Looking back, it’s truly hilarious the stuff they said about Ed M. Especially given how so many right wingers are now depicting dystopian scenarios about a Corbyn government. Ed Balls, who some of them praise today was also supposed to be some kind of socialist nightmare as well, lol....
What's hilarious about it? Ed Miliband would have been bad, Corbyn, being so extreme, would be massively worse. It's not complicated.
LOL. There’s no hope for you Tories learning anything from the last GE.
Like coming first on seats and voteshare you mean?
Yes, the Conservative Party totally decided to put all that effort into a GE campaign in order to lose their majority and place themselves into a much weaker position politically than before, and make the opposition look viable to many voters, and make a Corbyn government go from ‘lol bye, not happening’ to a possibility.
That was the fault of the disastrous dementia tax etc, yet Corbyn still failed to win and even now no poll has him winning an overall majority
I am sure if you had been alive you would have said the same in 1945 on Attleenomics.
I probably would, and I would have been right. Even though some of the most egregious disasters of the Attlee years were reversed promptly (like nationalisation of road haulage, a barmy Corbyn-style policy if ever there was one), the long-term damage done to the UK economy by the Attlee government was immense.
Mr. Eagles, it was the membership who opted for Cameron.
Anyway, must be off.
The membership also chose IDS.
Only because the MPs shafted Portillo.
IDS would have beaten Portillo too though it may have been closer
Surely it should have been Clarke v Portillo.
A pro Euro enthusiast v a social liberal was not what the party wanted at the time to oppose Blair who was both pro Euro and a social liberal anyway
That's an indirect way of saying that the party was not interested in winning or governing.
It was not interested in replacing Blair with a Blair clone no, or in Clarke's case someone on a number of issues left of Blair. By late 2005 when Brown was likely to take over by the next general election a Blair clone like Cameron was a more palatable option.
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
Much as it might be transparently obvious to you and me the folly of their stated policies, you and I both have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is a large constituency of people who want a bigger state.
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
Some blame Cameron for opening what they see as Pandora's Box. He certainly released something which had been bubbling around without coming to the fore. That's because the idea was to let sleeping dogs lie as long as possible. Vetoes were left unused and it was hoped no one noticed. Sleepwalking into European Union was the aim of both parties and the "Metropolitan you know what".
Where Cameron miscalculated was assuming he'd win. He mistook lack of opposition for indifference. There are several subjects which irked, but not enough to change votes at elections, especially when both parties tend to Europhilia, and the third party is even more so.
The Leave vote finally gave people a binary choice. The shock and hatred this unleashed in some Remainers was a combination of hubris and genuine hatred of some who hold different opinions. How dare they win? My opinions are obviously worth far more.
I'm off to Liverpool later for a beer with some other old gits. There's no ill to or from the elderly Remainers. We think the other side is wrong, as they do, but it's not important enough to cause arguments.
We're leaving, and the screaming and vitriol from those who think themselves superior is amusing. Pretentiousness often is.
Looking at Michael Barnier's speech, we don't seem to be making any progress at all. The EU shows no sign of wanting a trade deal. That being so, I think we should forget about a trade deal and instead concentrate on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, with as little disruption as possible.
Mr. Eagles, it was the membership who opted for Cameron.
Anyway, must be off.
The membership also chose IDS.
Only because the MPs shafted Portillo.
IDS would have beaten Portillo too though it may have been closer
I'm not sure he would have done, actually.
Portillo was very popular amongst the associations, and seen as a credible PM.
Plus, I think Thatcher would have endorsed Portillo, she was very fond of him, and that would have swung it for him too.
Thatcher made clear in a letter to the Telegraph she did not prefer Portillo over IDS after false reports she did and she openly opposed Ken Clarke in a letter to the same paper once it went to the membership
Go read the authorised biography of Thatcher by Charles Moore, it is clear in there she would have endorsed Portillo over IDS.
She wanted the final two to be IDS and Portillo.
But you know better than Lady Thatcher and her official biographer.
No it is not clear as I remember reading that very letter in the Telegraph from Lady Thatcher refuting any rumours she preferred Portillo over IDS in 2001.
You are right she wanted the final two to be IDS v Portillo and would have endorsed Portillo against Clarke but not against IDS.
(For the record I also attended a reception with Baroness Thatcher in 2001 as a student organised by the Young Democrats Union).
Looking at Michael Barnier's speech, we don't seem to be making any progress at all. The EU shows no sign of wanting a trade deal. That being so, I think we should forget about a trade deal and instead concentrate on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, with as little disruption as possible.
You're a perfect example of John Bruton's comment: "It may be necessary for the British public to go through a moment of anger before coming to a point of self-realisation."
" A Tory MP told a court he was left fearing for his safety when a protestor sent him abusive emails soon after the murder of Jo Cox. Kingsley Ezeugo, 48, turned up outside Hendon Town Hall shouting that Hendon MP Matthew Offord, 47, was a child molester and a racist. He also unfurled banners branding Mr Offord a paedophile and a member of the Ku Klux Klan at the MP’s constituency office in Bunns Lane. "
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
I genuinely don't know the answer to this, but how do you tell the difference between an argument not being made with sufficient vigour and one that's just falling totally flat and generating no interest?
Looking at Michael Barnier's speech, we don't seem to be making any progress at all. The EU shows no sign of wanting a trade deal. That being so, I think we should forget about a trade deal and instead concentrate on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, with as little disruption as possible.
As Michel Barnier himself notes, he has his mandate and the parameters are set for him.
As I have said for a long time, neither side seems interested in making the concessions necessary to get the deal that both of them profess to want.
Looking at Michael Barnier's speech, we don't seem to be making any progress at all. The EU shows no sign of wanting a trade deal. That being so, I think we should forget about a trade deal and instead concentrate on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, with as little disruption as possible.
I wonder if the advancement of resolution of the Irish border question to phase 1 is because the EU thinks that too and are looking for an excuse?
Excellent Zoe Williams' article in the Grauniad.I have been saying for some time,the biggest danger to this current government undoubtedly is tergiversation.
I respect that a lot more than the "For some reason I thought Trump was only doing an impression of an idiot throughout the campaign, now I wish I'd voted Clinton" crowd.
Looking at Michael Barnier's speech, we don't seem to be making any progress at all. The EU shows no sign of wanting a trade deal. That being so, I think we should forget about a trade deal and instead concentrate on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, with as little disruption as possible.
You're a perfect example of John Bruton's comment: "It may be necessary for the British public to go through a moment of anger before coming to a point of self-realisation."
They have - it built up over 40 years and then they got a referendum vote in 2016.
You're a perfect example of John Bruton's comment: "It may be necessary for the British public to go through a moment of anger before coming to a point of self-realisation."
Poppycock. I'm just being realistic: it will take time to negotiate an orderly transition, so we need to get on with it. If a trade deal is not on offer, which seems to be the case, then we are wasting time shlily-shallying about the possibility of one.
Don't blame me: I voted Remain. All this was in the range of scenarios which I thought likely (although I must confess I wasn't expecting the EU to be quite as unreasonable as they are proving). The priority now needs to be damage limitation, and the biggest danger we must avoid is chaos. Hence my suggestion that our objectives should be concentrated on that.
A member of India's Hindu nationalist ruling party has offered a £1million reward to anyone who beheads the lead actress and the director of the yet-to-be released Bollywood film.
The film Padmavati has sparked controversy over its alleged handling of the relationship between a Hindu queen and a Muslim ruler.
Suraj Pal Amu, a Bharatiya Janata Party leader from the northern state of Haryana, offered the bounty against actress Deepika Padukone and filmmaker Sanjay Leela Bhansali on Sunday.
Looking at Michael Barnier's speech, we don't seem to be making any progress at all. The EU shows no sign of wanting a trade deal. That being so, I think we should forget about a trade deal and instead concentrate on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, with as little disruption as possible.
I wonder if the advancement of resolution of the Irish border question to phase 1 is because the EU thinks that too and are looking for an excuse?
It was always in phase 1.
Charles Grant has always had a peculiar blindspot over its importance in the negotiations. He spent months blithely asserting that we'd have a hard border just because it's a logical consequence of everything else without considering the implications of that logical deduction on his starting assumptions.
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
I genuinely don't know the answer to this, but how do you tell the difference between an argument not being made with sufficient vigour and one that's just falling totally flat and generating no interest?
That's a hard question, but you know it when you see it!
You're a perfect example of John Bruton's comment: "It may be necessary for the British public to go through a moment of anger before coming to a point of self-realisation."
Poppycock. I'm just being realistic: it will take time to negotiate an orderly transition, so we need to get on with it. If a trade deal is not on offer, which seems to be the case, then we are wasting time shlily-shallying about the possibility of one.
Don't blame me: I voted Remain. All this was in the range of scenarios which I thought likely (although I must confess I wasn't expecting the EU to be quite as unreasonable as they are proving). The priority now needs to be damage limitation, and the biggest danger we must avoid is chaos. Hence my suggestion that our objectives should be concentrated on that.
The hard Brexiteers wanted creative destruction and that's what they're going to get.
If you’d like to avoid that dystopian Corbyn disaster that you portray, I don’t think learning from the GE would be a bad bet. Of course, if you cry wolf on nearly every leftie going, don’t be surprised when many don’t listen your message at a GE.
On that side, yes of course you are right that we should learn from the GE. There are lots of lessons, which are being learnt, most notably not to completely screw the campaign or to announce half-baked proposals on hugely controversial and emotive issues. Another lesson, which I very much hope will be re-learnt, is not to let Labour get away with the utter economic nonsense they were peddling, or to portray Corbyn as something he is not. The issue wasn't that the Tories attacked Corbyn too much, but that they never really got round to attacking him, McDonnell and their policies at all. We kept waiting for the equivalent of the 'Tax Bombshell' posters to appear; astonishingly, they never did.
And in any event the Tories had shot their own economic credibility post-referendum, and produced a manifesto with fewer numbers than Labour's.The line of attack RN suggests would probably have proved counterproductive.
I respect that a lot more than the "For some reason I thought Trump was only doing an impression of an idiot throughout the campaign, now I wish I'd voted Clinton" crowd.
I'm not convinced that invincible ignorance is deserving of respect.
I respect that a lot more than the "For some reason I thought Trump was only doing an impression of an idiot throughout the campaign, now I wish I'd voted Clinton" crowd.
Looking at Michael Barnier's speech, we don't seem to be making any progress at all. The EU shows no sign of wanting a trade deal. That being so, I think we should forget about a trade deal and instead concentrate on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, with as little disruption as possible.
I wonder if the advancement of resolution of the Irish border question to phase 1 is because the EU thinks that too and are looking for an excuse?
It was always in phase 1.
Charles Grant has always had a peculiar blindspot over its importance in the negotiations. He spent months blithely asserting that we'd have a hard border just because it's a logical consequence of everything else without considering the implications of that logical deduction on his starting assumptions.
So he’s lying when he says senior EU bods thought it was phase 2?
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
Much as it might be transparently obvious to you and me the folly of their stated policies, you and I both have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is a large constituency of people who want a bigger state.
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
A bigger state requires higher tax, higher inheritance tax, higher corporation tax than the Tories proposed, a higher top rate of income tax etc all of which were in the Labour manifesto and the Tories did little to capitalise on in part because of the dementia tax own goal.
I respect that a lot more than the "For some reason I thought Trump was only doing an impression of an idiot throughout the campaign, now I wish I'd voted Clinton" crowd.
He's going to pivot to the centre any moment now.
Only if and probably when the Democrats win the House of Representatives next year
Looking at Michael Barnier's speech, we don't seem to be making any progress at all. The EU shows no sign of wanting a trade deal. That being so, I think we should forget about a trade deal and instead concentrate on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, with as little disruption as possible.
I wonder if the advancement of resolution of the Irish border question to phase 1 is because the EU thinks that too and are looking for an excuse?
It was always in phase 1.
Charles Grant has always had a peculiar blindspot over its importance in the negotiations. He spent months blithely asserting that we'd have a hard border just because it's a logical consequence of everything else without considering the implications of that logical deduction on his starting assumptions.
So he’s lying when he says senior EU bods thought it was phase 2?
It's possible to hear what you want to hear without lying.
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
Much as it might be transparently obvious to you and me the folly of their stated policies, you and I both have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is a large constituency of people who want a bigger state.
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
A bigger state requires higher tax, higher inheritance tax, higher corporation tax than the Tories proposed, a higher top rate of income tax etc all of which were in the Labour manifesto and the Tories did little to capitalise on in part because of the dementia tax own goal.
Looking at Michael Barnier's speech, we don't seem to be making any progress at all. The EU shows no sign of wanting a trade deal. That being so, I think we should forget about a trade deal and instead concentrate on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, with as little disruption as possible.
I wonder if the advancement of resolution of the Irish border question to phase 1 is because the EU thinks that too and are looking for an excuse?
It was always in phase 1.
Charles Grant has always had a peculiar blindspot over its importance in the negotiations. He spent months blithely asserting that we'd have a hard border just because it's a logical consequence of everything else without considering the implications of that logical deduction on his starting assumptions.
So he’s lying when he says senior EU bods thought it was phase 2?
It's possible to hear what you want to hear without lying.
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
Much as it might be transparently obvious to you and me the folly of their stated policies, you and I both have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is a large constituency of people who want a bigger state.
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
Including the tory client vote. cf; reaction to the dementia tax.
Their ideology is big state, combined with low/no taxes for them.
They're not conservatives. They demand the state taxes kids who won't receive an inheritance in order to protect their own kids inheritances. And the tory party panders to this crap.
When things got serious, almost nobody of any significance in the tory party was prepared to call out this client vote crap, (IIRC, Damien Green was the notable exception) forcing her into a disastrous u-turn.
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
Much as it might be transparently obvious to you and me the folly of their stated policies, you and I both have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is a large constituency of people who want a bigger state.
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
A bigger state requires higher tax, higher inheritance tax, higher corporation tax than the Tories proposed, a higher top rate of income tax etc all of which were in the Labour manifesto and the Tories did little to capitalise on in part because of the dementia tax own goal.
There are people who want all that.
I'm all for a bigger state too
But invading France went out of fashion a while ago
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
Much as it might be transparently obvious to you and me the folly of their stated policies, you and I both have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is a large constituency of people who want a bigger state.
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
A bigger state requires higher tax, higher inheritance tax, higher corporation tax than the Tories proposed, a higher top rate of income tax etc all of which were in the Labour manifesto and the Tories did little to capitalise on in part because of the dementia tax own goal.
There are people who want all that.
I'm all for a bigger state too
But invading France went out of fashion a while ago
How about Ireland? The EU said they wanted a solution to the border question.
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
Much as it might be transparently obvious to you and me the folly of their stated policies, you and I both have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is a large constituency of people who want a bigger state.
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
Including the tory client vote. cf; reaction to the dementia tax.
Their ideology is big state, combined with low/no taxes for them.
They're not conservatives. They demand the state tax kids who won't receive an inheritance in order to protect their own kids inheritances. And the tory party panders to this bullsh*t.
Almost nobody of any significance in the tory party was prepared to call out this client vote b*llshit, (IIRC, Damien Green was the notable exception) forcing her into a disastrous u-turn.
Wrong. The very essence of conservatism has always been support for inherited wealth, the monarchy and the Church of England and the landed classes.
It was Liberals who supported free trade, capitalism and the merchant and industrial classes long before the Tories did.
Plus of course even without the dementia tax you have to use the value of your home to pay for residential care beyond £23k (which May would have sensibly raised to £100k in the one sensible part of the proposal) and pay inheritance tax on assets over £1 million even despite Osborne's IHT cut.
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
Much as it might be transparently obvious to you and me the folly of their stated policies, you and I both have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is a large constituency of people who want a bigger state.
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
Including the tory client vote. cf; reaction to the dementia tax.
Their ideology is big state, combined with low/no taxes for them.
They're not conservatives. They demand the state tax kids who won't receive an inheritance in order to protect their own kids inheritances. And the tory party panders to this crap.
When things got serious, almost nobody of any significance in the tory party was prepared to call out this client vote crap, (IIRC, Damien Green was the notable exception) forcing her into a disastrous u-turn.
Anyone can access FT articles as long as you do it via a Google Search, ie. by typing the title of the article into Google. They've got some sort of arrangement with Google and I think some other search engines as well.
You're a perfect example of John Bruton's comment: "It may be necessary for the British public to go through a moment of anger before coming to a point of self-realisation."
Poppycock. I'm just being realistic: it will take time to negotiate an orderly transition, so we need to get on with it. If a trade deal is not on offer, which seems to be the case, then we are wasting time shlily-shallying about the possibility of one.
Don't blame me: I voted Remain. All this was in the range of scenarios which I thought likely (although I must confess I wasn't expecting the EU to be quite as unreasonable as they are proving). The priority now needs to be damage limitation, and the biggest danger we must avoid is chaos. Hence my suggestion that our objectives should be concentrated on that.
My view is that the EU's unreasonableness is in large part a consequence of the UK government's unwillingness to show some balls in negotiations and I don't think I'm alone in that. They're exploiting our weakness. Interesting that you're likewise tired of the EU's shenanigans from a Remainer perspective. It's striking how opinion on the UK government's handling of the negotiations has shifted towards a position of dissatisfaction over the past 6 months. If we really are prepared to offer silly sums in order to let the EU continue to sell their goods to us, then that opinion will shift further. In the most recent polling, before the latest news of yet more financial concessions, only 1/3rd of Leavers and 1/9th of were still satisfied with the UK government's actions.
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
Much as it might be transparently obvious to you and me the folly of their stated policies, you and I both have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is a large constituency of people who want a bigger state.
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
A bigger state requires higher tax, higher inheritance tax, higher corporation tax than the Tories proposed, a higher top rate of income tax etc all of which were in the Labour manifesto and the Tories did little to capitalise on in part because of the dementia tax own goal.
There are people who want all that.
I'm all for a bigger state too
But invading France went out of fashion a while ago
How about Ireland? The EU said they wanted a solution to the border question.
Only if it means we can have an Irish UK PM, we should offer it to Gerry Adams
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
Much as it might be transparently obvious to you and me the folly of their stated policies, you and I both have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is a large constituency of people who want a bigger state.
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
A bigger state requires higher tax, higher inheritance tax, higher corporation tax than the Tories proposed, a higher top rate of income tax etc all of which were in the Labour manifesto and the Tories did little to capitalise on in part because of the dementia tax own goal.
There are people who want all that.
Yes and most of them would have voted for Kinnock in 1992 too as well as Corbyn in 2017.
Looking at Michael Barnier's speech, we don't seem to be making any progress at all. The EU shows no sign of wanting a trade deal. That being so, I think we should forget about a trade deal and instead concentrate on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, with as little disruption as possible.
Sadly it seems you’re right. They don’t want a trade deal, so we’ve got fifteen months to make the best of it as we move to WTO terms. Let’s not waste any more time watching the EU run the clock down.
The main point of HS2 for me was that you'd be able to get on a train in Edinburgh and get off in Paris. Because of the Euston mess up that won't happen. Thanks Camden.
There's no point whatsover to HS2. But if you think the main point was to allow someone else to get on a train in Edinburgh and get off in Paris, £120,000,000,000+ would be quite a lot to pay to deliver that.
It's about connecting European cities by high speed train.
I respect that a lot more than the "For some reason I thought Trump was only doing an impression of an idiot throughout the campaign, now I wish I'd voted Clinton" crowd.
He's going to pivot to the centre any moment now.
Only if and probably when the Democrats win the House of Representatives next year
I think you may have taken Alistair's post at face value when, if I read him correctly, he's spoofing the commentariat who've been wrongly predicting this for about 18 months.
Trump will not - ever - pivot to the centre, not least because on some scores he already sits there. Trump isn't particularly ideologically right-wing. What he is is a populist rabble-rouser and he certainly isn't going to stop being that when it's the main reason he was elected in the first place and only thinks of success in terms of dollars and ratings.
I respect that a lot more than the "For some reason I thought Trump was only doing an impression of an idiot throughout the campaign, now I wish I'd voted Clinton" crowd.
He's going to pivot to the centre any moment now.
Only if and probably when the Democrats win the House of Representatives next year
I think you may have taken Alistair's post at face value when, if I read him correctly, he's spoofing the commentariat who've been wrongly predicting this for about 18 months.
Trump will not - ever - pivot to the centre, not least because on some scores he already sits there. Trump isn't particularly ideologically right-wing. What he is is a populist rabble-rouser and he certainly isn't going to stop being that when it's the main reason he was elected in the first place and only thinks of success in terms of dollars and ratings.
No but he will cut deals with Pelosi where he has to
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
Much as it might be transparently obvious to you and me the folly of their stated policies, you and I both have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is a large constituency of people who want a bigger state.
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
A bigger state requires higher tax, higher inheritance tax, higher corporation tax than the Tories proposed, a higher top rate of income tax etc all of which were in the Labour manifesto and the Tories did little to capitalise on in part because of the dementia tax own goal.
There are people who want all that.
Yes and most of them would have voted for Kinnock in 1992 too as well as Corbyn in 2017.
Engage brain and it might occur to you that very many of them were too young to vote in 1992, and a fair few weren't even born?
" A Tory MP told a court he was left fearing for his safety when a protestor sent him abusive emails soon after the murder of Jo Cox. Kingsley Ezeugo, 48, turned up outside Hendon Town Hall shouting that Hendon MP Matthew Offord, 47, was a child molester and a racist. He also unfurled banners branding Mr Offord a paedophile and a member of the Ku Klux Klan at the MP’s constituency office in Bunns Lane. "
Seriously, what’s wrong with some people?
And we wonder why the number of good people putting themselves forward to be MPs is diminishing. I’m close to being in favour of all MPs having a policeman with them all day.
We're leaving, and the screaming and vitriol from those who think themselves superior is amusing. Pretentiousness often is.
Its not leaving that's the problem. Leaving the EU is half the Equation. Its what we do after the EU that's the problem. If the leave camp had a viable/sane/legal answer to some simple questions about how no deal would practically work, there might be less screaming.
Right now the screaming is increasingly from the industries who simply don't work under hard Brexit. I know that ideologues hate facts as they get in the way of rhetoric, but in not very long we get to find out who knows most about it - the people actually doing it for a living, or gobshites.
I've banged on about the risk of at best a big spike in food prices and at worst a big food shortage. Honda and GKN have warned what will happen to car and plane manufacturing. Even our own TSE about the financial sector. Yet we're all dismissed as 'screaming'. And yes, when it comes to knowledge about the industries we have spent our entire lives in, our factual real world knowledge is indeed superior to the non-factual gobshite "we're BRITAIN" opinions thrown against us.
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
Much as it might be transparently obvious to you and me the folly of their stated policies, you and I both have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is a large constituency of people who want a bigger state.
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
A bigger state requires higher tax, higher inheritance tax, higher corporation tax than the Tories proposed, a higher top rate of income tax etc all of which were in the Labour manifesto and the Tories did little to capitalise on in part because of the dementia tax own goal.
There are people who want all that.
Yes and most of them would have voted for Kinnock in 1992 too as well as Corbyn in 2017.
Engage brain and it might occur to you that very many of them were too young to vote in 1992, and a fair few weren't even born?
Anyone over 43 could have voted in 1992 and anybody under 43 who voted for Corbyn would certainly have voted for Kinnock had they been able to vote in 1992.
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
Much as it might be transparently obvious to you and me the folly of their stated policies, you and I both have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is a large constituency of people who want a bigger state.
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
A bigger state requires higher tax, higher inheritance tax, higher corporation tax than the Tories proposed, a higher top rate of income tax etc all of which were in the Labour manifesto and the Tories did little to capitalise on in part because of the dementia tax own goal.
There are people who want all that.
Yes and most of them would have voted for Kinnock in 1992 too as well as Corbyn in 2017.
Engage brain and it might occur to you that very many of them were too young to vote in 1992, and a fair few weren't even born?
Anyone over 43 could have voted in 1992 and anybody under 43 who voted for Corbyn would certainly have voted for Kinnock had they been able to vote in 1992.
The serious point here is that many Tories, reliant as they are upon older voters and even older members, see politics through the prism of what is, to many younger people, ancient history.
I respect that a lot more than the "For some reason I thought Trump was only doing an impression of an idiot throughout the campaign, now I wish I'd voted Clinton" crowd.
He's going to pivot to the centre any moment now.
Only if and probably when the Democrats win the House of Representatives next year
I think you may have taken Alistair's post at face value when, if I read him correctly, he's spoofing the commentariat who've been wrongly predicting this for about 18 months.
Trump will not - ever - pivot to the centre, not least because on some scores he already sits there. Trump isn't particularly ideologically right-wing. What he is is a populist rabble-rouser and he certainly isn't going to stop being that when it's the main reason he was elected in the first place and only thinks of success in terms of dollars and ratings.
No but he will cut deals with Pelosi where he has to
Yes, he will - no doubt much to the surprise of some.
I respect that a lot more than the "For some reason I thought Trump was only doing an impression of an idiot throughout the campaign, now I wish I'd voted Clinton" crowd.
He's going to pivot to the centre any moment now.
Only if and probably when the Democrats win the House of Representatives next year
I think you may have taken Alistair's post at face value when, if I read him correctly, he's spoofing the commentariat who've been wrongly predicting this for about 18 months.
Trump will not - ever - pivot to the centre, not least because on some scores he already sits there. Trump isn't particularly ideologically right-wing. What he is is a populist rabble-rouser and he certainly isn't going to stop being that when it's the main reason he was elected in the first place and only thinks of success in terms of dollars and ratings.
No but he will cut deals with Pelosi where he has to
Yes, he will - no doubt much to the surprise of some.
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
Much as it might be transparently obvious to you and me the folly of their stated policies, you and I both have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is a large constituency of people who want a bigger state.
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
A bigger state requires higher tax, higher inheritance tax, higher corporation tax than the Tories proposed, a higher top rate of income tax etc all of which were in the Labour manifesto and the Tories did little to capitalise on in part because of the dementia tax own goal.
There are people who want all that.
Yes and most of them would have voted for Kinnock in 1992 too as well as Corbyn in 2017.
Engage brain and it might occur to you that very many of them were too young to vote in 1992, and a fair few weren't even born?
Anyone over 43 could have voted in 1992 and anybody under 43 who voted for Corbyn would certainly have voted for Kinnock had they been able to vote in 1992.
The serious point here is that many Tories, reliant as they are upon older voters and even older members, see politics through the prism of what is, to many younger people, ancient history.
Yes and it is precisely because Old Labour governments and significantly higher taxes and nationalised industries and frequent strikes have never really been experienced by anyone over 50 so many voted for Corbyn.
We're leaving, and the screaming and vitriol from those who think themselves superior is amusing. Pretentiousness often is.
Its not leaving that's the problem. Leaving the EU is half the Equation. Its what we do after the EU that's the problem. If the leave camp had a viable/sane/legal answer to some simple questions about how no deal would practically work, there might be less screaming.
Right now the screaming is increasingly from the industries who simply don't work under hard Brexit. I know that ideologues hate facts as they get in the way of rhetoric, but in not very long we get to find out who knows most about it - the people actually doing it for a living, or gobshites.
I've banged on about the risk of at best a big spike in food prices and at worst a big food shortage. Honda and GKN have warned what will happen to car and plane manufacturing. Even our own TSE about the financial sector. Yet we're all dismissed as 'screaming'. And yes, when it comes to knowledge about the industries we have spent our entire lives in, our factual real world knowledge is indeed superior to the non-factual gobshite "we're BRITAIN" opinions thrown against us.
probably it's related to 2 years of remainers screaming Armageddon and life going on as normal.
of course you'll be right on something but crying wolf at everything makes it difficult to recognise what that will be.
I respect that a lot more than the "For some reason I thought Trump was only doing an impression of an idiot throughout the campaign, now I wish I'd voted Clinton" crowd.
He's going to pivot to the centre any moment now.
Only if and probably when the Democrats win the House of Representatives next year
I think you may have taken Alistair's post at face value when, if I read him correctly, he's spoofing the commentariat who've been wrongly predicting this for about 18 months.
Trump will not - ever - pivot to the centre, not least because on some scores he already sits there. Trump isn't particularly ideologically right-wing. What he is is a populist rabble-rouser and he certainly isn't going to stop being that when it's the main reason he was elected in the first place and only thinks of success in terms of dollars and ratings.
To be honest HYUFD was one of the people I was spoofing given they've been predicting a Trump pivot since about midway through the primaries.
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
Much as it might be transparently obvious to you and me the folly of their stated policies, you and I both have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is a large constituency of people who want a bigger state.
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
A bigger state requires higher tax, higher inheritance tax, higher corporation tax than the Tories proposed, a higher top rate of income tax etc all of which were in the Labour manifesto and the Tories did little to capitalise on in part because of the dementia tax own goal.
There are people who want all that.
Yes and most of them would have voted for Kinnock in 1992 too as well as Corbyn in 2017.
Engage brain and it might occur to you that very many of them were too young to vote in 1992, and a fair few weren't even born?
Quite a few younger people "would have" voted for Kinnock, had they been old enough or even born. "Would have" isn't "did". The point is, even with all the supposed winds of change in his sails, Kinnock was still defeated.
Quite a few people - myself included - think a Corbyn victory looks nailed on at the next GE. But if so, it will more than likely be due to Conservatives abstaining than switching allegiances to Labour, as was the case in 1997.
But Corbyn is a very hard one to abstain against. Much more so than Kinnock. And certainly more so than Blair.
I don't like May or agree with her authoritarian instincts and would far rather see a more socially-and-economically-liberal PM but I still dragged myself down to a polling booth (and indeed donated heavily to the Conservative Party) at the last GE, so great is my fear of Corbyn.
I suspect that will be doubly so for a lot of people now he looks like he might actually have a chance of getting in. GE2017 was a "free hit" for a lot of people to bash the government. That won't be the case next time round.
Looking at Michael Barnier's speech, we don't seem to be making any progress at all. The EU shows no sign of wanting a trade deal. That being so, I think we should forget about a trade deal and instead concentrate on negotiating an orderly transition to WTO terms, with as little disruption as possible.
As Michel Barnier himself notes, he has his mandate and the parameters are set for him.
As I have said for a long time, neither side seems interested in making the concessions necessary to get the deal that both of them profess to want.
Barnier's mandate is set for him but there are ways of interpreting that. It's all very well saying that the UK must provide 'greater clarity' on X (for which, read 'concessions'), but he could equally have taken a message back to the Council saying 'I don't think it will be easy or perhaps even possible to get a deal here and the EU should consider a more flexible approach if it wants one'. That isn't to dictate policy but it is to use the expertise of his position to help those who do make the decision to make the best one they can. Someone genuinely interested in a deal would be exploring options beyond his mandate if he thought it would help, even if this was done informally and through deniable sources.
" A Tory MP told a court he was left fearing for his safety when a protestor sent him abusive emails soon after the murder of Jo Cox. Kingsley Ezeugo, 48, turned up outside Hendon Town Hall shouting that Hendon MP Matthew Offord, 47, was a child molester and a racist. He also unfurled banners branding Mr Offord a paedophile and a member of the Ku Klux Klan at the MP’s constituency office in Bunns Lane. "
Seriously, what’s wrong with some people?
And we wonder why the number of good people putting themselves forward to be MPs is diminishing. I’m close to being in favour of all MPs having a policeman with them all day.
We're leaving, and the screaming and vitriol from those who think themselves superior is amusing. Pretentiousness often is.
Its not leaving that's the problem. Leaving the EU is half the Equation. Its what we do after the EU that's the problem. If the leave camp had a viable/sane/legal answer to some simple questions about how no deal would practically work, there might be less screaming.
Right now the screaming is increasingly from the industries who simply don't work under hard Brexit. I know that ideologues hate facts as they get in the way of rhetoric, but in not very long we get to find out who knows most about it - the people actually doing it for a living, or gobshites.
I've banged on about the risk of at best a big spike in food prices and at worst a big food shortage. Honda and GKN have warned what will happen to car and plane manufacturing. Even our own TSE about the financial sector. Yet we're all dismissed as 'screaming'. And yes, when it comes to knowledge about the industries we have spent our entire lives in, our factual real world knowledge is indeed superior to the non-factual gobshite "we're BRITAIN" opinions thrown against us.
probably it's related to 2 years of remainers screaming Armageddon and life going on as normal.
of course you'll be right on something but crying wolf at everything makes it difficult to recognise what that will be.
Like some Cons foreseeing disaster with the advent of each new Lab leader, you mean?
The serious point here is that many Tories, reliant as they are upon older voters and even older members, see politics through the prism of what is, to many younger people, ancient history.
Yes and it is precisely because Old Labour governments and significantly higher taxes and nationalised industries and frequent strikes have never really been experienced by anyone over 50 so many voted for Corbyn.
Most of the Labour vote now is voting on their lot now which is bad and getting worse. What happened decades ago is for some reason less important to them than what is happening now, nor do they accept that because something happened before it will do again.
We're leaving, and the screaming and vitriol from those who think themselves superior is amusing. Pretentiousness often is.
Its not leaving that's the problem. Leaving the EU is half the Equation. Its what we do after the EU that's the problem. If the leave camp had a viable/sane/legal answer to some simple questions about how no deal would practically work, there might be less screaming.
Right now the screaming is increasingly from the industries who simply don't work under hard Brexit. I know that ideologues hate facts as they get in the way of rhetoric, but in not very long we get to find out who knows most about it - the people actually doing it for a living, or gobshites.
I've banged on about the risk of at best a big spike in food prices and at worst a big food shortage. Honda and GKN have warned what will happen to car and plane manufacturing. Even our own TSE about the financial sector. Yet we're all dismissed as 'screaming'. And yes, when it comes to knowledge about the industries we have spent our entire lives in, our factual real world knowledge is indeed superior to the non-factual gobshite "we're BRITAIN" opinions thrown against us.
probably it's related to 2 years of remainers screaming Armageddon and life going on as normal.
of course you'll be right on something but crying wolf at everything makes it difficult to recognise what that will be.
Like some Cons foreseeing disaster with the advent of each new Lab leader, you mean?
We're leaving, and the screaming and vitriol from those who think themselves superior is amusing. Pretentiousness often is.
Its not leaving that's the problem. Leaving the EU is half the Equation. Its what we do after the EU that's the problem. If the leave camp had a viable/sane/legal answer to some simple questions about how no deal would practically work, there might be less screaming.
Right now the screaming is increasingly from the industries who simply don't work under hard Brexit. I know that ideologues hate facts as they get in the way of rhetoric, but in not very long we get to find out who knows most about it - the people actually doing it for a living, or gobshites.
I've banged on about the risk of at best a big spike in food prices and at worst a big food shortage. Honda and GKN have warned what will happen to car and plane manufacturing. Even our own TSE about the financial sector. Yet we're all dismissed as 'screaming'. And yes, when it comes to knowledge about the industries we have spent our entire lives in, our factual real world knowledge is indeed superior to the non-factual gobshite "we're BRITAIN" opinions thrown against us.
probably it's related to 2 years of remainers screaming Armageddon and life going on as normal.
of course you'll be right on something but crying wolf at everything makes it difficult to recognise what that will be.
Like some Cons foreseeing disaster with the advent of each new Lab leader, you mean?
quite, or like Trump causing WW3 within a month or any other piece of scaremongering
I respect that a lot more than the "For some reason I thought Trump was only doing an impression of an idiot throughout the campaign, now I wish I'd voted Clinton" crowd.
He's going to pivot to the centre any moment now.
Only if and probably when the Democrats win the House of Representatives next year
I think you may have taken Alistair's post at face value when, if I read him correctly, he's spoofing the commentariat who've been wrongly predicting this for about 18 months.
Trump will not - ever - pivot to the centre, not least because on some scores he already sits there. Trump isn't particularly ideologically right-wing. What he is is a populist rabble-rouser and he certainly isn't going to stop being that when it's the main reason he was elected in the first place and only thinks of success in terms of dollars and ratings.
To be honest HYUFD was one of the people I was spoofing given they've been predicting a Trump pivot since about midway through the primaries.
On some issues like healthcare Trump has already pivoted, certainly away from the most laissez-faire wing if conservatism.
Much as it might be transparently obvious to you and me the folly of their stated policies, you and I both have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is a large constituency of people who want a bigger state.
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
A bigger state requires higher tax, higher inheritance tax, higher corporation tax than the Tories proposed, a higher top rate of income tax etc all of which were in the Labour manifesto and the Tories did little to capitalise on in part because of the dementia tax own goal.
There are people who want all that.
Yes and most of them would have voted for Kinnock in 1992 too as well as Corbyn in 2017.
Engage brain and it might occur to you that very many of them were too young to vote in 1992, and a fair few weren't even born?
Quite a few younger people "would have" voted for Kinnock, had they been old enough or even born. "Would have" isn't "did". The point is, even with all the supposed winds of change in his sails, Kinnock was still defeated.
Quite a few people - myself included - think a Corbyn victory looks nailed on at the next GE. But if so, it will more than likely be due to Conservatives abstaining than switching allegiances to Labour, as was the case in 1997.
But Corbyn is a very hard one to abstain against. Much more so than Kinnock. And certainly more so than Blair.
I don't like May or agree with her authoritarian instincts and would far rather see a more socially-and-economically-liberal PM but I still dragged myself down to a polling booth (and indeed donated heavily to the Conservative Party) at the last GE, so great is my fear of Corbyn.
I suspect that will be doubly so for a lot of people now he looks like he might actually have a chance of getting in. GE2017 was a "free hit" for a lot of people to bash the government. That won't be the case next time round.
Agree completely. The next GE will have a huge turnout, there’s no way the lapsed Tories will abstain if they think there’s a serious chance of the ‘70s repeated - complete with general strikes, power cuts, the dead unburied and the union barons holding the country to hostage as they’ve done on Southern rail for the last year.
Not with sufficient vigour for anyone to notice. In addition, incredibly, they kept missing media opportunities to rebut McDonnell's lunacies (or cynicism, take your pick); in some cases, they didn't put up anyone to be interviewed on the Today programme, for example. I have never seen anything like it in any election campaign.
Much as it might be transparently obvious to you and me the folly of their stated policies, you and I both have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there is a large constituency of people who want a bigger state.
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
A bigger state requires higher tax, higher inheritance tax, higher corporation tax than the Tories proposed, a higher top rate of income tax etc all of which were in the Labour manifesto and the Tories did little to capitalise on in part because of the dementia tax own goal.
There are people who want all that.
Yes and most of them would have voted for Kinnock in 1992 too as well as Corbyn in 2017.
Engage brain and it might occur to you that very many of them were too young to vote in 1992, and a fair few weren't even born?
Anyone over 43 could have voted in 1992 and anybody under 43 who voted for Corbyn would certainly have voted for Kinnock had they been able to vote in 1992.
The serious point here is that many Tories, reliant as they are upon older voters and even older members, see politics through the prism of what is, to many younger people, ancient history.
Yes and it is precisely because Old Labour governments and significantly higher taxes and nationalised industries and frequent strikes have never really been experienced by anyone under 50 so many voted for Corbyn.
You have to be 38 to have even been born in 1979, 48 to have been 10 in 1979, 56 to have been 18 in 1979.
A bigger state requires higher taxia tax own goal.
There are people who want all that.
Yes and most of them would have voted for Kinnock in 1992 too as well as Corbyn in 2017.
Engage brain and it might occur to you that very many of them were too young to vote in 1992, and a fair few weren't even born?
Quite a few younger people "would have" voted for Kinnock, had they been old enough or even born. "Would have" isn't "did". The point is, even with all the supposed winds of change in his sails, Kinnock was still defeated.
Quite a few people - myself included - think a Corbyn victory looks nailed on at the next GE. But if so, it will more than likely be due to Conservatives abstaining than switching allegiances to Labour, as was the case in 1997.
But Corbyn is a very hard one to abstain against. Much more so than Kinnock. And certainly more so than Blair.
I don't like May or agree with her authoritarian instincts and would far rather see a more socially-and-economically-liberal PM but I still dragged myself down to a polling booth (and indeed donated heavily to the Conservative Party) at the last GE, so great is my fear of Corbyn.
I suspect that will be doubly so for a lot of people now he looks like he might actually have a chance of getting in. GE2017 was a "free hit" for a lot of people to bash the government. That won't be the case next time round.
Agree completely. The next GE will have a huge turnout, there’s no way the lapsed Tories will abstain if they think there’s a serious chance of the ‘70s repeated - complete with general strikes, power cuts, the dead unburied and the union barons holding the country to hostage as they’ve done on Southern rail for the last year.
This is of course the complacent thinking that handed Jezza an unexpected result last GE. It is lazy and doesn't account for the no doubt far more nuanced and well thought out campaign that Lab will run next time round. It is a static view and close to the one, no doubt, held by TMay when she was on the highways and byways with Philip, and yet one that didn't change as it became obvious events were changing around her.
The vast majority of people in the City are decent, hardworking, sensible.
Equally, many City types voted Remain because, like most other Londoners, they live in a fully integrated society where it is not a big deal to be, say, the only WASP on the Central Line coming in to work. Most I'd wager didn't vote Remain in order to preserve their (hard-fought) privilege, if that's what you want to call being in a fiercely competitive industry, but more likely because they see how the success of the City feeds through to any number of subsidiary and contingent benefits. From City firms "adopting" local schools, to the overall tax take.
The fact that plenty of people in the City are decent, hardworking and sensible is irrelevant. I'm afraid that I am more cynical than you about pay. Pay is as much about luck as it is about application. Plenty of people who work extraordinarily hard, even harder than City folk, don't get paid anything like as much simply because we, as a society, don't value their contribution.
I accept that I have a particular perspective. But when in a little over a decade I have dealt with over 5000 investigations - and that is at one institution - and that is without taking into account my experience at a number of other institutions in the previous two decades then I view with raised eyebrows claims that the City is basically full of good people. Being good yourself is not good enough if you turn a blind eye to what others do and to the overall environment and culture you inhabit. The overall behaviour of the City was a disgrace and far too few of those decent people did enough to stop it or to speak up about it. It has cost the industry, many of the good people in it and the country a great deal.
Of course, it is true to say that the tax take pays for a lot of worthwhile things but that can too often feed into a narrative of "you can't/shouldn't touch us because of all the money we bring in". That feels a little too like blackmail to me and is not the long-term basis on which an industry which depends above all on trust and the implicit support of government can survive and prosper.
People in London voted largely for Remain because it made both economic and commercial sense to do so and because they were probably less phased than other parts of the country by FoM. But too many of them were in a bubble about how other parts of the country felt about a settlement which seemed to ignore them or their concerns. The fact that our political and economic system has been so London-centric in recent years has not served us well.
The vast majority of people in the City are decent, hardworking, sensible.
Equally, many City types voted Remain because, like most other Londoners, they live in a fully integrated society where it is not a big deal to be, say, the only WASP on the Central Line coming in to work. Most I'd wager didn't vote Remain in order to preserve their (hard-fought) privilege, if that's what you want to call being in a fiercely competitive industry, but more likely because they see how the success of the City feeds through to any number of subsidiary and contingent benefits. From City firms "adopting" local schools, to the overall tax take.
The fact that plenty of people in the City are decent, hardworking and sensible is irrelevant. I'm afraid that I am more cynical than you about pay. Pay is as much about luck as it is about application. Plenty of people who work extraordinarily hard, even harder than City folk, don't get paid anything like as much simply because we, as a society, don't value their contribution.
I accept that I have a particular perspective. But when in a little over a decade I have dealt with over 5000 investigations - and that is at one institution - and that is without taking into account my experience at a number of other institutions in the previous two decades then I view with raised eyebrows claims that the City is basically full of good people. Being good yourself is not good enough if you turn a blind eye to what others do and to the overall environment and culture you inhabit. The overall behaviour of the City was a disgrace and far too few of those decent people did enough to stop it or to speak up about it. It has cost the industry, many of the good people in it and the country a great deal.
Of course, it is true to say that the tax take pays for a lot of worthwhile things but that can too often feed into a narrative of "you can't/shouldn't touch us because of all the money we bring in". That feels a little too like blackmail to me and is not the long-term basis on which an industry which depends above all on trust and the implicit support of government can survive and prosper.
People in London voted largely for Remain because it made both economic and commercial sense to do so and because they were probably less phased than other parts of the country by FoM. But too many of them were in a bubble about how other parts of the country felt about a settlement which seemed to ignore them or their concerns. The fact that our political and economic system has been so London-centric in recent years has not served us well.
The serious point here is that many Tories, reliant as they are upon older voters and even older members, see politics through the prism of what is, to many younger people, ancient history.
Yes and it is precisely because Old Labour governments and significantly higher taxes and nationalised industries and frequent strikes have never really been experienced by anyone over 50 so many voted for Corbyn.
Most of the Labour vote now is voting on their lot now which is bad and getting worse. What happened decades ago is for some reason less important to them than what is happening now, nor do they accept that because something happened before it will do again.
We may well need to experience an old Labour government again to get the message through to the under 50s sadly, though hopefully at least without a Corbyn majority.
Remember no Labour government before Blair won a 3rd term.
A bigger state requires higher taxia tax own goal.
There are people who want all that.
Yes and most of them would have voted for Kinnock in 1992 too as well as Corbyn in 2017.
Engage brain and it might occur to you that very many of them were too young to vote in 1992, and a fair few weren't even born?
Quite a few younger people "would have" voted for Kinnock, had they been old enough or even born. "Would have" isn't "did". The point is, even with all the supposed winds of change in his sails, Kinnock was still defeated.
Quite a few people - myself included - think a Corbyn victory looks nailed on at the next GE. But if so, it will more than likely be due to Conservatives abstaining than switching allegiances to Labour, as was the case in 1997.
But Corbyn is a very hard one to abstain against. Much more so than Kinnock. And certainly more so than Blair.
I don't like May or agree with her authoritarian instincts and would far rather see a more socially-and-economically-liberal PM but I still dragged myself down to a polling booth (and indeed donated heavily to the Conservative Party) at the last GE, so great is my fear of Corbyn.
I suspect that will be doubly so for a lot of people now he looks like he might actually have a chance of getting in. GE2017 was a "free hit" for a lot of people to bash the government. That won't be the case next time round.
Agree completely. The next GE will have a huge turnout, there’s no way the lapsed Tories will abstain if they think there’s a serious chance of the ‘70s repeated - complete with general strikes, power cuts, the dead unburied and the union barons holding the country to hostage as they’ve done on Southern rail for the last year.
This is of course the complacent thinking that handed Jezza an unexpected result last GE. It is lazy and doesn't account for the no doubt far more nuanced and well thought out campaign that Lab will run next time round. It is a static view and close to the one, no doubt, held by TMay when she was on the highways and byways with Philip, and yet one that didn't change as it became obvious events were changing around her.
A lot of Conservatives are so confident that they are always right in everything they say, that they still can’t get over the fact a lot of their predictions about GE 2017 turned out to be wrong.
So the penalty shootout isn’t happening, and we move to the replay.
Problem is that there's no guarantee the reply will be any more decisive. The recent polling (last 5 polls, all different companies) has, to the nearest half-point (changes on the GE):
CDU 31 (-2) SPD 20.5 (n/c) AfD 12.5 (n/c) FDP 10.5 (n/c) Grune 10.5 (+1.5) Linke 9.5 (+0.5)
Again, once AfD are excluded, then the CDU/CSU becomes an essential component, which in turn means Linke cannot join the government, and so either the SPD (possibly with another), or both the Greens and FPD must - if a government is to be formed.
Looks like panic in Germany with President telling all parties they have a duty to try to form a government in the near future saying neighbouring countries will be alarmed if German politicians do not resolve the deadlock
The serious point here is that many Tories, reliant as they are upon older voters and even older members, see politics through the prism of what is, to many younger people, ancient history.
Yes and it is precisely because Old Labour governments and significantly higher taxes and nationalised industries and frequent strikes have never really been experienced by anyone over 50 so many voted for Corbyn.
Most of the Labour vote now is voting on their lot now which is bad and getting worse. What happened decades ago is for some reason less important to them than what is happening now, nor do they accept that because something happened before it will do again.
We may well need to experience an old Labour government again to get the message through to the under 50s sadly, though hopefully at least without a Corbyn majority.
Remember no Labour government before Blair won a 3rd term.
Before Blair, no Labour government had ever won two consecutive full terms, never mind three.
I respect that a lot more than the "For some reason I thought Trump was only doing an impression of an idiot throughout the campaign, now I wish I'd voted Clinton" crowd.
He's going to pivot to the centre any moment now.
Only if and probably when the Democrats win the House of Representatives next year
I think you may have taken Alistair's post at face value when, if I read him correctly, he's spoofing the commentariat who've been wrongly predicting this for about 18 months.
Trump will not - ever - pivot to the centre, not least because on some scores he already sits there. Trump isn't particularly ideologically right-wing. What he is is a populist rabble-rouser and he certainly isn't going to stop being that when it's the main reason he was elected in the first place and only thinks of success in terms of dollars and ratings.
On some scores, maybe. But look at his appointments, with administrative and judicial, and he's nowhere even close to the centre. And it leaves him with little or no ability to pivot - not least because that would involve a hit to his vanity, which comes before all else.
The main point of HS2 for me was that you'd be able to get on a train in Edinburgh and get off in Paris. Because of the Euston mess up that won't happen. Thanks Camden.
There's no point whatsover to HS2. But if you think the main point was to allow someone else to get on a train in Edinburgh and get off in Paris, £120,000,000,000+ would be quite a lot to pay to deliver that.
It's about connecting European cities by high speed train.
You can connect them all you like, but you can't force people to go all the way by high speed train when it's still cheaper, faster and more convenient to go the way they do now.
Once HS2 reaches Birmingham I'll certainly go to Paris by train using the Gare du Nord. However, that's no different to now, using Virgin Trains from Wolverhampton to Birmingham International and the short integrated cable powered link to Birmingham Airport, then CDG to Gard du Nord. It will still be faster, cheaper and more convenient.
The serious point here is that many Tories, reliant as they are upon older voters and even older members, see politics through the prism of what is, to many younger people, ancient history.
Yes and it is precisely because Old Labour governments and significantly higher taxes and nationalised industries and frequent strikes have never really been experienced by anyone over 50 so many voted for Corbyn.
Most of the Labour vote now is voting on their lot now which is bad and getting worse. What happened decades ago is for some reason less important to them than what is happening now, nor do they accept that because something happened before it will do again.
We may well need to experience an old Labour government again to get the message through to the under 50s sadly, though hopefully at least without a Corbyn majority.
Remember no Labour government before Blair won a 3rd term.
Before Blair, no Labour government had ever won two consecutive full terms, never mind three.
True, which makes the position of Tory leader of the opposition to a PM Corbyn potentially even more valuable a prize than next Tory leader and PM after May.
Comments
And I don't happen to think that most of the most egregious stuff would go through although there would be quite some leeway for us to ratchet up the deficit again, indeed as you are well aware, there is a serious body of academic opinion that advocates doing just that.
Where Cameron miscalculated was assuming he'd win. He mistook lack of opposition for indifference. There are several subjects which irked, but not enough to change votes at elections, especially when both parties tend to Europhilia, and the third party is even more so.
The Leave vote finally gave people a binary choice. The shock and hatred this unleashed in some Remainers was a combination of hubris and genuine hatred of some who hold different opinions. How dare they win? My opinions are obviously worth far more.
I'm off to Liverpool later for a beer with some other old gits. There's no ill to or from the elderly Remainers. We think the other side is wrong, as they do, but it's not important enough to cause arguments.
We're leaving, and the screaming and vitriol from those who think themselves superior is amusing. Pretentiousness often is.
RoI is in for some post Brexit pain - small price to pay for EU membership though eh ?
You are right she wanted the final two to be IDS v Portillo and would have endorsed Portillo against Clarke but not against IDS.
(For the record I also attended a reception with Baroness Thatcher in 2001 as a student organised by the Young Democrats Union).
https://twitter.com/davieclegg/status/932590530642563072
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/protestors-abuse-left-tory-mp-fearing-safety/
" A Tory MP told a court he was left fearing for his safety when a protestor sent him abusive emails soon after the murder of Jo Cox. Kingsley Ezeugo, 48, turned up outside Hendon Town Hall shouting that Hendon MP Matthew Offord, 47, was a child molester and a racist. He also unfurled banners branding Mr Offord a paedophile and a member of the Ku Klux Klan at the MP’s constituency office in Bunns Lane. "
As I have said for a long time, neither side seems interested in making the concessions necessary to get the deal that both of them profess to want.
Don't blame me: I voted Remain. All this was in the range of scenarios which I thought likely (although I must confess I wasn't expecting the EU to be quite as unreasonable as they are proving). The priority now needs to be damage limitation, and the biggest danger we must avoid is chaos. Hence my suggestion that our objectives should be concentrated on that.
The film Padmavati has sparked controversy over its alleged handling of the relationship between a Hindu queen and a Muslim ruler.
Suraj Pal Amu, a Bharatiya Janata Party leader from the northern state of Haryana, offered the bounty against actress Deepika Padukone and filmmaker Sanjay Leela Bhansali on Sunday.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5099415/Bollywood-film-faces-attacks-Hindu-groups.html#ixzz4yyZwqs6B
Charles Grant has always had a peculiar blindspot over its importance in the negotiations. He spent months blithely asserting that we'd have a hard border just because it's a logical consequence of everything else without considering the implications of that logical deduction on his starting assumptions.
Their ideology is big state, combined with low/no taxes for them.
They're not conservatives. They demand the state taxes kids who won't receive an inheritance in order to protect their own kids inheritances. And the tory party panders to this crap.
When things got serious, almost nobody of any significance in the tory party was prepared to call out this client vote crap, (IIRC, Damien Green was the notable exception) forcing her into a disastrous u-turn.
But invading France went out of fashion a while ago
It was Liberals who supported free trade, capitalism and the merchant and industrial classes long before the Tories did.
Plus of course even without the dementia tax you have to use the value of your home to pay for residential care beyond £23k (which May would have sensibly raised to £100k in the one sensible part of the proposal) and pay inheritance tax on assets over £1 million even despite Osborne's IHT cut.
its been steadily falling since the GE and last month was the first time more Germans expressed no confidence in her in op polls
Trump will not - ever - pivot to the centre, not least because on some scores he already sits there. Trump isn't particularly ideologically right-wing. What he is is a populist rabble-rouser and he certainly isn't going to stop being that when it's the main reason he was elected in the first place and only thinks of success in terms of dollars and ratings.
And we wonder why the number of good people putting themselves forward to be MPs is diminishing. I’m close to being in favour of all MPs having a policeman with them all day.
Right now the screaming is increasingly from the industries who simply don't work under hard Brexit. I know that ideologues hate facts as they get in the way of rhetoric, but in not very long we get to find out who knows most about it - the people actually doing it for a living, or gobshites.
I've banged on about the risk of at best a big spike in food prices and at worst a big food shortage. Honda and GKN have warned what will happen to car and plane manufacturing. Even our own TSE about the financial sector. Yet we're all dismissed as 'screaming'. And yes, when it comes to knowledge about the industries we have spent our entire lives in, our factual real world knowledge is indeed superior to the non-factual gobshite "we're BRITAIN" opinions thrown against us.
she is now weak and wounded with the CSU lining up to knife their leader and kill off Merkelism in doing so.
In her own party the CDU members smell blood and the succession planning will kick off soon
for those who wished to listen Ive been saying TMerkel is TMay with a six month time delay
https://twitter.com/jeremycliffe/status/932601213618663424
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/06/politics/trump-meeting-with-democrats-deal/index.html
That was the day I realised that the media will criticise Trump no matter what he does or doesn’t do.
of course you'll be right on something but crying wolf at everything makes it difficult to recognise what that will be.
Quite a few people - myself included - think a Corbyn victory looks nailed on at the next GE. But if so, it will more than likely be due to Conservatives abstaining than switching allegiances to Labour, as was the case in 1997.
But Corbyn is a very hard one to abstain against. Much more so than Kinnock. And certainly more so than Blair.
I don't like May or agree with her authoritarian instincts and would far rather see a more socially-and-economically-liberal PM but I still dragged myself down to a polling booth (and indeed donated heavily to the Conservative Party) at the last GE, so great is my fear of Corbyn.
I suspect that will be doubly so for a lot of people now he looks like he might actually have a chance of getting in. GE2017 was a "free hit" for a lot of people to bash the government. That won't be the case next time round.
Miliband - tick....
Corbyn - the pencil is still hovering
The fact that plenty of people in the City are decent, hardworking and sensible is irrelevant. I'm afraid that I am more cynical than you about pay. Pay is as much about luck as it is about application. Plenty of people who work extraordinarily hard, even harder than City folk, don't get paid anything like as much simply because we, as a society, don't value their contribution.
I accept that I have a particular perspective. But when in a little over a decade I have dealt with over 5000 investigations - and that is at one institution - and that is without taking into account my experience at a number of other institutions in the previous two decades then I view with raised eyebrows claims that the City is basically full of good people. Being good yourself is not good enough if you turn a blind eye to what others do and to the overall environment and culture you inhabit. The overall behaviour of the City was a disgrace and far too few of those decent people did enough to stop it or to speak up about it. It has cost the industry, many of the good people in it and the country a great deal.
Of course, it is true to say that the tax take pays for a lot of worthwhile things but that can too often feed into a narrative of "you can't/shouldn't touch us because of all the money we bring in". That feels a little too like blackmail to me and is not the long-term basis on which an industry which depends above all on trust and the implicit support of government can survive and prosper.
People in London voted largely for Remain because it made both economic and commercial sense to do so and because they were probably less phased than other parts of the country by FoM. But too many of them were in a bubble about how other parts of the country felt about a settlement which seemed to ignore them or their concerns. The fact that our political and economic system has been so London-centric in recent years has not served us well.
Remember no Labour government before Blair won a 3rd term.
CDU 31 (-2)
SPD 20.5 (n/c)
AfD 12.5 (n/c)
FDP 10.5 (n/c)
Grune 10.5 (+1.5)
Linke 9.5 (+0.5)
Again, once AfD are excluded, then the CDU/CSU becomes an essential component, which in turn means Linke cannot join the government, and so either the SPD (possibly with another), or both the Greens and FPD must - if a government is to be formed.
No version of Brexit is a coherent solution. That much should be obvious by now. QED
But look at his appointments, with administrative and judicial, and he's nowhere even close to the centre. And it leaves him with little or no ability to pivot - not least because that would involve a hit to his vanity, which comes before all else.
Once HS2 reaches Birmingham I'll certainly go to Paris by train using the Gare du Nord. However, that's no different to now, using Virgin Trains from Wolverhampton to Birmingham International and the short integrated cable powered link to Birmingham Airport, then CDG to Gard du Nord. It will still be faster, cheaper and more convenient.