Thames Water alone are spending billions (with a B ) on renewing Victorian infrastructure to keep the taps flowing in London. Similar projects are underway in other areas and with other utilities, replacing what was neglected for decades under public ownership.
Nationalise the utilities again, and they’re competing for capital with more public-friendly projects such as health and education.
The Thames Tideway project is guaranteed by the taxpayer. Thames Water is not taking any risk.
There’s a big difference between government providing guarantees for a major project, and actually having to find the money themselves.
Too often though Government is taking on too much of the risk. Markets only function if you can lose as well as win.
Look at what happens with railway franchises - essentially you either make buckets of cash or you just hand the keys back and pay a penalty which could be much smaller than your potential losses.
The big problem of the EEA/EFTA option is the number of people it satisfies is relatively small. The number of people pushing for this during the referendum was tiny - both sides were describing it as the worst of all worlds. Heading down this path is like settling a custody dispute by chopping the child in half. On paper its a compromise but in reality everyone is deeply unsatisfied... and well, you killed the child.
...
Of course it does. It's a poor option, just as the other two are. However it's probably the politically easiest option. Once you eliminate the politically impossible, whatever remains, no matter how crap, must be the way forward, as Sherlock Holmes might have said.
Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
This.
Thames Water alone are spending billions (with a B ) on renewing Victorian infrastructure to keep the taps flowing in London. Similar projects are underway in other areas and with other utilities, replacing what was neglected for decades under public ownership.
Nationalise the utilities again, and they’re competing for capital with more public-friendly projects such as health and education.
The Thames Tideway project is guaranteed by the taxpayer. Thames Water is not taking any risk.
If the Tories want to beat Corbyn -its quite simple. 1). Skip a generation and appoint a younger leader from the backbenchers or junior ranks. 2). Abandon Thatcherism and issue a Robert Peel style Tamworth Manifesto for the 21st century redefining Conservatism and making the party more like the German Christian Democrats. 3). Steal Corbyn's thunder. Abolish tuition fees, make existing debt easier and initiate a housing scheme helping the young to get on the housing ladder.
If they do not do these things, and prefer instead to retain May or replace her with weary old on the rebound Davies, Blonde buffoon Johnson, or Amber Red Green, then they will lose to Corbyn -and after 5 years of disaster will be back with a landslide anyway.
Labour will have its own problems after either Corbyn crashes and burns at the next election, or after his disastrous premiership.
Agree with most of 3 at least apart from abolishing tuition fees, the Tories won their highest voteshare with C2s last time most of whom are non graduates and they would not be happy paying higher taxes to abolish fees for Corbyn voting students
Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
This.
Thames Water alone are spending billions (with a B ) on renewing Victorian infrastructure to keep the taps flowing in London. Similar projects are underway in other areas and with other utilities, replacing what was neglected for decades under public ownership.
Nationalise the utilities again, and they’re competing for capital with more public-friendly projects such as health and education.
The Thames Tideway project is guaranteed by the taxpayer. Thames Water is not taking any risk.
Not really. Disraeli nationalised the telegraph system (aka the Victorians' broadband). Winston Churchill nationalised a betting shop - the Tote - and British Petroleum. Stanley Baldwin created the national grid. Ted Heath nationalised Rolls Royce. In other words, both they and Old Labour practised a mixed economy, with the bias towards one end or the other (Keynes rather than Hayek). Then along came automatons chanting:
'The market is god; We worship the great god the market; The market will provide'.
If these opinions on what should be publicly or privately-owned are broadly implemented, Thatcherism will soon be dead and buried. Not a moment too soon.
I don't expect a Corbyn govt to be any more loony than Harold Wilson's govts. That's because I don't really expect him to come from 60 seats behind and get a majority of 50-100. Small majorities are all the UK has in terms of checks and balanaces.
If he wins by 100, all bets are off. He certainly seems to think he'll become elected dictator for 5 years, er Prime Minister. He's recently said he doesn't believe in PR.
If he goes mad in the opposite direction to Thatcher, e.g. Easyjet and Tatar steel get nationalised, I'd forecast defeat in 2027. However, so much needs doing on essentials like the NHS and housing, going back from student fees to grants and mending the f***up called Universal Credit that I hardly think he'd have a spare minute to nationalise steel or airlines. Not even if he wanted to.
I worry about the leadership poll but then with no obvious alternative and the last safety-first choice having proven less than sure-footed, I can understand it even though I strongly disagree.
No even in 2001 a lot of Tory members I campaigned with expected to win. If you don't go into an election believing you can win it was is the point if fighting it?
Boris is the clear choice of the public to succeed May in the polls and no surprise Tory members also back him, they want a charismatic Leaver to lead them after Remainers Cameron and May
Boris would be a bloody disaster. Even if he's a effective campainger, he'd be an appalling prime minister.
As for 'why enter if you don't think you can win', firstly, there's always the chance you're wrong - it's the difference between what you expect and what's possible - and secondly, there are lesser targets: winning a few seats, making gains in share, winning specific arguments with the public, gaining members. Even just 'defending what we have as best we can'. None of these deliver the big prize this time but they're still useful secondaries.
Corbyn would be even worse and Boris at least has charisma
If you aim for second place and solely defence you get third and losses. I may disagree with Corbyn and Momentum but at least they always aim to win and campaign hard which is more than can be said for some defeatist Tory whingers!
Corbyn being even worse is a good reason not to pick Boris, who could trash the Tory brand for years. Yes, I know it's had a dodgy run over the last couple of years but even if Strong and Stable looks a bit tattered, it was at least clearly the intent and to the extent that it's not been achieved, that was down to individual failings - the selection was based on sound reasoning. Picking Boris would just be a roll of the dice and there'd be no mitigation if the number comes up wrong. Corbyn being worse than Boris is the best reason for picking the best person to keep Corbyn out.
Re 'aiming for second', I remember 2001 and the strategic target list, which aimed at getting Labour's majority down to double figures. Consequently, the resource went into the wrong places and not only did we fail to win those, because we were too far back, we also failed to win those at the top of the target list because Labour pumped in resource and we didn't as it was assumed that the local parties could do it by themselves. I'm a Bradford City fan. I don't expect us to win the FA cup this year (or any year) but it doesn't stop me wanting as good a run as possible - and over recent years, we've pushed what might be thought possible way beyond cautious expectation. Still didn't win though.
It is amazing how 94.46% of conversations here on PB come down to the Leavers saying:
"Oh if only we could somehow have an associate membership type of thing...it's quite clear the EU was going down a political route which we don't want to join them on...why weren't we offered some kind of opt out of that while keeping the benefits of the single market...while we're at it, we would have needed to protect our financial services industry also...plus as you all here on PB know, as a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
This.
Thames Water alone are spending billions (with a B ) on renewing Victorian infrastructure to keep the taps flowing in London. Similar projects are underway in other areas and with other utilities, replacing what was neglected for decades under public ownership.
Nationalise the utilities again, and they’re competing for capital with more public-friendly projects such as health and education.
The Thames Tideway project is guaranteed by the taxpayer. Thames Water is not taking any risk.
If the Tories want to beat Corbyn -its quite simple. 1). Skip a generation and appoint a younger leader from the backbenchers or junior ranks. 2). Abandon Thatcherism and issue a Robert Peel style Tamworth Manifesto for the 21st century redefining Conservatism and making the party more like the German Christian Democrats. 3). Steal Corbyn's thunder. Abolish tuition fees, make existing debt easier and initiate a housing scheme helping the young to get on the housing ladder.
If they do not do these things, and prefer instead to retain May or replace her with weary old on the rebound Davies, Blonde buffoon Johnson, or Amber Red Green, then they will lose to Corbyn -and after 5 years of disaster will be back with a landslide anyway.
Labour will have its own problems after either Corbyn crashes and burns at the next election, or after his disastrous premiership.
Agree with most of 3 at least apart from abolishing tuition fees, the Tories won their highest voteshare with C2s last time most of whom are non graduates and they would not be happy paying higher taxes to abolish fees for Corbyn voting students
Duh. So that means they badly need to improve amongst the ABC1 group, for many of whom this is a very important issue. I can see now why you failed to get elected to the parish council :-)
It is amazing how 94.46% of conversations here on PB come down to the Leavers saying:
"Oh if only we could somehow have an associate membership type of thing...it's quite clear the EU was going down a political route which we don't want to join them on...why weren't we offered some kind of opt out of that while keeping the benefits of the single market...while we're at it, we would have needed to protect our financial services industry also...plus as you all here on PB know, as a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
I worry about the leadership poll but then with no obvious alternative and the last safety-first choice having proven less than sure-footed, I can understand it even though I strongly disagree.
No even in 2001 a lot of Tory members I campaigned with expected to win. If you don't go into an election believing you can win it was is the point if fighting it?
Boris is the clear choice of the public to succeed May in the polls and no surprise Tory members also back him, they want a charismatic Leaver to lead them after Remainers Cameron and May
Boris would be a bloody disaster. Even if he's a effective econdaries.
Corbyn would be even worse and Boris at least has charisma
If you aim for second place and solely defence you get third and losses. I may disagree with Corbyn and Momentum but at least they always aim to win and campaign hard which is more than can be said for some defeatist Tory whingers!
Corbyn being even worse is a good reason not to pick Boris, who could trash the Tory brand for years. Yes, I know it's had a dodgy run over the last couple of years but even if Strong and Stable looks a bit tattered, it was at least clearly the intent and to the extent that it's not been achieved, that was down to individual failings - the selection was based on sound reasoning. Picking Boris would just be a roll of the dice and there'd be no mitigation if the number comes up wrong. Corbyn being worse than Boris is the best reason for picking the best person to keep Corbyn out.
Re 'aiming for second', I remember 2001 and the strategic target list, which aimed at getting Labour's majority down to double figures. Consequently, the resource went into the wrong places and not only did we fail to win those, because we were too far back, we also failed to win those at the top of the target list because Labour pumped in resource and we didn't as it was assumed that the local parties could do it by themselves. I'm a Bradford City fan. I don't expect us to win the FA cup this year (or any year) but it doesn't stop me wanting as good a run as possible - and over recent years, we've pushed what might be thought possible way beyond cautious expectation. Still didn't win though.
It is for me and the public prefer Boris to any other Tory and that is key. Boris also knows how to beat leftwingers as Livingstone discovered.
There is a difference between careful targeting and defeatism, if you take the line Corbyn cannot be stopped he may well not be
Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
This.
Thames Water alone are spending billions (with a B ) on renewing Victorian infrastructure to keep the taps flowing in London. Similar projects are underway in other areas and with other utilities, replacing what was neglected for decades under public ownership.
Nationalise the utilities again, and they’re competing for capital with more public-friendly projects such as health and education.
The Thames Tideway project is guaranteed by the taxpayer. Thames Water is not taking any risk.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
The big problem of the EEA/EFTA option is the number of people it satisfies is relatively small. The number of people pushing for this during the referendum was tiny - both sides were describing it as the worst of all worlds. Heading down this path is like settling a custody dispute by chopping the child in half. On paper its a compromise but in reality everyone is deeply unsatisfied... and well, you killed the child.
...
Of course it does. It's a poor option, just as the other two are. However it's probably the politically easiest option. Once you eliminate the politically impossible, whatever remains, no matter how crap, must be the way forward, as Sherlock Holmes might have said.
Read the rest of my post and you'll see why this isn't the politically easiest option. You please neither side and you don't settle the argument.
If you think all 3 options are bad then go for the one with the best outcome in the longterm. If you think Brexit is set to be a disaster come what may then you should just let the Brexiteers get on with making it a disaster, you'll be back in the EU far quicker when you are proved correct. If you insist on EEA/EFTA then you're just delaying the inevitable move to a harder brexit (because you still haven't satisfied those people) while remaining wholly unsatisfied yourself.
I worry about the leadership poll but then with no obvious alternative and the last safety-first choice having proven less than sure-footed, I can understand it even though I strongly disagree.
No even in 2001 a lot of Tory members I campaigned with expected to win. If you don't go into an election believing you can win it was is the point if fighting it?
Boris is the clear choice of the public to succeed May in the polls and no surprise Tory members also back him, they want a charismatic Leaver to lead them after Remainers Cameron and May
Boris would be a bloody disaster. Even if he's a effective econdaries.
Corbyn would be even worse and Boris at least has charisma
If you aim for second place and solely defence you get third and losses. I may disagree with Corbyn and Momentum but at least they always aim to win and campaign hard which is more than can be said for some defeatist Tory whingers!
Corbyn being evehough.
It is for me and the public prefer Boris to any other Tory and that is key.
Even among Cabinet members there have to be ones who the public has not really had a chance to know, they do not have a personal brand yet and are constrained by their current positions in a way Boris, who already had a brand, is not so constrained. Come a leadership contest I don't think it is a given Boris's schtick will necessarily overcome all comers, even among those currently polling badly against him.
If the Tories want to beat Corbyn -its quite simple. 1). Skip a generation and appoint a younger leader from the backbenchers or junior ranks. 2). Abandon Thatcherism and issue a Robert Peel style Tamworth Manifesto for the 21st century redefining Conservatism and making the party more like the German Christian Democrats. 3). Steal Corbyn's thunder. Abolish tuition fees, make existing debt easier and initiate a housing scheme helping the young to get on the housing ladder.
If they do not do these things, and prefer instead to retain May or replace her with weary old on the rebound Davies, Blonde buffoon Johnson, or Amber Red Green, then they will lose to Corbyn -and after 5 years of disaster will be back with a landslide anyway.
Labour will have its own problems after either Corbyn crashes and burns at the next election, or after his disastrous premiership.
Agree with most of 3 at least apart from abolishing tuition fees, the Tories won their highest voteshare with C2s last time most of whom are non graduates and they would not be happy paying higher taxes to abolish fees for Corbyn voting students
Duh. So that means they badly need to improve amongst the ABC1 group, for many of whom this is a very important issue. I can see now why you failed to get elected to the parish council :-)
Duh. They won ABs last time too but Corbyn won C1s So Tories would turn off C2s who are now their core vote for C1s who will vote Corbyn anyway given he made the abolish tuition fees promise in the first place.
As for your final comment I got a higher Tory voteshare than the 2006 Tory district council candidate despite heavy LD campaigning against development in the Greenbelt and was canvassing and leafletting every night and weekend. Rather that than your whinging
Corbyn being even worse is a good reason not to pick Boris, who could trash the Tory brand for years. Yes, I know it's had a dodgy run over the last couple of years but even if Strong and Stable looks a bit tattered, it was at least clearly the intent and to the extent that it's not been achieved, that was down to individual failings - the selection was based on sound reasoning. Picking Boris would just be a roll of the dice and there'd be no mitigation if the number comes up wrong. Corbyn being worse than Boris is the best reason for picking the best person to keep Corbyn out.
Re 'aiming for second', I remember 2001 and the strategic target list, which aimed at getting Labour's majority down to double figures. Consequently, the resource went into the wrong places and not only did we fail to win those, because we were too far back, we also failed to win those at the top of the target list because Labour pumped in resource and we didn't as it was assumed that the local parties could do it by themselves. I'm a Bradford City fan. I don't expect us to win the FA cup this year (or any year) but it doesn't stop me wanting as good a run as possible - and over recent years, we've pushed what might be thought possible way beyond cautious expectation. Still didn't win though.
That is exactly correct. In 2001 we (as a safeish seat in suburban London) were twinned with Blackpool South for purposes of phone canvassing and financial aid. Absolutely insane given that there were ripe targets like Croydon Central and Bexleyheath right next door, both of which we failed to win back. Blackpool South wasn't even won by the Tories in 2010, 2015 or 2017 but was considered a prime target in 2001 for some reason. Hague's CCHQ was a very strange place.
On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
For me, it was the exact opposite way round. It was only after we left that I realised that EU citizenship had become part of who I was.
Well one of us has our head on wrong then - let's reassess in 10 years and see who it was; it's not looking good for me at the moment, but here's hoping. Good luck!
It is amazing how 94.46% of conversations here on PB come down to the Leavers saying:
"Oh if only we could somehow have an associate membership type of thing...it's quite clear the EU was going down a political route which we don't want to join them on...why weren't we offered some kind of opt out of that while keeping the benefits of the single market...while we're at it, we would have needed to protect our financial services industry also...plus as you all here on PB know, as a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
I worry about the leadership poll but then with no obvious alternative and the last safety-first choice having proven less than sure-footed, I can understand it even though I strongly disagree.
No even in 2001 a lot of Tory members I campaigned with expected to win. If you don't go into an election believing you can win it was is the point if fighting it?
Boris is the clear choice of the public to succeed May in the polls and no surprise Tory members also back him, they want a charismatic Leaver to lead them after Remainers Cameron and May
Boris would be a bloody disaster. Even if he's a effective econdaries.
Corbyn would be even worse and Boris at least has charisma
If you aim for second place and solely defence you get third and losses. I may disagree with Corbyn and Momentum but at least they always aim to win and campaign hard which is more than can be said for some defeatist Tory whingers!
Corbyn being evehough.
It is for me and the public prefer Boris to any other Tory and that is key.
Even among Cabinet members there have to be ones who the public has not really had a chance to know, they do not have a personal brand yet and are constrained by their current positions in a way Boris, who already had a brand, is not so constrained. Come a leadership contest I don't think it is a given Boris's schtick will necessarily overcome all comers, even among those currently polling badly against him.
If another Cabinet Minister starts campaigning competitively against Corbyn then fine, at the moment they aren't
It is amazing how 94.46% of conversations here on PB come down to the Leavers saying:
"Oh if only we could somehow have an associate membership type of thing...it's quite clear the EU was going down a political route which we don't want to join them on...why weren't we offered some kind of opt out of that while keeping the benefits of the single market...while we're at it, we would have needed to protect our financial services industry also...plus as you all here on PB know, as a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
That was what was claimed to be the essence of his deal - it was not believed, not without reason. Would I take it now, knowing what I do now? I don't know. But given the track record of the EU, and that the deal he made was not as amazing as was made out (nothing says that clearer than so many Tories who were far from anti-EU headbangers expressing disappointment in it).
I'm a fan of Cameron, but if that was a good deal, he did a shit job selling it, and the EU did a great job undermining any faith it would be worth anything.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Yes, I thought the whole point of UC was to avoid the 'benefit trap'. Are there genuine problems, or is it just edge cases that people are making political trouble out of ?
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Yes, I thought the whole point of UC was to avoid the 'benefit trap'. Are there genuine problems, or is it just edge cases that people are making political trouble out of ?
There may be some teething problems but Labour is ideologically opposed to it
Zoe Williams and others imagine what it would be like if this bigoted, lying, Old Etonian buffoon got his hands on our diverse and liberal...
...of London! That was when people thought he'd be an unmitigated disaster as mayor, ushering in an era of conservative morals being forced on the capital.
It is amazing how 94.46% of conversations here on PB come down to the Leavers saying:
"Oh if only we could somehow have an associate membership type of thing...it's quite clear the EU was going down a political route which we don't want to join them on...why weren't we offered some kind of opt out of that while keeping the benefits of the single market...while we're at it, we would have needed to protect our financial services industry also...plus as you all here on PB know, as a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
That was what was claimed to be the essence of his deal - it was not believed, not without reason. Would I take it now, knowing what I do now? I don't know. But given the track record of the EU, and that the deal he made was not as amazing as was made out (nothing says that clearer than so many Tories who were far from anti-EU headbangers expressing disappointment in it).
I'm a fan of Cameron, but if that was a good deal, he did a shit job selling it, and the EU did a great job undermining any faith it would be worth anything.
yeah, shoulda, woulda, coulda.
"Given the track record of the EU" of which we were a part. But you reckon we will get a better deal outside the whole organisation.
Oh but we have sovereignty outside the EU. Yeah - well sovereignty is important in being able to define and negotiate terms and deals that are good for the country.
I worry about the leadership poll but then with no obvious alternative and the last safety-first choice having proven less than sure-footed, I can understand it even though I strongly disagree.
No even in 2001 a lot of Tory members I campaigned with expected to win. If you don't go into an election believing you can win it was is the point if fighting it?
Boris is the clear choice of the public to succeed May in the polls and no surprise Tory members also back him, they want a charismatic Leaver to lead them after Remainers Cameron and May
Boris would be a bloody disaster. Even if he's a effective econdaries.
Corbyn would be even worse and Boris at least has charisma
If you aim for second place and solely defence you get third and losses. I may disagree with Corbyn and Momentum but at least they always aim to win and campaign hard which is more than can be said for some defeatist Tory whingers!
Corbyn being evehough.
It is for me and the public prefer Boris to any other Tory and that is key.
Even among Cabinet members there have to be ones who the public has not really had a chance to know, they do not have a personal brand yet and are constrained by their current positions in a way Boris, who already had a brand, is not so constrained. Come a leadership contest I don't think it is a given Boris's schtick will necessarily overcome all comers, even among those currently polling badly against him.
I am not a Tory but it seems to me that as a putative national leader Boris would be deeply divisive. Almost all new leaders try to be unifying figures, at least to start with, and he could never credibly do that.
It is amazing how 94.46% of conversations here on PB come down to the Leavers saying:
"Oh if only we could somehow have an associate membership type of thing...it's quite clear the EU was going down a political route which we don't want to join them on...why weren't we offered some kind of opt out of that while keeping the benefits of the single market...while we're at it, we would have needed to protect our financial services industry also...plus as you all here on PB know, as a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
It really wasn't. I remember being unable to scroll through the document to get to the important stuff... it was because I'd reached the bottom of it already.
Please, go back now and read it and you'll find nothing but window dressing. It's why it was never mentioned ever again.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
I worry about the leadership poll but then with no obvious alternative and the last safety-first choice having proven less than sure-footed, I can understand it even though I strongly disagree.
No even in 2001 a lot of Tory members I campaigned with expected to win. If you don't go into an election believing you can win it was is the point if fighting it?
Boris is the clear choice of the public to succeed May in the polls and no surprise Tory members also back him, they want a charismatic Leaver to lead them after Remainers Cameron and May
Boris would be a bloody disaster. Even if he's a effective econdaries.
Corbyn would be even worse and Boris at least has charisma
If you aim for second place and solely defence you get third and losses. I may disagree with Corbyn and Momentum but at least they always aim to win and campaign hard which is more than can be said for some defeatist Tory whingers!
Corbyn being evehough.
It is for me and the public prefer Boris to any other Tory and that is key.
Even among Cabinet members there have to be ones who the public has not really had a chance to know, they do not have a personal brand yet and are constrained by their current positions in a way Boris, who already had a brand, is not so constrained. Come a leadership contest I don't think it is a given Boris's schtick will necessarily overcome all comers, even among those currently polling badly against him.
If another Cabinet Minister starts campaigning competitively against Corbyn then fine, at the moment they aren't
Fortunately, most Tory MPs are (just about) more sensible than you are. Many MPs who initially backed Boris last time won't risk looking like idiots a second time in case he flounces out of the campaign again. Added to the large and growing number who hate his guts and will do anything to stop him (that probably includes most of the cabinet including May). I doubt he'll make the final two.
Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
This.
Thames Water alone are spending billions (with a B ) on renewing Victorian infrastructure to keep the taps flowing in London. Similar projects are underway in other areas and with other utilities, replacing what was neglected for decades under public ownership.
Nationalise the utilities again, and they’re competing for capital with more public-friendly projects such as health and education.
The Thames Tideway project is guaranteed by the taxpayer. Thames Water is not taking any risk.
There’s a big difference between government providing guarantees for a major project, and actually having to find the money themselves.
Too often though Government is taking on too much of the risk. Markets only function if you can lose as well as win.
Look at what happens with railway franchises - essentially you either make buckets of cash or you just hand the keys back and pay a penalty which could be much smaller than your potential losses.
I don’t disagree that government sometimes takes on what should be private risk, but that’s something that’s easy to tweak without the need to nationalise whole swathes of industry.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
The implementation phase has been shocking, my friend works for a jobcentre plus.
People are going weeks without getting paid because of the hold ups, the system isn't fit for purpose.
Plus paying housing benefits to those receiving the benefit and not to the landlord direct is also causing issues, both budgeting wise and landlords not getting paid on time.
And moving to a monthly payment system is also causing issues as they aren't giving budgeting advice to the recipients.
It is amazing how 94.46% of conversations here on PB come down to the Leavers saying:
"Oh if only we could somehow have an associate membership type of thing...it's quite clear the EU was going down a political route which we don't want to join them on...why weren't we offered some kind of opt out of that while keeping the benefits of the single market...while we're at it, we would have needed to protect our financial services industry also...plus as you all here on PB know, as a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
That was what was claim I'm a fan of Cameron, but if that was a good deal, he did a shit job selling it, and the EU did a great job undermining any faith it would be worth anything.
yeah, shoulda, woulda, coulda.
"Given the track record of the EU" of which we were a part. But you reckon we will get a better deal outside the whole organisation.
Oh but we have sovereignty outside the EU. Yeah - well sovereignty is important in being able to define and negotiate terms and deals that are good for the country.
Yes I reckoned we could get a better deal outside the whole organisation - what you can even ask for can be restricted if you are within something, rather than without, even if being without will come with additional issues. I might be proven wrong, and I will throw myself before others in regret if in the long term we are shown to have made a great mistake, but there's nothing to regret in explaining the distinction between being a hardcore hard brexit supporter and those who felt almost pushed into it. All equally culpable, no doubt, but its worthwhile making the point not least because what we as a country are all debating now is what sort of position we might like to get now, and whether one is a hardliner or not is pretty critical. Nor is there anything wrong with disagreeing with your analysis that what some reluctant leavers wanted was exactly what was offered. I think you are wrong about that, frankly - so many previously loyal Tories disagreed with Cameron about what he had managed to obtain that I find it improbable to say the least it was as amazing as you claim.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
Problems regarding implementation need to be dealt with but the principle is sound
On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
For me, it was the exact opposite way round. It was only after we left that I realised that EU citizenship had become part of who I was.
Well one of us has our head on wrong then - let's reassess in 10 years and see who it was; it's not looking good for me at the moment, but here's hoping. Good luck!
Deal - as long as my yacht can get internet connections from St Tropez and the riviera
On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
For me, it was the exact opposite way round. It was only after we left that I realised that EU citizenship had become part of who I was.
Well one of us has our head on wrong then - let's reassess in 10 years and see who it was; it's not looking good for me at the moment, but here's hoping. Good luck!
Deal - as long as my yacht can get internet connections from St Tropez and the riviera
And if I manage to stay one step ahead of Comrade Corbyn's 'state contentment' brigades as they sweep for dissidents after the abolition of parliament. Deal.
Isn't the issue with nationalisation of utilities that it will ultimately starve them of investment? No Chancellor of any party facing demands from schools, hospitals, police etc. is going to say "actually I'm going to prioritise long-term investment in our water pipe network or electricity pylons". These companies have been able to raise billions on the markets to invest in infrastructure. If that had to come out of taxpayers' money it wouldn't happen until the services started to fall over. That's the point non-socialists (including Lib Dems and moderate Labour MPs) should be making, not harping on about the "1970s" which many younger voters just don't remember or care about.
This.
Thames Water alone are spending billions (with a B ) on renewing Victorian infrastructure to keep the taps flowing in London. Similar projects are underway in other areas and with other utilities, replacing what was neglected for decades under public ownership.
Nationalise the utilities again, and they’re competing for capital with more public-friendly projects such as health and education.
The Thames Tideway project is guaranteed by the taxpayer. Thames Water is not taking any risk.
There’s a big difference between government providing guarantees for a major project, and actually having to find the money themselves.
Too often though Government is taking on too much of the risk. Markets only function if you can lose as well as win.
Look at what happens with railway franchises - essentially you either make buckets of cash or you just hand the keys back and pay a penalty which could be much smaller than your potential losses.
I don’t disagree that government sometimes takes on what should be private risk, but that’s something that’s easy to tweak without the need to nationalise whole swathes of industry.
Wholly agree. We need to move closer to a real market. Nationalisation would be a disaster in terms of investment as others have mentioned, but privatisation can only become a real success if it involves a real market.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
Problems regarding implementation need to be dealt with but the principle is sound
I worry about the leadership poll but then with no obvious alternative and the last safety-first choice having proven less than sure-footed, I can understand it even though I strongly disagree.
No even in 2001 a lot of Tory members I campaigned with expected to win. If you don't go into an election believing you can win it was is the point if fighting it?
Boris is the clear choice of the public to succeed May in the polls and no surprise Tory members also back him, they want a charismatic Leaver to lead them after Remainers Cameron and May
Boris would be a bloody disaster. Even if he's a effective econdaries.
Corbyn would be even worse and Boris at least has charisma
If you aim for second place and solely defence you get third and losses. I may disagree with Corbyn and Momentum but at least they always aim to win and campaign hard which is more than can be said for some defeatist Tory whingers!
Corbyn being evehough.
It is for me and the public prefer Boris to any other Tory and that is key.
Even among Cabinet members there have to be ones who the public has not really had a chance to know, they do not have a personal brand yet and are constrained by their current positions in a way Boris, who already had a brand, is not so constrained. Come a leadership contest I don't think it is a given Boris's schtick will necessarily overcome all comers, even among those currently polling badly against him.
If another Cabinet Minister starts campaigning competitively against Corbyn then fine, at the moment they aren't
Fortunately, most Tory MPs are (just about) more sensible than you are. Many MPs who initially backed Boris last time won't risk looking like idiots a second time in case he flounces out of the campaign again. Added to the large and growing number who hate his guts and will do anything to stop him (that probably includes most of the cabinet including May). I doubt he'll make the final two.
Fortunately unlike defeatist whingers like you most Tory MPs want to hold their seats and as long as Boris continues to top the polls with the public as the person they want to succeed May as Tory leader and as long as he takes the Tory voteshare to the highest level against Corbyn of all the potential contenders he will make the final 2 and win the membership vote
It is amazing how 94.46% of conversations here on PB come down to the Leavers saying:
"Oh if only we could somehow have an associate membership type of thing...it's quite clear the EU was going down a political route which we don't want to join them on...why weren't we offered some kind of opt out of that while keeping the benefits of the single market...while we're at it, we would have needed to protect our financial services industry also...plus as you all here on PB know, as a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
It really wasn't. I remember being unable to scroll through the document to get to the important stuff... it was because I'd reached the bottom of it already.
Please, go back now and read it and you'll find nothing but window dressing. It's why it was never mentioned ever again.
Not even wrong.
1. Financial Services - It gave protections to the non-eurozone countries (and to the eurozone ones) and gave us an opt-out on SSM/SRM (we are in any case implementing CRD-IV).
2. Competitivenesss - pretty all over the place - an undertaking to enact a "burden reduction implementation mechanism". Dontcha love the EU.
3. Sovereignty - "the references to ever closer union do not apply to the UK"
4. "Social benefits and free movement" - ie immigration to the likes of you. Quite badly, tinkered around the edges with the emergency brake and child benefits. Nothing to satisfy the anti-foreigner vote.
So in conclusion, on all the important matters save immigration the deal was very good. But of course I'm sure you are a big fan of immigration.
From Boris' point of view, he has to go for it within a few weeks or resign himself to never getting the top job. It looks like May will try to continue and lead the Tories into the next election. If that happens the Tories may well be in opposition for some years and/or there may well be other candidates who are not available now.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
Problems regarding implementation need to be dealt with but the principle is sound
Poll tax revisited?
The reverse, ensuring you do not lose all your benefits if you do a few hours a week work under UC is the complete opposite of the poll tax
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
The implementation phase has been shocking, my friend works for a jobcentre plus.
People are going weeks without getting paid because of the hold ups, the system isn't fit for purpose.
Plus paying housing benefits to those receiving the benefit and not to the landlord direct is also causing issues, both budgeting wise and landlords not getting paid on time.
And moving to a monthly payment system is also causing issues as they aren't giving budgeting advice to the recipients.
So it’s implementation teething issues rather than anything fundamental.
Needs to be slowed down and a hit squad assembled to iron out the kinks, rather than any fundamental changes made.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
The implementation phase has been shocking, my friend works for a jobcentre plus.
People are going weeks without getting paid because of the hold ups, the system isn't fit for purpose.
Plus paying housing benefits to those receiving the benefit and not to the landlord direct is also causing issues, both budgeting wise and landlords not getting paid on time.
And moving to a monthly payment system is also causing issues as they aren't giving budgeting advice to the recipients.
Monthly payments are particularly problematic ffor those in the gig economy or in involuntary ZHC, where income varies tremendously from week to week. It almost guarantees budget crises requiring payday loans or foodbank visits.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
Problems regarding implementation need to be dealt with but the principle is sound
Poll tax revisited?
The reverse, ensuring you do not lose all your benefits if you do a few hours a week work under UC is the complete opposite of the poll tax
But what if you not get anything because of the bureaucracy ?
From Boris' point of view, he has to go for it within a few weeks or resign himself to never getting the top job. It looks like May will try to continue and lead the Tories into the next election. If that happens the Tories may well be in opposition for some years and/or there may well be other candidates who are not available now.
He will not go for it until the Brexit talks are over and until someone starts polling better than him he will remain the contender to beat
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
The implementation phase has been shocking, my friend works for a jobcentre plus.
People are going weeks without getting paid because of the hold ups, the system isn't fit for purpose.
Plus paying housing benefits to those receiving the benefit and not to the landlord direct is also causing issues, both budgeting wise and landlords not getting paid on time.
And moving to a monthly payment system is also causing issues as they aren't giving budgeting advice to the recipients.
So it’s implementation teething issues rather than anything fundamental.
Needs to be slowed down and a hit squad assembled to iron out the kinks, rather than any fundamental changes made.
The monthly payment changes are pretty fundamental.
From Boris' point of view, he has to go for it within a few weeks or resign himself to never getting the top job. It looks like May will try to continue and lead the Tories into the next election. If that happens the Tories may well be in opposition for some years and/or there may well be other candidates who are not available now.
That is correct. He wants the job, he must do it now.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
Problems regarding implementation need to be dealt with but the principle is sound
Poll tax revisited?
The reverse, ensuring you do not lose all your benefits if you do a few hours a week work under UC is the complete opposite of the poll tax
My point is that it is similar to the poll tax in the sense of a good idea from think tanks, colliding with the reality of implementation. The fact that money is moving in the other direction may help though.
The big problem of the EEA/EFTA option is the number of people it satisfies is relatively small. The number of people pushing for this during the referendum was tiny - both sides were describing it as the worst of all worlds. Heading down this path is like settling a custody dispute by chopping the child in half. On paper its a compromise but in reality everyone is deeply unsatisfied... and well, you killed the child.
...
Of course it does. It's a poor option, just as the other two are. However it's probably the politically easiest option. Once you eliminate the politically impossible, whatever remains, no matter how crap, must be the way forward, as Sherlock Holmes might have said.
Read the rest of my post and you'll see why this isn't the politically easiest option. You please neither side and you don't settle the argument.
If you think all 3 options are bad then go for the one with the best outcome in the longterm. If you think Brexit is set to be a disaster come what may then you should just let the Brexiteers get on with making it a disaster, you'll be back in the EU far quicker when you are proved correct. If you insist on EEA/EFTA then you're just delaying the inevitable move to a harder brexit (because you still haven't satisfied those people) while remaining wholly unsatisfied yourself.
I don't disagree with your logic. I just don't think your interpretation is the most likely one. Also I am not insisting on anything. Actually I have no problem with the country collectively deciding it made a mistake and going back to EU membership after all. That is the best option in terms of practical outcome. I just don't expect enough of the country to decide it did make a mistake. There is certainly no sign of it now. So it will either be outer space or attempts to keep what have got without being members. If we do go outer space there will be strong pressure to get an agreement with the EU quickly (a) because it's painful where there is no mandate or political will for pain and (b) a lack of a solution isn't a solution. Until we sort it out, this thing will drag on. Pseudo Brexit is likely to be relatively easy to get, although by no means automatic. It's a resolution of a sort that allows people to move on. Both sides of the debate dislike it equally but most people probably can live with it, given the alternatives.
I may be wrong. All options are possible I have spent the last year trying to work out how Brexit is going to resolve itself. It's not straightforward.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
It is amazins a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
That was what was claim I'm a fan of Cameron, but if that was a good deal, he did a shit job selling it, and the EU did a great job undermining any faith it would be worth anything.
yeah, shoulda, woulda, coulda.
"Given the track record of the EU" of which we were a part. But you reckon we will get a better deal outside the whole organisation.
Oh but we have sovereignty outside the EU. Yeah - well sovereignty is important in being able to define and negotiate terms and deals that are good for the country.
Nor is there anything wrong with disagreeing with your analysis that what some reluctant leavers wanted was exactly what was offered. I think you are wrong about that, frankly - so many previously loyal Tories disagreed with Cameron about what he had managed to obtain that I find it improbable to say the least it was as amazing as you claim.
Ditto, kinda
I was a pretty reluctant Leaver: I was worried what Brexit would do to London property, my major asset (I still am), I was worried what Brexit would do the City (likewise), I was worried if Brexit would lead to Scottish indy (weirdly, Brexit has made this much less likely)
One of the things that pushed me over the line to Leave was Cameron's shitty deal, it just reinforced the nausea provoked by the fraudulence of the EU, the endless ignored referendums, the smuggled Constitutions, the ludicrous parliament in two places which no one votes for. All of it, all of the whole smelly crappy odious insulting anti-democratic shebang that is the EU, and its underlying rottenness, was underlined by Cameron's feeble fibs about his pathetic Deal.
Unlike you, my heart was for Leave, and my head for Remain, and my heart won.
I was very similar. I was very much on the fence and still am to some extent. I could have perhaps just about swallowed the EU as it was, but it was very clear from the renegotiation the EU was going to keep on integrating and they wouldn't suffer the British staying out of that. The EU army and EU taxes suggested by Macron the other day make me feel I was right.
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
It really wasn't. I remember being unable to scroll through the document to get to the important stuff... it was because I'd reached the bottom of it already.
Please, go back now and read it and you'll find nothing but window dressing. It's why it was never mentioned ever again.
Not even wrong.
1. Financial Services - It gave protections to the non-eurozone countries (and to the eurozone ones) and gave us an opt-out on SSM/SRM (we are in any case implementing CRD-IV).
2. Competitivenesss - pretty all over the place - an undertaking to enact a "burden reduction implementation mechanism". Dontcha love the EU.
3. Sovereignty - "the references to ever closer union do not apply to the UK"
4. "Social benefits and free movement" - ie immigration to the likes of you. Quite badly, tinkered around the edges with the emergency brake and child benefits. Nothing to satisfy the anti-foreigner vote.
So in conclusion, on all the important matters save immigration the deal was very good. But of course I'm sure you are a big fan of immigration.
1. Financial Services - It reiterated protections that the UK already had eg. opt-out on SSM/SRM
2. Competitiveness - This is the window dressing I referred to
3. Sovereignty - This didn't amend the treaty it was non-binding and the language of ever closer union is far more important as a symbol than legally.
4. "Social benefits and free movement" - The tinkering addressed an issue that didn't exist so of course it wasn't addressing the real problem. The issue was never about benefits.
So in conclusion the renegotiation resulted in absolutely nothing of real substance. The fact that no treaty change was required to achieve any of this should make this quite apparent. Plus, the fact it was dismissed by pretty much everyone and swept under the rug as soon as possible.
It is amazins a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
That was what was claim I'm a fan of Cameron, but if that was a good deal, he did a shit job selling it, and the EU did a great job undermining any faith it would be worth anything.
yeah, shoulda, woulda, coulda.
"Given the track record of the EU" of which we were a part. But you reckon we will get a better deal outside the whole organisation.
Oh but we have sovereignty outside the EU. Yeah - well sovereignty is important in being able to define and negotiate terms and deals that are good for the country.
Nor is there anything wrong with disagreeing with your analysis that what some reluctant leavers wanted was exactly what was offered. I think you are wrong about that, frankly - so many previously loyal Tories disagreed with Cameron about what he had managed to obtain that I find it improbable to say the least it was as amazing as you claim.
Ditto, kinda
I was a pretty reluctant Leaver: I was worried what Brexit would do to London property, my major asset (I still am), I was worried what Brexit would do the City (likewise), I was worried if Brexit would lead to Scottish indy (weirdly, Brexit has made this much less likely)
One of the things that pushed me over the line to Leave was Cameron's shitty deal, it just reinforced the nausea provoked by the fraudulence of the EU, the endless ignored referendums, the smuggled Constitutions, the ludicrous parliament in two places which no one votes for. All of it, all of the whole smelly crappy odious insulting anti-democratic shebang that is the EU, and its underlying rottenness, was underlined by Cameron's feeble fibs about his pathetic Deal.
Unlike you, my heart was for Leave, and my head for Remain, and my heart won.
ie no real reason for voting Leave except the immortal what are you rebelling against what have you got/The Man.
It is amazing how 94.46% of conversations here on PB come down to the Leavers saying:
"Oh if only we could somehow have an associate membership type of thing...it's quite clear the EU was going down a political route which we don't want to join them on...why weren't we offered some kind of opt out of that while keeping the benefits of the single market...while we're at it, we would have needed to protect our financial services industry also...plus as you all here on PB know, as a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
It really wasn't. I remember being unable to scroll through the document to get to the important stuff... it was because I'd reached the bottom of it already.
Please, go back now and read it and you'll find nothing but window dressing. It's why it was never mentioned ever again.
In one of the referendum documentaries, the BBC reported that when Cameron came back from Brussels in early 2016, and summoned the Cabinet, and read out the "deal", it was received with a terrible deathly silence, from eurosceptics and europhiles, all round the table.
They - the Conservative Cabinet - knew even then, and from that moment, that the deal was a dud. Unsellable. A piece of dreck. Even the most Remainery of them were expecting a whole lot more.
Cameron fucked it up. Royally.
Yet, the Europeans thought it was f*cking amazing.
Boris would be a bloody disaster. Even if he's a effective econdaries.
Corbyn would be even worse and Boris at least has charisma
If you aim for second place and solely defence you get third and losses. I may disagree with Corbyn and Momentum but at least they always aim to win and campaign hard which is more than can be said for some defeatist Tory whingers!
Corbyn being even worse is a good reason not to pick Boris, who could trash the Tory brand for years. Yes, I know it's had a dodgy run over the last couple of years but even if Strong and Stable looks a bit tattered, it was at least clearly the intent and to the extent that it's not been achieved, that was down to individual failings - the selection was based on sound reasoning. Picking Boris would just be a roll of the dice and there'd be no mitigation if the number comes up wrong. Corbyn being worse than Boris is the best reason for picking the best person to keep Corbyn out.
Re 'aiming for second', I remember 2001 and the strategic target list, which aimed at getting Labour's majority down to double figures. Consequently, the resource went into the wrong places and not only did we fail to win those, because we were too far back, we also failed to win those at the top of the target list because Labour pumped in resource and we didn't as it was assumed that the local parties could do it by themselves. I'm a Bradford City fan. I don't expect us to win the FA cup this year (or any year) but it doesn't stop me wanting as good a run as possible - and over recent years, we've pushed what might be thought possible way beyond cautious expectation. Still didn't win though.
It is for me and the public prefer Boris to any other Tory and that is key. Boris also knows how to beat leftwingers as Livingstone discovered.
There is a difference between careful targeting and defeatism, if you take the line Corbyn cannot be stopped he may well not be
Boris beat Ken in a race (or two races) to which he was suited. Leading a party and a government is very different from standing for and acting as mayor. Yes, Boris is 'popular' now (though I suspect that the numbers are in large part name recognition and they're not great anyway), but I'm sure that would change once he was in office. He's hardly shown himself to be ready for the top job given his performance at the FO.
Who said Corbyn can't be stopped? All I said was that there seems to be a lot of complacency that he will be.
I don't follow, why is it amazing? As someone who has made many of the comments above I would have liked good bits of the EU without the bad - an unrealistic dream, perhaps, but what about that is amazing? On the EU my heart said stay but my head said look at the realities.
Because, grasshopper, that was the essence of Dave's deal that the very same Leavers are so quick to dismiss.
It really wasn't. I remember being unable to scroll through the document to get to the important stuff... it was because I'd reached the bottom of it already.
Please, go back now and read it and you'll find nothing but window dressing. It's why it was never mentioned ever again.
Not even wrong.
1. Financial Services - It gave protections to the non-eurozone countries (and to the eurozone ones) and gave us an opt-out on SSM/SRM (we are in any case implementing CRD-IV).
2. Competitivenesss - pretty all over the place - an undertaking to enact a "burden reduction implementation mechanism". Dontcha love the EU.
3. Sovereignty - "the references to ever closer union do not apply to the UK"
4. "Social benefits and free movement" - ie immigration to the likes of you. Quite badly, tinkered around the edges with the emergency brake and child benefits. Nothing to satisfy the anti-foreigner vote.
So in conclusion, on all the important matters save immigration the deal was very good. But of course I'm sure you are a big fan of immigration.
1. Financial Services - It reiterated protections that the UK already had eg. opt-out on SSM/SRM
2. Competitiveness - This is the window dressing I referred to
3. Sovereignty - This didn't amend the treaty it was non-binding and the language of ever closer union is far more important as a symbol than legally.
4. "Social benefits and free movement" - The tinkering addressed an issue that didn't exist so of course it wasn't addressing the real problem. The issue was never about benefits.
So in conclusion the renegotiation resulted in absolutely nothing of real substance. The fact that no treaty change was required to achieve any of this should make this quite apparent. Plus, the fact it was dismissed by pretty much everyone and swept under the rug as soon as possible.
I remember at the time Francois Hollander saying something about the EU finally bringing the City of London to heel, or words to that effect.
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
Problems regarding implementation need to be dealt with but the principle is sound
Poll tax revisited?
The reverse, ensuring you do not lose all your benefits if you do a few hours a week work under UC is the complete opposite of the poll tax
My point is that it is similar to the poll tax in the sense of a good idea from think tanks, colliding with the reality of implementation. The fact that money is moving in the other direction may help though.
I hope so, it should be a vital way of helping people get back into the workplace
Is universal credit ever happening? The Tories were struggling with a minor majority to keep moving on welfare matters, and now without even that whole area seems one where the PM will have zero ability to resist demands from rebels.
Yes as it is key for making work pay even if only a few hours a week
Absolutely. The UB rollout has to happen, more than anything bar Brexit. Why on Earth are Tory MPs objecting to it?
The implementation phase has been shocking, my friend works for a jobcentre plus.
People are going weeks without getting paid because of the hold ups, the system isn't fit for purpose.
Plus paying housing benefits to those receiving the benefit and not to the landlord direct is also causing issues, both budgeting wise and landlords not getting paid on time.
And moving to a monthly payment system is also causing issues as they aren't giving budgeting advice to the recipients.
So it’s implementation teething issues rather than anything fundamental.
Needs to be slowed down and a hit squad assembled to iron out the kinks, rather than any fundamental changes made.
The monthly payment changes are pretty fundamental.
The hit squads have made it worse it seems.
Hmm, but they’re only rolling out for new claimants, rather than trying to move people across from the old regime now, is that correct?
Where are the delays coming from, is it the computer algorithms getting the payments wrong generally, or is it more edge cases than expected?
Comments
Thames Water alone are spending billions (with a B ) on renewing Victorian infrastructure to keep the taps flowing in London. Similar projects are underway in other areas and with other utilities, replacing what was neglected for decades under public ownership.
Nationalise the utilities again, and they’re competing for capital with more public-friendly projects such as health and education.
Trying not to be first one to stop applauding his speech.
I wouldn't even make her a front-runner to be Amber Rudd
The genie is out of the bottle. If you wanted to remain in the EU and think Brexit can only be a disaster then your best strategy is to let us 'idiots' mess everything up before again taking control to the relief of a grateful nation. If you spend the next 18 months yanking the steering wheel who do you think Leavers are going to blame if we veer off the road and crash?
If you want to finally settle the issue let the Leavers do Brexit and do it in the way they want to do it, not in a way that you see as least damaging. Test the idea to destruction and settle the argument forever - fudging Brexit or cancelling it is just kicking the can down the road storing up problems for the future. If it turns out you were wrong then you can be pleasantly surprised and it won't matter that you weren't a supporter initially.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/thames-tideway-tunnel-government-support-package-contract-documents
1). Skip a generation and appoint a younger leader from the backbenchers or junior ranks.
2). Abandon Thatcherism and issue a Robert Peel style Tamworth Manifesto for the 21st century redefining Conservatism and making the party more like the German Christian Democrats.
3). Steal Corbyn's thunder. Abolish tuition fees, make existing debt easier and initiate a housing scheme helping the young to get on the housing ladder.
If they do not do these things, and prefer instead to retain May or replace her with weary old on the rebound Davies, Blonde buffoon Johnson, or Amber Red Green, then they will lose to Corbyn -and after 5 years of disaster will be back with a landslide anyway.
Labour will have its own problems after either Corbyn crashes and burns at the next election, or after his disastrous premiership.
We've actually got this structure of highly-regulated semi-monopolies in the utilities sector right - we are getting much of the advantage of private-sector efficiency, with the public well-protected against the suppliers exploiting their semi-monopoly position or becoming lazy and complacent. Prices are competitive (about the EU average for electricity, for example).
Look at what happens with railway franchises - essentially you either make buckets of cash or you just hand the keys back and pay a penalty which could be much smaller than your potential losses.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/benefit-system-rollout-tory-mps-call-halt-government-concerns-impact-claimants-david-gauke-a7973516.html
My favourite shit meme du jour
'The market is god;
We worship the great god the market;
The market will provide'.
If these opinions on what should be publicly or privately-owned are broadly implemented, Thatcherism will soon be dead and buried. Not a moment too soon.
I don't expect a Corbyn govt to be any more loony than Harold Wilson's govts. That's because I don't really expect him to come from 60 seats behind and get a majority of 50-100. Small majorities are all the UK has in terms of checks and balanaces.
If he wins by 100, all bets are off. He certainly seems to think he'll become elected dictator for 5 years, er Prime Minister. He's recently said he doesn't believe in PR.
If he goes mad in the opposite direction to Thatcher, e.g. Easyjet and Tatar steel get nationalised, I'd forecast defeat in 2027. However, so much needs doing on essentials like the NHS and housing, going back from student fees to grants and mending the f***up called Universal Credit that I hardly think he'd have a spare minute to nationalise steel or airlines. Not even if he wanted to.
Re 'aiming for second', I remember 2001 and the strategic target list, which aimed at getting Labour's majority down to double figures. Consequently, the resource went into the wrong places and not only did we fail to win those, because we were too far back, we also failed to win those at the top of the target list because Labour pumped in resource and we didn't as it was assumed that the local parties could do it by themselves. I'm a Bradford City fan. I don't expect us to win the FA cup this year (or any year) but it doesn't stop me wanting as good a run as possible - and over recent years, we've pushed what might be thought possible way beyond cautious expectation. Still didn't win though.
It is amazing how 94.46% of conversations here on PB come down to the Leavers saying:
"Oh if only we could somehow have an associate membership type of thing...it's quite clear the EU was going down a political route which we don't want to join them on...why weren't we offered some kind of opt out of that while keeping the benefits of the single market...while we're at it, we would have needed to protect our financial services industry also...plus as you all here on PB know, as a bona fide Leaver I of course don't care about immigration...I welcome it in fact...oh if only...."
No other reason though. Oh no. Not at all.
There is a difference between careful targeting and defeatism, if you take the line Corbyn cannot be stopped he may well not be
Comments by Zoe Williams on the possibility of Boris being leader.
Zoe Williams and others imagine what it would be like if this bigoted, lying, Old Etonian buffoon got his hands on our diverse and liberal...
If you think all 3 options are bad then go for the one with the best outcome in the longterm. If you think Brexit is set to be a disaster come what may then you should just let the Brexiteers get on with making it a disaster, you'll be back in the EU far quicker when you are proved correct. If you insist on EEA/EFTA then you're just delaying the inevitable move to a harder brexit (because you still haven't satisfied those people) while remaining wholly unsatisfied yourself.
As for your final comment I got a higher Tory voteshare than the 2006 Tory district council candidate despite heavy LD campaigning against development in the Greenbelt and was canvassing and leafletting every night and weekend. Rather that than your whinging
I'm a fan of Cameron, but if that was a good deal, he did a shit job selling it, and the EU did a great job undermining any faith it would be worth anything.
Yes, I thought the whole point of UC was to avoid the 'benefit trap'. Are there genuine problems, or is it just edge cases that people are making political trouble out of ?
"Given the track record of the EU" of which we were a part. But you reckon we will get a better deal outside the whole organisation.
Oh but we have sovereignty outside the EU. Yeah - well sovereignty is important in being able to define and negotiate terms and deals that are good for the country.
Please, go back now and read it and you'll find nothing but window dressing. It's why it was never mentioned ever again.
People are going weeks without getting paid because of the hold ups, the system isn't fit for purpose.
Plus paying housing benefits to those receiving the benefit and not to the landlord direct is also causing issues, both budgeting wise and landlords not getting paid on time.
And moving to a monthly payment system is also causing issues as they aren't giving budgeting advice to the recipients.
Deal - as long as my yacht can get internet connections from St Tropez and the riviera
1. Financial Services - It gave protections to the non-eurozone countries (and to the eurozone ones) and gave us an opt-out on SSM/SRM (we are in any case implementing CRD-IV).
2. Competitivenesss - pretty all over the place - an undertaking to enact a "burden reduction implementation mechanism". Dontcha love the EU.
3. Sovereignty - "the references to ever closer union do not apply to the UK"
4. "Social benefits and free movement" - ie immigration to the likes of you. Quite badly, tinkered around the edges with the emergency brake and child benefits. Nothing to satisfy the anti-foreigner vote.
So in conclusion, on all the important matters save immigration the deal was very good. But of course I'm sure you are a big fan of immigration.
It looks like May will try to continue and lead the Tories into the next election. If that happens the Tories may well be in opposition for some years and/or there may well be other candidates who are not available now.
Needs to be slowed down and a hit squad assembled to iron out the kinks, rather than any fundamental changes made.
The hit squads have made it worse it seems.
I may be wrong. All options are possible I have spent the last year trying to work out how Brexit is going to resolve itself. It's not straightforward.
2. Competitiveness - This is the window dressing I referred to
3. Sovereignty - This didn't amend the treaty it was non-binding and the language of ever closer union is far more important as a symbol than legally.
4. "Social benefits and free movement" - The tinkering addressed an issue that didn't exist so of course it wasn't addressing the real problem. The issue was never about benefits.
So in conclusion the renegotiation resulted in absolutely nothing of real substance. The fact that no treaty change was required to achieve any of this should make this quite apparent. Plus, the fact it was dismissed by pretty much everyone and swept under the rug as soon as possible.
Chasm.
Who said Corbyn can't be stopped? All I said was that there seems to be a lot of complacency that he will be.
Where are the delays coming from, is it the computer algorithms getting the payments wrong generally, or is it more edge cases than expected?