Have no doubt the world had no clue even as the exit poll was read out. None. Zip. Sweet FA.
I remember some of the straw clutching as the early regular Labour holds came in, without the big rises that might seem to presuppose an exit poll level result for Labour. Then more results came in.
It's curious how certain posters are winding themselves up about peak Corbyn Nothing like a bit of self denial to stop you asking difficult questions.
We have no idea how Corbyn will play in years ahead. None.
The very same posters were debating the size of Tory majority on polling day.
Learn.
It's completely absurd to try to pretend that 'certain posters' were alone in debating the size of Tory majority on polling day, or to try (as some do) to claim that this was some delusion caused by Conservative hubris. The truth is that virtually everyone, from all parts of the political spectrum, thought that Theresa May would get a substantial majority. BMG, Labour's in-house pollsters, were amongst the most bullish on the Conservative lead.
Re the student debt write off, using anecdotes may not be so wise. The polling at the time showed that it didn’t actually affect young people’s support for Corbyn overall and most didn’t believe he had promised to write off student debt. This was well documented on here at the time as well, so not the best example to use.
I can’t believe more Tories aren’t alarmed by the fact that in a so called small c conservative country someone who they believe to be a Marxist is even polling 40%+.
Why do you say that? All the Tories I know, which is quite a lot, are absolutely horrified by the point you make.
I say that because of some of the posts on here, who don’t seem all that alarmed by it, and relatively relaxed that it’s all just a phase.
It's curious how certain posters are winding themselves up about peak Corbyn Nothing like a bit of self denial to stop you asking difficult questions.
We have no idea how Corbyn will play in years ahead. None.
The very same posters were debating the size of Tory majority on polling day.
Learn.
A whole bunch of people who were also predicting a Tory majority and discussing its size are now predicting how well Labour will do next time.
Learn.
(Being wrong last time doesn't mean being wrong this time for predicting a similar outcome, nor does doing a 180 guarantee being right this time)
Some people still think Blair is the Messiah.
Learn.
A lot of people think he's a very naughty boy. You're obsessed.
I'm not, I just think it is pretty rich that you've decided to become the all seeing anti-Tory eye, given your blind spot.
We all have them. Shouting 'Learn' from a pulpit is pretty silly.
Being a centre right Labour person gives one a wonderfully free and independent perspective on politics these days. Don't underestimate Corbyn is good advice. Take it or leave it.
Attlee nationalised not just rail and water and gas and electricity but iron and steel too and had a top tax rate Corbyn has not yet even contemplated even if he does want to raise tax on higher earners.
Economically Corbyn would be little different to Attlee and Wilson, complete with the strikes of the latter Wilson and Callaghan years (of course for all of Attlee's premiership and most of Wilson's we were outside the EEC too), on social policy similar to Wilson, where he does differ is on foreign policy and an opposition to nuclear weapons but he has promised not to impose his personal views there on the party. Of course Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam War so was no militarist either, though Attlee backed the US in Korea.
It's just been mentioned to me on twitter that the Kantar poll has an effective turnout for the 18-24 age range of 24% (it's only 19% if Won't Says are included), which hugely down-rates the VIs for that group. (I've checked and the observation is right).
That seems a laughably low turnout figure and, as such, not only would I be sceptical about the headline figures because of that one feature, I'd be sceptical about the whole poll.
It's a very good point David - Labour's chances of success next time hinge heavily on how successful they are at mobilising the under 25 vote. Based on last time, I'd expect them to be very successful.
I wouldn't. It was a one-off, post Sindyref, post-Brexit. Next time, voting will be down, again, and the young will be too stoned on meow-meow version 7 to notice the time of day.
Were you joining the many on here last time, taking the piss out of the young saying they would not get out of bed to vote ?
There can be a tendency for political geeks to over analyse things.
As well as the dementia tax and the dreadful campaign there was another key point about GE 2017 made by John Curtice:
Historically, early elections very often go wrong for the party that calls them.
A key, very simple, reason - people think "Why are you calling an early election?" Obvious answer: "Because something is about to go wrong". Result: people doubt the incumbent party.
Moving on to the next GE anything could happen but one non-political point to bear in mind:
Corbyn will have lost the element of surprise. Many were gobsmacked (positively) by his popular policies which thus attracted big support. Next time, the same policies may still be popular but they won't be a surprise and the Conservatives will be much better placed and prepared to attack them.
It's curious how certain posters are winding themselves up about peak Corbyn Nothing like a bit of self denial to stop you asking difficult questions.
We have no idea how Corbyn will play in years ahead. None.
The very same posters were debating the size of Tory majority on polling day.
Learn.
It's completely absurd to try to pretend that 'certain posters' were alone in debating the size of Tory majority on polling day, or to try (as some do) to claim that this was some delusion caused by Conservative hubris. The truth is that virtually everyone, from all parts of the political spectrum, thought that Theresa May would get a substantial majority. BMG, Labour's in-house pollsters, were amongst the most bullish on the Conservative lead.
I merely criticise the pound shop Nostradamus' type who can't see the irony of making similarly bold predictions here and now.
What if the next Tory leader tanks like May. No-one has a clue.
Attlee nationalised not just rail and water and gas and electricity but iron and steel too and had a top tax rate Corbyn has not yet even contemplated even if he does want to raise tax.
Economically Corbyn would be little different to Attlee and Wilson, complete with strikes (of course for all of Attlee's premiership and most of Wilson's we were outside the EEC too), on social policy similar to Wilson too, where he does differ is on foreign policy and an opposition to nuclear weapons but he has promised not to impose his personal views there on the party. Of course Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam War so was no militarist either, though Attlee backed the US in Korea.
I am aware Attlee did all those things - he’s a socialist after all. But nationalisation was a policy that was a part of the mainstream of British politics for a long time (well, until Thatcher). That’s different from actually being a Marxist which is more extreme.
I say that because of some of the posts on here, who don’t seem all that alarmed by it, and relatively relaxed that it’s all just a phase.
That's a slightly different point. One can simultaneously be horrified that 40% of voters would vote for an extreme hard-left IRA-sympathising, incompetent, economically loony Marxist retread, and hopeful that voters will come to their senses next time.
Also SeanT's point is a good one. Corbyn's popularity was based on a chimera. Fashions like that, based on nothing substantial, can easily change.
Of course, none of this means that we should be complacent, or that it's guaranteed that voters will come to their senses. Far from it - I think that at the next election you'll see huge determination to make sure that the disaster doesn't happen.
That Kantar turnout adjusted poll would give the Tories an overall majority on 233 seats to 248 for Labour and 14 for the LDs.
Even just taking the figures for all voters the Tories would still be the largest party on 297 seats to 283 for Labour.
Don't give Kim Jong May ideas....
I highly doubt she would even consider it but an astonishingly good poll for the Tories given the last few weeks nonetheless.
Have we seen Peak Corbyn?
Maybe not quite Peak Corbyn but he is certainly nearing the summit and it will be all downhill from there
My bellwether Mum is now a reluctant TMay supporter (after utterly losing faith in her during the election). "She's doing her best in a bloody difficult job". My Mum (who also voted Blair in his peak) yearns for Maggie, but sees TMay as the best of a bloody mediocre lot.
As for Corbyn, amongst my younger friends I sense the onset of total boredom. He didn't win, he really is just an old guy in a vest, who gives a fuck, maybe he is as shit as they say.
The Tories just need to cling on to power, then get a decent leader post-Brexit in 2019, and they could still romp home in 2022. This depends on Brexit not being an apocalypse, of course.
Yes, having dumped the
If Corbyn clings on and the Tories have a papabile new leader with a decent manifesto then the Tories would utterly crush Labour.
How many times can one poster underestimate Jezza
I can’t believe more Tories aren’t alarmed by the fact that in a so called small c conservative country someone who they believe to be a Marxist is even polling 40%+.
Jezza is a small c conservative. His policies were not radical in the Seventies or Eighties, and are not now.
He believes in a pre 1979 Britain of strong welfare state, of strong unions, of taxation to redistribute wealth, of imperial retreat and of nationalisation. He even believes in free university tuition, which stayed until the late Eighties along with student grants.
Jezza has a very old fashioned view of the future.
It's curious how certain posters are winding themselves up about peak Corbyn Nothing like a bit of self denial to stop you asking difficult questions.
We have no idea how Corbyn will play in years ahead. None.
The very same posters were debating the size of Tory majority on polling day.
Learn.
A whole bunch of people who were also predicting a Tory majority and discussing its size are now predicting how well Labour will do next time.
Learn.
(Being wrong last time doesn't mean being wrong this time for predicting a similar outcome, nor does doing a 180 guarantee being right this time)
But. in fairness, I don't see much of that about. There are relatively few posters saying Corbyn will definitely win next time. Most Labour members don't think that either (even Momentum members). There are however, a heck of a lot of Tories saying that Labour people know Corbyn will walk it. Then expounding theories ranging from the reasonably credible, to the outright fantastical. Most can be summed up by "People will see sense and vote Tory."
It's just been mentioned to me on twitter that the Kantar poll has an effective turnout for the 18-24 age range of 24% (it's only 19% if Won't Says are included), which hugely down-rates the VIs for that group. (I've checked and the observation is right).
That seems a laughably low turnout figure and, as such, not only would I be sceptical about the headline figures because of that one feature, I'd be sceptical about the whole poll.
Even if all voters are included (ie not adjusted for turnout) the Tories would still be slightly ahead on seats with Kantar.
That's true but I question their sample quality given the 18-24 issue (and it's not a particularly small sub-group either: it's close to 300 people).
I see we are focusing on the young corbasm vote again. Although real, it only added 3-4% to the Labour total.
As I pointed out on the eve of the GE (although I have to say I didn't quite believe the extent of the swing), May set light to her massive lead with the middle aged, and in the end it was pretty much neck and neck with those 30-40 year olds.
Current polling doesn't show much shift away from that situation. Pissing about with take away tray taxes isn't going to change that.
It's just been mentioned to me on twitter that the Kantar poll has an effective turnout for the 18-24 age range of 24% (it's only 19% if Won't Says are included), which hugely down-rates the VIs for that group. (I've checked and the observation is right).
That seems a laughably low turnout figure and, as such, not only would I be sceptical about the headline figures because of that one feature, I'd be sceptical about the whole poll.
It's a very good point David - Labour's chances of success next time hinge heavily on how successful they are at mobilising the under 25 vote. Based on last time, I'd expect them to be very successful.
I wouldn't. It was a one-off, post Sindyref, post-Brexit. Next time, voting will be down, again, and the young will be too stoned on meow-meow version 7 to notice the time of day.
Were you joining the many on here last time, taking the piss out of the young saying they would not get out of bed to vote ?
I remember that lol, complacency isn’t even the word. IIRC it was MarqueeMark which made that remark about young people playing PlayStation and forgetting the time.
It's curious how certain posters are winding themselves up about peak Corbyn Nothing like a bit of self denial to stop you asking difficult questions. I merely criticise the pound shop Nostradamus' type who can't see the irony of making similarly bold predictions here and now.
What if the next Tory leader tanks like May. No-one has a clue.
Yeah, we just don't know, which is why I'm staying well out of the market. Anything from a Labour majority (or more likely minority government with SNP support) to a good Conservative majority is plausible at this stage.
It says in the Uber report that the CEO at the time didn't know for a month after the hack. What isn't clear is, did Uber not know for a month, or did they not inform the CEO for a month?
Attlee nationalised not just rail and water and gas and electricity but iron and steel too and had a top tax rate Corbyn has not yet even contemplated even if he does want to raise tax.
Economically Corbyn would be little different to Attlee and Wilson, complete with strikes (of course for all of Attlee's premiership and most of Wilson's we were outside the EEC too), on social policy similar to Wilson too, where he does differ is on foreign policy and an opposition to nuclear weapons but he has promised not to impose his personal views there on the party. Of course Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam War so was no militarist either, though Attlee backed the US in Korea.
I am aware Attlee did all those things - he’s a socialist after all. But nationalisation was a policy that was a part of the mainstream of British politics for a long time (well, until Thatcher). That’s different from actually being a Marxist which is more extreme.
If Corbyn was a Marxist rather than a socialist he would be promising to nationalise everything, including the banks and supermarkets, at the moment he is not. (Though of course once in power who knows where we might end up).
It's curious how certain posters are winding themselves up about peak Corbyn Nothing like a bit of self denial to stop you asking difficult questions.
We have no idea how Corbyn will play in years ahead. None.
The very same posters were debating the size of Tory majority on polling day.
Learn.
A whole bunch of people who were also predicting a Tory majority and discussing its size are now predicting how well Labour will do next time.
Learn.
(Being wrong last time doesn't mean being wrong this time for predicting a similar outcome, nor does doing a 180 guarantee being right this time)
But. in fairness, I don't see much of that about. There are relatively few posters saying Corbyn will definitely win next time. Most Labour members don't think that either (even Momentum members). There are however, a heck of a lot of Tories saying that Labour people know Corbyn will walk it. Then expounding theories ranging from the reasonably credible, to the outright fantastical. Most can be summed up by "People will see sense and vote Tory."
I've not taken a tally - perhaps there are more complacent Tories than complacent Labour fans (including LDs who are hoping for a Labour win), but the point was they do exist, there are some who are assuming that the campaign will go just as well for them even though we don't know what the Tory offer will be or who will be leading it, and so the point is no one should be certain, and certainly not on the basis a lot of people though the Tories would win big last time, since that includes most people.
Haven't seen if anyone else has said so, but David Herdson for the post about his canvassing on the eve of GE17. It was dismissed as rank bedwettery at the time but captured precisely, in four paras, what the story of the election was going to be in 36 hours' time.
It was a good post (not to belittle it but many people found the same thing but their local associations had asked members not to discuss the campaign on social media, such as me and mine!!)
I did wonder whether to post or not on that score but I decided that on the evening of Polling Eve, doing so would have a trivial impact on any campaigning. If anything, I was more worried that my impression was wrong and that I might lose people money on PBC.
I say that because of some of the posts on here, who don’t seem all that alarmed by it, and relatively relaxed that it’s all just a phase.
That's a slightly different point. One can simultaneously be horrified that 40% of voters would vote for an extreme hard-left IRA-sympathising, incompetent, economically loony Marxist retread, and hopeful that voters will come to their senses next time.
Also SeanT's point is a good one. Corbyn's popularity was based on a chimera. Fashions like that, based on nothing substantial, can easily change.
Of course, none of this means that we should be complacent, or that it's guaranteed that voters will come to their senses. Far from it - I think that at the next election you'll see huge determination to make sure that the disaster doesn't happen.
I think there’s a difference between hoping, and being definitive about something. I’d say many commentators are in the latter camp.
I also wouldn’t agree Corbyn’s popularity is based on nothing substantial. As has been discussed on here, his popularity is related to a lot of the current economic issues affecting those under 50, and his ability to tap into that disaffection. It’s also related to the culture wars that have been unleashed since Brexit.
Theresa May’s relationship with Philip Hammond is close to breaking point after Downing Street took control of a last-minute Budget briefing amid fears Wednesday's financial statement will fall flat
It's curious how certain posters are winding themselves up about peak Corbyn Nothing like a bit of self denial to stop you asking difficult questions.
We have no idea how Corbyn will play in years ahead. None.
The very same posters were debating the size of Tory majority on polling day.
Learn.
A whole bunch of people who were also predicting a Tory majority and discussing its size are now predicting how well Labour will do next time.
Learn.
(Being wrong last time doesn't mean being wrong this time for predicting a similar outcome, nor does doing a 180 guarantee being right this time)
But. in fairness, I don't see much of that about. There are relatively few posters saying Corbyn will definitely win next time. Most Labour members don't think that either (even Momentum members). There are however, a heck of a lot of Tories saying that Labour people know Corbyn will walk it. Then expounding theories ranging from the reasonably credible, to the outright fantastical. Most can be summed up by "People will see sense and vote Tory."
I've not taken a tally - perhaps there are more complacent Tories than complacent Labour fans (including LDs who are hoping for a Labour win), but the point was they do exist, there are some who are assuming that the campaign will go just as well for them even though we don't know what the Tory offer will be or who will be leading it, and so the point is no one should be certain, and certainly not on the basis a lot of people though the Tories would win big last time, since that includes most people.
Given what has gone on over the last 3 years, one thing is certain. Anyone who is certain is certain to be proved wrong.
btw Are we not coming up to the anniversary of Ms Abbott saying Labour would catch up in the polls in a year?
Attlee nationalised not just rail and water and gas and electricity but iron and steel too and had a top tax rate Corbyn has not yet even contemplated even if he does want to raise tax.
Economically Corbyn would be little different to Attlee and Wilson, complete with strikes (of course for all of Attlee's premiership and most of Wilson's we were outside the EEC too), on social policy similar to Wilson too, where he does differ is on foreign policy and an opposition to nuclear weapons but he has promised not to impose his personal views there on the party. Of course Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam War so was no militarist either, though Attlee backed the US in Korea.
I am aware Attlee did all those things - he’s a socialist after all. But nationalisation was a policy that was a part of the mainstream of British politics for a long time (well, until Thatcher). That’s different from actually being a Marxist which is more extreme.
If Corbyn was a Marxist rather than a socialist he would be promising to nationalise everything, including the banks and supermarkets, at the moment he is not. (Though of course once in power who knows where we might end up).
And free trade and balanced budgets, as @Winstanley would confirm.
I also wouldn’t agree Corbyn’s popularity is based on nothing substantial. As has been discussed on here, his popularity is related to a lot of the current economic issues affecting those under 50, and his ability to tap into that disaffection. It’s also related to the culture wars that have been unleashed since Brexit.
Any old fool, even one written off as an old fool by his own colleagues, can tap into disaffection. The difficult bit is coming up with solutions that actually work, and indeed that don't make it worse. All that McDonnell and Corbyn have done is list grievances and pretend they can all be waved away by borrowing zillions of pounds, presumably from investors whom they despise and want to clobber.
As for culture wars, that's an interesting point, because of course Corbyn and McDonnell and the other hard-left extremist who have taken over the party are very far from the liberal-left 21st century attitudes of the youngsters who voted for them. It is indeed a funny old world.
Well the budget's going to be a disaster, hopefully it will see the end of Mrs May and Mr Hammond.
I thought you were favourable towards Hammond, the David Moyes of politics.
I am, but I think the loony Brexiteers have destroyed his confidence.
Like the Catholic church's doctrine that the sun went round the earth and forcing Galileo to recant, and comparing it with John Redwood's insistence that the Hammond come out with more Brexit-friendly figures.
Galileo was an arrogant so-and-so who thought he could get away with insulting the Pope; there were also good scientific reasons (at the time) for rejecting his model as astronomers didn’t realise how bright the stars were and were puzzled by their inability to observe stellar parallax.
I’m not a fan of Galileo: he was right for the wrong reasons.
I say that because of some of the posts on here, who don’t seem all that alarmed by it, and relatively relaxed that it’s all just a phase.
That's a slightly different point. One can simultaneously be horrified that 40% of voters would vote for an extreme hard-left IRA-sympathising, incompetent, economically loony Marxist retread, and hopeful that voters will come to their senses next time.
Also SeanT's point is a good one. Corbyn's popularity was based on a chimera. Fashions like that, based on nothing substantial, can easily change.
Of course, none of this means that we should be complacent, or that it's guaranteed that voters will come to their senses. Far from it - I think that at the next election you'll see huge determination to make sure that the disaster doesn't happen.
I think there’s a difference between hoping, and being definitive about something. I’d say many commentators are in the latter camp.
I also wouldn’t agree Corbyn’s popularity is based on nothing substantial. As has been discussed on here, his popularity is related to a lot of the current economic issues affecting those under 50, and his ability to tap into that disaffection. It’s also related to the culture wars that have been unleashed since Brexit.
Corbyn's populism will still play well next time to both the dispossessed and those who don't engage with politics much.
What he mostly achieved was keeping Labour in the game. Tories anticipated a crushing defeat of Labour that would destroy the Labour party for a generation or longer. What they got was a reality check. At the very least the next election will be on a knife edge. If the Tories make a net loss of a handful of seats, there goes their ability to form a government.
Sure, the Tories will be better prepared next time, but so will Labour. Labour has rediscovered its Mojo and has a renewed sense of mission and purpose.
Attlee nationalised not just rail and water and gas and electricity but iron and steel too and had a top tax rate Corbyn has not yet even contemplated even if he does want to raise tax.
Economically Corbyn would be little different to Attlee and Wilson, complete with strikes (of course for all of Attlee's premiership and most of Wilson's we were outside the EEC too), on social policy similar to Wilson too, where he does differ is on foreign policy and an opposition to nuclear weapons but he has promised not to impose his personal views there on the party. Of course Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam War so was no militarist either, though Attlee backed the US in Korea.
I am aware Attlee did all those things - he’s a socialist after all. But nationalisation was a policy that was a part of the mainstream of British politics for a long time (well, until Thatcher). That’s different from actually being a Marxist which is more extreme.
If Corbyn was a Marxist rather than a socialist he would be promising to nationalise everything, including the banks and supermarkets, at the moment he is not. (Though of course once in power who knows where we might end up).
And free trade and balanced budgets, as @Winstanley would confirm.
By balanced budgets, you mean stuff like this?
The group states that it could raise £25.8million if the top eight-per cent of homes – roughly 15,266 households – were charged 200 per cent more than their current rates. This would see those living in the most expensive ‘band H’ properties pay almost £10,800 a year, compared to the current £3,599.50 bill.
Like the Catholic church's doctrine that the sun went round the earth and forcing Galileo to recant, and comparing it with John Redwood's insistence that the Hammond come out with more Brexit-friendly figures.
Attlee nationalised not just rail and water and gas and electricity but iron and steel too and had a top tax rate Corbyn has not yet even contemplated even if he does want to raise tax.
Economically Corbyn would be little different to Attlee and Wilson, complete with strikes (of course for all of Attlee's premiership and most of Wilson's we were outside the EEC too), on social policy similar to Wilson too, where he does differ is on foreign policy and an opposition to nuclear weapons but he has promised not to impose his personal views there on the party. Of course Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam War so was no militarist either, though Attlee backed the US in Korea.
I am aware Attlee did all those things - he’s a socialist after all. But nationalisation was a policy that was a part of the mainstream of British politics for a long time (well, until Thatcher). That’s different from actually being a Marxist which is more extreme.
If Corbyn was a Marxist rather than a socialist he would be promising to nationalise everything, including the banks and supermarkets, at the moment he is not. (Though of course once in power who knows where we might end up).
And free trade and balanced budgets, as @Winstanley would confirm.
By balanced budgets, you mean stuff like this?
The group states that it could raise £25.8million if the top eight-per cent of homes – roughly 15,266 households – were charged 200 per cent more than their current rates. This would see those living in the most expensive ‘band H’ properties pay almost £10,800 a year, compared to the current £3,599.50 bill.
Attlee nationalised not just rail and water and gas and electricity but iron and steel too and had a top tax rate Corbyn has not yet even contemplated even if he does want to raise tax.
Economically Corbyn would be little different to Attlee and Wilson, complete with strikes (of course for all of Attlee's premiership and most of Wilson's we were outside the EEC too), on social policy similar to Wilson too, where he does differ is on foreign policy and an opposition to nuclear weapons but he has promised not to impose his personal views there on the party. Of course Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam War so was no militarist either, though Attlee backed the US in Korea.
I am aware Attlee did all those things - he’s a socialist after all. But nationalisation was a policy that was a part of the mainstream of British politics for a long time (well, until Thatcher). That’s different from actually being a Marxist which is more extreme.
If Corbyn was a Marxist rather than a socialist he would be promising to nationalise everything, including the banks and supermarkets, at the moment he is not. (Though of course once in power who knows where we might end up).
And free trade and balanced budgets, as @Winstanley would confirm.
By balanced budgets, you mean stuff like this?
The group states that it could raise £25.8million if the top eight-per cent of homes – roughly 15,266 households – were charged 200 per cent more than their current rates. This would see those living in the most expensive ‘band H’ properties pay almost £10,800 a year, compared to the current £3,599.50 bill.
Sorry. I fear you may have misunderstood. Was in reply to @HYUFD's post of "if Corbyn were a Marxist". It was another example of why Corbyn isn't a Marxist, as HYUFD was also saying. He is not a Marxist, he is an old-fashioned Socialist.
Attlee nationalised not just rail and water and gas and electricity but iron and steel too and had a top tax rate Corbyn has not yet even contemplated even if he does want to raise tax.
Economically Corbyn would be little different to Attlee and Wilson, complete with strikes (of course for all of Attlee's premiership and most of Wilson's we were outside the EEC too), on social policy similar to Wilson too, where he does differ is on foreign policy and an opposition to nuclear weapons but he has promised not to impose his personal views there on the party. Of course Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam War so was no militarist either, though Attlee backed the US in Korea.
I am aware Attlee did all those things - he’s a socialist after all. But nationalisation was a policy that was a part of the mainstream of British politics for a long time (well, until Thatcher). That’s different from actually being a Marxist which is more extreme.
If Corbyn was a Marxist rather than a socialist he would be promising to nationalise everything, including the banks and supermarkets, at the moment he is not. (Though of course once in power who knows where we might end up).
And free trade and balanced budgets, as @Winstanley would confirm.
I think free trade and balanced budgets are more classical liberal than socialist ideals, hence Corbyn and McDonnell still back Brexit and leaving the single market and borrowing to spend and invest in infrastructure.
Attlee nationalised not just rail and water and gas and electricity but iron and steel too and had a top tax rate Corbyn has not yet even contemplated even if he does want to raise tax.
Economically Corbyn would be little different to Attlee and Wilson, complete with strikes (of course for all of Attlee's premiership and most of Wilson's we were outside the EEC too), on social policy similar to Wilson too, where he does differ is on foreign policy and an opposition to nuclear weapons but he has promised not to impose his personal views there on the party. Of course Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam War so was no militarist either, though Attlee backed the US in Korea.
I am aware Attlee did all those things - he’s a socialist after all. But nationalisation was a policy that was a part of the mainstream of British politics for a long time (well, until Thatcher). That’s different from actually being a Marxist which is more extreme.
If Corbyn was a Marxist rather than a socialist he would be promising to nationalise everything, including the banks and supermarkets, at the moment he is not. (Though of course once in power who knows where we might end up).
And free trade and balanced budgets, as @Winstanley would confirm.
By balanced budgets, you mean stuff like this?
The group states that it could raise £25.8million if the top eight-per cent of homes – roughly 15,266 households – were charged 200 per cent more than their current rates. This would see those living in the most expensive ‘band H’ properties pay almost £10,800 a year, compared to the current £3,599.50 bill.
FPT I don't understand the widespread assumption that there'll be no deal. The mood music for months seems to be a compromise agreed to move on in December and all the leaking about increased money etc seems to point to that too.
If we are about to give the EU what they want on the topic of money so long as there's a deal then why would there ultimately be no deal? That just doesn't seem plausible to me?
I say that because of some of the posts on here, who don’t seem all that alarmed by it, and relatively relaxed that it’s all just a phase.
That's a slightly different point. One can simultaneously be horrified that 40% of voters would vote for an extreme hard-left IRA-sympathising, incompetent, economically loony Marxist retread, and hopeful that voters will come to their senses next time.
Also SeanT's point is a good one. Corbyn's popularity was based on a chimera. Fashions like that, based on nothing substantial, can easily change.
Of course, none of this means that we should be complacent, or that it's guaranteed that voters will come to their senses. Far from it - I think that at the next election you'll see huge determination to make sure that the disaster doesn't happen.
I think there’s a difference between hoping, and being definitive about something. I’d say many commentators are in the latter camp.
I also wouldn’t agree Corbyn’s popularity is based on nothing substantial. As has been discussed on here, his popularity is related to a lot of the current economic issues affecting those under 50, and his ability to tap into that disaffection. It’s also related to the culture wars that have been unleashed since Brexit.
Corbyn's populism will still play well next time to both the dispossessed and those who don't engage with politics much.
What he mostly achieved was keeping Labour in the game. Tories anticipated a crushing defeat of Labour that would destroy the Labour party for a generation or longer. What they got was a reality check. At the very least the next election will be on a knife edge. If the Tories make a net loss of a handful of seats, there goes their ability to form a government.
Sure, the Tories will be better prepared next time, but so will Labour. Labour has rediscovered its Mojo and has a renewed sense of mission and purpose.
Agreed.
@Richard_Nabavi and many of Corbyn’s supporters believe in the solutions he offers. You may not (hell, I’m somewhat sceptical) but they do.
Attlee nationalised not just rail and water and gas and electricity but iron and steel too and had a top tax rate Corbyn has not yet even contemplated even if he does want to raise tax.
Economically Corbyn would be little different to Attlee and Wilson, complete with strikes (of course for all of Attlee's premiership and most of Wilson's we were outside the EEC too), on social policy similar to Wilson too, where he does differ is on foreign policy and an opposition to nuclear weapons but he has promised not to impose his personal views there on the party. Of course Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam War so was no militarist either, though Attlee backed the US in Korea.
I am aware Attlee did all those things - he’s a socialist after all. But nationalisation was a policy that was a part of the mainstream of British politics for a long time (well, until Thatcher). That’s different from actually being a Marxist which is more extreme.
If Corbyn was a Marxist rather than a socialist he would be promising to nationalise everything, including the banks and supermarkets, at the moment he is not. (Though of course once in power who knows where we might end up).
And free trade and balanced budgets, as @Winstanley would confirm.
By balanced budgets, you mean stuff like this?
The group states that it could raise £25.8million if the top eight-per cent of homes – roughly 15,266 households – were charged 200 per cent more than their current rates. This would see those living in the most expensive ‘band H’ properties pay almost £10,800 a year, compared to the current £3,599.50 bill.
The Council tax was less regressive than the poll tax as a means of local government taxation, but is much less progressive than rates were (being based on notional rentable values). The bands put a pretty low ceiling on how much local tax is paid by the richest households.
Has Theresa May offered HMQ's crown jewels to Juncker yet?
Not yet but she is Brexit best hope. The most salient fact on Brexit is that the MP's , HOL, broadcast media are all anti Brexit and I do not believe a Brexiteer as PM would get Brexit through the legislature
Attlee nationalised not just rail and water and gas and electricity but iron and steel too and had a top tax rate Corbyn has not yet even contemplated even if he does want to raise tax.
Economically Corbyn would be little different to Attlee and Wilson, complete with strikes (of course for all of Attlee's premiership and most of Wilson's we were outside the EEC too), on social policy similar to Wilson too, where he does differ is on foreign policy and an opposition to nuclear weapons but he has promised not to impose his personal views there on the party. Of course Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam War so was no militarist either, though Attlee backed the US in Korea.
I am aware Attlee did all those things - he’s a socialist after all. But nationalisation was a policy that was a part of the mainstream of British politics for a long time (well, until Thatcher). That’s different from actually being a Marxist which is more extreme.
If Corbyn was a Marxist rather than a socialist he would be promising to nationalise everything, including the banks and supermarkets, at the moment he is not. (Though of course once in power who knows where we might end up).
And free trade and balanced budgets, as @Winstanley would confirm.
By balanced budgets, you mean stuff like this?
The group states that it could raise £25.8million if the top eight-per cent of homes – roughly 15,266 households – were charged 200 per cent more than their current rates. This would see those living in the most expensive ‘band H’ properties pay almost £10,800 a year, compared to the current £3,599.50 bill.
Attlee nationalised not just rail and water and gas and electricity but iron and steel too and had a top tax rate Corbyn has not yet even contemplated even if he does want to raise tax.
Economically Corbyn would be little different to Attlee and Wilson, complete with strikes (of course for all of Attlee's premiership and most of Wilson's we were outside the EEC too), on social policy similar to Wilson too, where he does differ is on foreign policy and an opposition to nuclear weapons but he has promised not to impose his personal views there on the party. Of course Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam War so was no militarist either, though Attlee backed the US in Korea.
I am aware Attlee did all those things - he’s a socialist after all. But nationalisation was a policy that was a part of the mainstream of British politics for a long time (well, until Thatcher). That’s different from actually being a Marxist which is more extreme.
If Corbyn was a Marxist rather than a socialist he would be promising to nationalise everything, including the banks and supermarkets, at the moment he is not. (Though of course once in power who knows where we might end up).
And free trade and balanced budgets, as @Winstanley would confirm.
I think free trade and balanced budgets are more classical liberal than socialist ideals, hence Corbyn and McDonnell still back Brexit and leaving the single market and borrowing to spend and invest in infrastructure.
Attlee nationalised not just rail and water and gas and electricity but iron and steel too and had a top tax rate Corbyn has not yet even contemplated even if he does want to raise tax.
Economically Corbyn would be little different to Attlee and Wilson, complete with strikes (of course for all of Attlee's premiership and most of Wilson's we were outside the EEC too), on social policy similar to Wilson too, where he does differ is on foreign policy and an opposition to nuclear weapons but he has promised not to impose his personal views there on the party. Of course Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam War so was no militarist either, though Attlee backed the US in Korea.
I am aware Attlee did all those things - he’s a socialist after all. But nationalisation was a policy that was a part of the mainstream of British politics for a long time (well, until Thatcher). That’s different from actually being a Marxist which is more extreme.
If Corbyn was a Marxist rather than a socialist he would be promising to nationalise everything, including the banks and supermarkets, at the moment he is not. (Though of course once in power who knows where we might end up).
And free trade and balanced budgets, as @Winstanley would confirm.
I think free trade and balanced budgets are more classical liberal than socialist ideals, hence Corbyn and McDonnell still back Brexit and leaving the single market and borrowing to spend and invest in infrastructure.
Yes they are. But ones Marx himself propounded.
'Marx said he voted for free trade as opposed to protectionism because in most cases this would be the quickest path to capitalist development and thereby the revolutionary class struggle to overthrow capitalism. But Marx also pointed to examples of where the bourgeoisie cleared away barriers to its development by utilizing protectionism' http://www.communistvoice.org/23cWTOMarxFreeTrade.html
These people can't seriously think they can get away with throwing 40bn to the EU when they've cut the NHS, education, the police and local government back to the bone?
We've got old grannies waiting on trolley's in hospital corridors for 12hrs and suddenly they can just come up with 40bn (and we don't even know if this is the final offer or just for starters)
If they've really got 40bn just sitting around waiting to be given away then give it to our hospitals for god's sake.
Oh, and just let Hammond start raising taxes on families to pay for this EU giveaway tomorrow...
We could be entering an ERM style meltdown for the Tories...
Attlee nationalised not just rail and water and gas and electricity but iron and steel too and had a top tax rate Corbyn has not yet even contemplated even if he does want to raise tax.
Economically Corbyn would be little different to Attlee and Wilson, complete with strikes (of course for all of Attlee's premiership and most of Wilson's we were outside the EEC too), on social policy similar to Wilson too, where he does differ is on foreign policy and an opposition to nuclear weapons but he has promised not to impose his personal views there on the party. Of course Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam War so was no militarist either, though Attlee backed the US in Korea.
I am aware Attlee did all those things - he’s a socialist after all. But nationalisation was a policy that was a part of the mainstream of British politics for a long time (well, until Thatcher). That’s different from actually being a Marxist which is more extreme.
If Corbyn was a Marxist rather than a socialist he would be promising to nationalise everything, including the banks and supermarkets, at the moment he is not. (Though of course once in power who knows where we might end up).
And free trade and balanced budgets, as @Winstanley would confirm.
By balanced budgets, you mean stuff like this?
The group states that it could raise £25.8million if the top eight-per cent of homes – roughly 15,266 households – were charged 200 per cent more than their current rates. This would see those living in the most expensive ‘band H’ properties pay almost £10,800 a year, compared to the current £3,599.50 bill.
The Council tax was less regressive than the poll tax as a means of local government taxation, but is much less progressive than rates were (being based on notional rentable values). The bands put a pretty low ceiling on how much local tax is paid by the richest households.
The iniquity in Council Tax is the bands stop at too low a point
There needs to be more bands added to the top and a re-valuation.
However, this would take several years and involve many appeals.
I say that because of some of the posts on here, who don’t seem all that alarmed by it, and relatively relaxed that it’s all just a phase.
That's a slightly different point. One can simultaneously be horrified that 40% of voters would vote for an extreme hard-left IRA-sympathising, incompetent, economically loony Marxist retread, and hopeful that voters will come to their senses next time.
Also SeanT's point is a good one. Corbyn's popularity was based on a chimera. Fashions like that, based on nothing substantial, can easily change.
Of course, none of this means that we should be complacent, or that it's guaranteed that voters will come to their senses. Far from it - I think that at the next election you'll see huge determination to make sure that the disaster doesn't happen.
I think there’s a difference between hoping, and being definitive about something. I’d say many commentators are in the latter camp.
I also wouldn’t agree Corbyn’s popularity is based on nothing substantial. As has been discussed on here, his popularity is related to a lot of the current economic issues affecting those under 50, and his ability to tap into that disaffection. It’s also related to the culture wars that have been unleashed since Brexit.
Corbyn's populism will still play well next time to both the dispossessed and those who don't engage with politics much.
What he mostly achieved was keeping Labour in the game. Tories anticipated a crushing defeat of Labour that would destroy the Labour party for a generation or longer. What they got was a reality check. At the very least the next election will be on a knife edge. If the Tories make a net loss of a handful of seats, there goes their ability to form a government.
Sure, the Tories will be better prepared next time, but so will Labour. Labour has rediscovered its Mojo and has a renewed sense of mission and purpose.
Agreed.
@Richard_Nabavi and many of Corbyn’s supporters believe in the solutions he offers. You may not (hell, I’m somewhat sceptical) but they do.
Think of Corbyn as Tesco. For years, they were considered the ultimate boy of retail. They walked on water, could never do anything wrong. They slipped just a little. Nobody can be that good or lucky all the time.
They subsequently dropped like a stone, reputation shot, profits down the pan. Now working very hard to recover.
Corbyn is currently successful Tesco. He can get away with nearly anything.
But it only takes a minor slip, and down he goes.
Happened to Tesco, M&S, the banks.
He's got to ride the wave for another 4 years. Nearly impossible for a bloke with all his baggage.
These people can't seriously think they can get away with throwing 40bn to the EU when they've cut the NHS, education, the police and local government back to the bone?
We've got old grannies waiting on trolley's in hospital corridors for 12hrs and suddenly they can just come up with 40bn (and we don't even know if this is the final offer or just for starters)
If they've really got 40bn just sitting around waiting to be given away then give it to our hospitals for god's sake.
Oh, and just let Hammond start raising taxes on families to pay for this EU giveaway tomorrow...
We could be entering an ERM style meltdown for the Tories...
Just as a matter of interest how do you think this will be paid, the time scale, and do you recognise we have legally enforceable commitments to the EU
We do have legally enforceable commitments up to 2020 but seriously... 40bn?
As for the timescale I assume that will be whatever timescale is dictated to us... After all these years of austerity the optics though are going to be dreadful for the government...
I say that because of some of the posts on here, who don’t seem all that alarmed by it, and relatively relaxed that it’s all just a phase.
That's a slightly different point. One can simultaneously be horrified that 40% of voters would vote for an extreme hard-left IRA-sympathising, incompetent, economically loony Marxist retread, and hopeful that voters will come to their senses next time.
Also SeanT's point is a good one. Corbyn's popularity was based on a chimera. Fashions like that, based on nothing substantial, can easily change.
Of course, none of this means that we should be complacent, or that it's guaranteed that voters will come to their senses. Far from it - I think that at the next election you'll see huge determination to make sure that the disaster doesn't happen.
I think there’s a difference between hoping, and being definitive about something. I’d say many commentators are in the latter camp.
I also wouldn’t agree Corbyn’s popularity is based on nothing substantial. As has been discussed on here, his popularity is related to a lot of the current economic issues affecting those under 50, and his ability to tap into that disaffection. It’s also related to the culture wars that have been unleashed since Brexit.
Corbyn's populism will still play well next time to both the dispossessed and those who don't engage with politics much.
Agreed.
@Richard_Nabavi and many of Corbyn’s supporters believe in the solutions he offers. You may not (hell, I’m somewhat sceptical) but they do.
Think of Corbyn as Tesco. For years, they were considered the ultimate boy of retail. They walked on water, could never do anything wrong. They slipped just a little. Nobody can be that good or lucky all the time.
They subsequently dropped like a stone, reputation shot, profits down the pan. Now working very hard to recover.
Corbyn is currently successful Tesco. He can get away with nearly anything.
But it only takes a minor slip, and down he goes.
Happened to Tesco, M&S, the banks.
He's got to ride the wave for another 4 years. Nearly impossible for a bloke with all his baggage.
Sounds more of a description of the Tories and their Ratner moment this spring.
When was Corbyn ever the ultimate boy of retail politics?
Attlee nationalised not just rail and water and gas and electricity but iron and steel too and had a top tax rate Corbyn has not yet even contemplated even if he does want to raise tax.
Economically Corbyn would be little different to Attlee and Wilson, complete with strikes (of course for all of Attlee's premiership and most of Wilson's we were outside the EEC too), on social policy similar to Wilson too, where he does differ is on foreign policy and an opposition to nuclear weapons but he has promised not to impose his personal views there on the party. Of course Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam War so was no militarist either, though Attlee backed the US in Korea.
I am aware Attlee did all those things - he’s a socialist after all. But nationalisation was a policy that was a part of the mainstream of British politics for a long time (well, until Thatcher). That’s different from actually being a Marxist which is more extreme.
If Corbyn was a Marxist rather than a socialist he would be promising to nationalise everything, including the banks and supermarkets, at the moment he is not. (Though of course once in power who knows where we might end up).
And free trade and balanced budgets, as @Winstanley would confirm.
I think free trade and balanced budgets are more classical liberal than socialist ideals, hence Corbyn and McDonnell still back Brexit and leaving the single market and borrowing to spend and invest in infrastructure.
Yes they are. But ones Marx himself propounded.
'Marx said he voted for free trade as opposed to protectionism because in most cases this would be the quickest path to capitalist development and thereby the revolutionary class struggle to overthrow capitalism. But Marx also pointed to examples of where the bourgeoisie cleared away barriers to its development by utilizing protectionism' http://www.communistvoice.org/23cWTOMarxFreeTrade.html
@saddo Tesco is less an analogy for Corbyn specifically and more political careers in general. We all know that most political careers end in failure. The question is, will the failure be as opposition leader or as PM?
Corbyn wasn’t supposed to survive the last two years, and definitely not a GE campaign with all his baggage, and yet he did. Then there’s also the matter that things could get worse for the government over the years, not better.
I think there’s a difference between hoping, and being definitive about something. I’d say many commentators are in the latter camp.
I also wouldn’t agree Corbyn’s popularity is based on nothing substantial. As has been discussed on here, his popularity is related to a lot of the current economic issues affecting those under 50, and his ability to tap into that disaffection. It’s also related to the culture wars that have been unleashed since Brexit.
Corbyn's populism will still play well next time to both the dispossessed and those who don't engage with politics much.
What he mostly achieved was keeping Labour in the game. Tories anticipated a crushing defeat of Labour that would destroy the Labour party for a generation or longer. What they got was a reality check. At the very least the next election will be on a knife edge. If the Tories make a net loss of a handful of seats, there goes their ability to form a government.
Sure, the Tories will be better prepared next time, but so will Labour. Labour has rediscovered its Mojo and has a renewed sense of mission and purpose.
Agreed.
@Richard_Nabavi and many of Corbyn’s supporters believe in the solutions he offers. You may not (hell, I’m somewhat sceptical) but they do.
Think of Corbyn as Tesco. For years, they were considered the ultimate boy of retail. They walked on water, could never do anything wrong. They slipped just a little. Nobody can be that good or lucky all the time.
They subsequently dropped like a stone, reputation shot, profits down the pan. Now working very hard to recover.
Corbyn is currently successful Tesco. He can get away with nearly anything.
But it only takes a minor slip, and down he goes.
Happened to Tesco, M&S, the banks.
He's got to ride the wave for another 4 years. Nearly impossible for a bloke with all his baggage.
It would help if any of Labour's policies were held up to scruitny at the GE, particularly with regards to economics and costs.
The Tories made no attempt to show people how Labour's policies would actually make them worse off - they were either trying to put out fires in the form of the dementia tax and other unforced gaffes - or shouting "IRA! IRA!" at Corbyn which as we know appears to have had little resonance.
Labour effectively got a free pass at GE2017, the Tories job now is to ensure they don't next time around.
We do have legally enforceable commitments up to 2020 but seriously... 40bn?
As for the timescale I assume that will be whatever timescale is dictated to us... After all these years of austerity the optics though are going to be dreadful for the government...
I would agree, and I suspect the ADHD kippers will not see why we should pay anything.
The cost will be paid in installments, not very different to current EU subs, if it goes through at all.
Attlee nationalised not just rail and water and gas and electricity but iron and steel too and had a top tax rate Corbyn has not yet even contemplated even if he does want to raise tax.
Economically Corbyn would be little different to Attlee and Wilson, complete with strikes (of course for all of Attlee's premiership and most of Wilson's we were outside the EEC too), on social policy similar to Wilson too, where he does differ is on foreign policy and an opposition to nuclear weapons but he has promised not to impose his personal views there on the party. Of course Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam War so was no militarist either, though Attlee backed the US in Korea.
I am aware Attlee did all those things - he’s a socialist after all. But nationalisation was a policy that was a part of the mainstream of British politics for a long time (well, until Thatcher). That’s different from actually being a Marxist which is more extreme.
If Corbyn was a Marxist rather than a socialist he would be promising to nationalise everything, including the banks and supermarkets, at the moment he is not. (Though of course once in power who knows where we might end up).
And free trade and balanced budgets, as @Winstanley would confirm.
I think free trade and balanced budgets are more classical liberal than socialist ideals, hence Corbyn and McDonnell still back Brexit and leaving the single market and borrowing to spend and invest in infrastructure.
Yes they are. But ones Marx himself propounded.
'Marx said he voted for free trade as opposed to protectionism because in most cases this would be the quickest path to capitalist development and thereby the revolutionary class struggle to overthrow capitalism. But Marx also pointed to examples of where the bourgeoisie cleared away barriers to its development by utilizing protectionism' http://www.communistvoice.org/23cWTOMarxFreeTrade.html
Why Mr. HYUFD! You are quoting Communist Voice!
I even read Das Kapital, the Making of the English Working Class and the Communist Manifesto as a student believe it or not
We do have legally enforceable commitments up to 2020 but seriously... 40bn?
As for the timescale I assume that will be whatever timescale is dictated to us... After all these years of austerity the optics though are going to be dreadful for the government...
I do not agree. We have 20 billion per year gross to pay to 2019
We need access to various agencies and above all else we need to show Internationally that we accept our obligations entered into during our membership. If we renege on these commitments the idea Countries would be falling over to do trade deals is put in doubt to a considerable degree
The dividend comes after we leave and stop paying, saving tens of billions over the following years
These people can't seriously think they can get away with throwing 40bn to the EU when they've cut the NHS, education, the police and local government back to the bone?
We've got old grannies waiting on trolley's in hospital corridors for 12hrs and suddenly they can just come up with 40bn (and we don't even know if this is the final offer or just for starters)
If they've really got 40bn just sitting around waiting to be given away then give it to our hospitals for god's sake.
Oh, and just let Hammond start raising taxes on families to pay for this EU giveaway tomorrow...
We could be entering an ERM style meltdown for the Tories...
Just as a matter of interest how do you think this will be paid, the time scale, and do you recognise we have legally enforceable commitments to the EU
We do not have legally enforceable commitments to the EU. The 40bn is simply a bribe to allow a trade deal (maybe). It might make sense to those who are interested in such things, but the average person doesn't care about trade deals and assumes (wrongly) that the beneficiaries of such deals are big business and that it doesn't really affect them. So, yes, there will be hell to pay when the public engage with the fact that they are giving away money that they don't really have to. In fact, the public may be right, that the benefits of any trade deal are not worth the amounts being paid.
@saddo Tesco is less an analogy for Corbyn specifically and more political careers in general. We all know that most political careers end in failure. The question is, will the failure be as opposition leader or as PM?
Corbyn wasn’t supposed to survive the last two years, and definitely not a GE campaign with all his baggage, and yet he did. Then there’s also the matter that things could get worse for the government over the years, not better.
All political careers may ultimately end in failure in the sense you lose an election or have to resign but that does not mean political careers are failures, Attlee and Thatcher for example made huge changes to the country.
These people can't seriously think they can get away with throwing 40bn to the EU when they've cut the NHS, education, the police and local government back to the bone?
We've got old grannies waiting on trolley's in hospital corridors for 12hrs and suddenly they can just come up with 40bn (and we don't even know if this is the final offer or just for starters)
If they've really got 40bn just sitting around waiting to be given away then give it to our hospitals for god's sake.
Oh, and just let Hammond start raising taxes on families to pay for this EU giveaway tomorrow...
We could be entering an ERM style meltdown for the Tories...
Just as a matter of interest how do you think this will be paid, the time scale, and do you recognise we have legally enforceable commitments to the EU
We do not have legally enforceable commitments to the EU. The 40bn is simply a bribe to allow a trade deal (maybe). It might make sense to those who are interested in such things, but the average person doesn't care about trade deals and assumes (wrongly) that the beneficiaries of such deals are big business and that it doesn't really affect them. So, yes, there will be hell to pay when the public engage with the fact that they are giving away money that they don't really have to. In fact, the public may be right, that the benefits of any trade deal are not worth the amounts being paid.
We are EU members until 2019 at a cost of 40 billion gross.
The course of action of walking away on a hard brexit may happen, but 40 billion is a price worth paying if, and only if, a trade deal follows
In other news I've picked up, it seems that the Corbyn/Momentum slate is sweeping the votes for the Executive Committee of the Labour Party. If that is the case, it is more than likely that some LP MP's will be considering their future chances of advancement or employment elsewhere.
Lastly, and here it is very speculative, there are rumours that a Tory cabinet minister has shot his mouth off, and confirmed that their internal polling has shown a 12 point lead for Labour.
These people can't seriously think they can get away with throwing 40bn to the EU when they've cut the NHS, education, the police and local government back to the bone?
We've got old grannies waiting on trolley's in hospital corridors for 12hrs and suddenly they can just come up with 40bn (and we don't even know if this is the final offer or just for starters)
If they've really got 40bn just sitting around waiting to be given away then give it to our hospitals for god's sake.
Oh, and just let Hammond start raising taxes on families to pay for this EU giveaway tomorrow...
We could be entering an ERM style meltdown for the Tories...
Just as a matter of interest how do you think this will be paid, the time scale, and do you recognise we have legally enforceable commitments to the EU
We do not have legally enforceable commitments to the EU. The 40bn is simply a bribe to allow a trade deal (maybe). It might make sense to those who are interested in such things, but the average person doesn't care about trade deals and assumes (wrongly) that the beneficiaries of such deals are big business and that it doesn't really affect them. So, yes, there will be hell to pay when the public engage with the fact that they are giving away money that they don't really have to. In fact, the public may be right, that the benefits of any trade deal are not worth the amounts being paid.
We are EU members until 2019 at a cost of 40 billion gross.
The course of action of walking away on a hard brexit may happen, but 40 billion is a price worth paying if, and only if, a trade deal follows
Isn't the divorce bill on top of existing subs? so taking us to £80 billion by 2019, plus ongoing subs for programmes that we want to opt into?
In other news I've picked up, it seems that the Corbyn/Momentum slate is sweeping the votes for the Executive Committee of the Labour Party. If that is the case, it is more than likely that some LP MP's will be considering their future chances of advancement or employment elsewhere.
Lastly, and here it is very speculative, there are rumours that a Tory cabinet minister has shot his mouth off, and confirmed that their internal polling has shown a 12 point lead for Labour.
With that, I'm off to bed..
Labour politicians seem to like it in the jungle
And your story on a Tory cabinet minister was debunked days ago
Like the Catholic church's doctrine that the sun went round the earth and forcing Galileo to recant, and comparing it with John Redwood's insistence that the Hammond come out with more Brexit-friendly figures.
A tariff on imports from the EU is a tax imposed by the UK government on UK consumers who purchase them. They are a tax, not an income. For Redwood to misinterpret this as an income worries me: not that he thinks so (he's thick), but that other people believe him.
In other news I've picked up, it seems that the Corbyn/Momentum slate is sweeping the votes for the Executive Committee of the Labour Party. If that is the case, it is more than likely that some LP MP's will be considering their future chances of advancement or employment elsewhere.
Lastly, and here it is very speculative, there are rumours that a Tory cabinet minister has shot his mouth off, and confirmed that their internal polling has shown a 12 point lead for Labour.
With that, I'm off to bed..
It was the best moment of the programme. Kinnock generally came over well, but his wife clearly has much better political antennae. Kinnock took her advice.
These people can't seriously think they can get away with throwing 40bn to the EU when they've cut the NHS, education, the police and local government back to the bone?
We've got old grannies waiting on trolley's in hospital corridors for 12hrs and suddenly they can just come up with 40bn (and we don't even know if this is the final offer or just for starters)
If they've really got 40bn just sitting around waiting to be given away then give it to our hospitals for god's sake.
Oh, and just let Hammond start raising taxes on families to pay for this EU giveaway tomorrow...
We could be entering an ERM style meltdown for the Tories...
Just as a matter of interest how do you think this will be paid, the time scale, and do you recognise we have legally enforceable commitments to the EU
We do not have legally enforceable commitments to the EU. The 40bn is simply a bribe to allow a trade deal (maybe). It might make sense to those who are interested in such things, but the average person doesn't care about trade deals and assumes (wrongly) that the beneficiaries of such deals are big business and that it doesn't really affect them. So, yes, there will be hell to pay when the public engage with the fact that they are giving away money that they don't really have to. In fact, the public may be right, that the benefits of any trade deal are not worth the amounts being paid.
We are EU members until 2019 at a cost of 40 billion gross.
The course of action of walking away on a hard brexit may happen, but 40 billion is a price worth paying if, and only if, a trade deal follows
Isn't the divorce bill on top of existing subs? so taking us to £80 billion by 2019, plus ongoing subs for programmes that we want to opt into?
I am not sure to be honest but the 40 billion is subject to a trade deal and so membership of programmes will come under that heading and it is unlikely to be given in one lump sum
We do have legally enforceable commitments up to 2020 but seriously... 40bn?
As for the timescale I assume that will be whatever timescale is dictated to us... After all these years of austerity the optics though are going to be dreadful for the government...
Put it this way, we're currently paying ~£10bn per annum so that is 4 years worth of payments. It's less than one Parliament's worth of payments.
However some of it will be not just for the next few years but for commitments like pension liabilities which could still be getting paid fifty years from now.
Incidentally if this is correctly our share of money that we did already owe but hadn't yet paid then it's entirely possible that £10bn per annum that the EU was costing us was an underestimate as all these liabilities should have been accrued too.
These people can't seriously think they can get away with throwing 40bn to the EU when they've cut the NHS, education, the police and local government back to the bone?
We've got old grannies waiting on trolley's in hospital corridors for 12hrs and suddenly they can just come up with 40bn (and we don't even know if this is the final offer or just for starters)
If they've really got 40bn just sitting around waiting to be given away then give it to our hospitals for god's sake.
Oh, and just let Hammond start raising taxes on families to pay for this EU giveaway tomorrow...
We could be entering an ERM style meltdown for the Tories...
Just as a matter of interest how do you think this will be paid, the time scale, and do you recognise we have legally enforceable commitments to the EU
We do not have legally enforceable commitments to the EU. The 40bn is simply a bribe to allow a trade deal (maybe). It might make sense to those who are interested in such things, but the average person doesn't care about trade deals and assumes (wrongly) that the beneficiaries of such deals are big business and that it doesn't really affect them. So, yes, there will be hell to pay when the public engage with the fact that they are giving away money that they don't really have to. In fact, the public may be right, that the benefits of any trade deal are not worth the amounts being paid.
We are EU members until 2019 at a cost of 40 billion gross.
The course of action of walking away on a hard brexit may happen, but 40 billion is a price worth paying if, and only if, a trade deal follows
May is going to end up backing down on this. I can see that there is an argument for paying up IF the money is linked not just to the A50 treaty but the ultimate ratification of the trade deal. But the feedback from Brussels already is that France and Germany are not prepared to agree the link, so it will just be a question that we claim there is a link because we can always pull out of the talks, but in reality we are not prepared to do so.
We will end up being obliged to pay the 40bn at the time of Brexit but with no actual trade deal agreed and basically being stuck for the whole transition period in limbo but with all our cards played.
We should walk now unless the EU explicitly agree the terms of payment.
These people can't seriously think they can get away with throwing 40bn to the EU when they've cut the NHS, education, the police and local government back to the bone?
We've got old grannies waiting on trolley's in hospital corridors for 12hrs and suddenly they can just come up with 40bn (and we don't even know if this is the final offer or just for starters)
If they've really got 40bn just sitting around waiting to be given away then give it to our hospitals for god's sake.
Oh, and just let Hammond start raising taxes on families to pay for this EU giveaway tomorrow...
We could be entering an ERM style meltdown for the Tories...
Just as a matter of interest how do you think this will be paid, the time scale, and do you recognise we have legally enforceable commitments to the EU
We do not have legally enforceable commitments to the EU. The 40bn is simply a bribe to allow a trade deal (maybe). It might make sense to those who are interested in such things, but the average person doesn't care about trade deals and assumes (wrongly) that the beneficiaries of such deals are big business and that it doesn't really affect them. So, yes, there will be hell to pay when the public engage with the fact that they are giving away money that they don't really have to. In fact, the public may be right, that the benefits of any trade deal are not worth the amounts being paid.
We are EU members until 2019 at a cost of 40 billion gross.
The course of action of walking away on a hard brexit may happen, but 40 billion is a price worth paying if, and only if, a trade deal follows
May is going to end up backing down on this. I can see that there is an argument for paying up IF the money is linked not just to the A50 treaty but the ultimate ratification of the trade deal. But the feedback from Brussels already is that France and Germany are not prepared to agree the link, so it will just be a question that we claim there is a link because we can always pull out of the talks, but in reality we are not prepared to do so.
We will end up being obliged to pay the 40bn at the time of Brexit but with no actual trade deal agreed and basically being stuck for the whole transition period in limbo but with all our cards played.
We should walk now unless the EU explicitly agree the terms of payment.
We cannot walk away yet. The end result might be unacceptable but May is not going to just hand over billions. The agreement will form part of a legally enforeceable International Contract that will have to be approved by Parliament and the EU which will come under intense scrutiny and even possible legal challenge
One other thing, why is there still no fully costed breakdown from either the EU or HMG as to what our commitments actually are?
They are trading tens of billions with no actual costing at all.... Madness!
They probably have been battling back and forth various costings but they're just not public yet. When documents in 2037 are released under the twenty year rule I doubt it will just have a sum but there will be workings negotiated too.
One other thing, why is there still no fully costed breakdown from either the EU or HMG as to what our commitments actually are?
They are trading tens of billions with no actual costing at all.... Madness!
One genuine question I have is what would be the cost of a WTO Brexit? If a ballpark figure can be produced for the cost, then we'd have some kind of baseline. If a WTO Brexit cost £1bn, then it's bye-bye Commission and flick the v's. If it costs £200bn, then Barnier is our new best friend and where do we sign. Did nobody at least try for a number?
In the previous thread, someone referred to Mark Reckless as "TPD". Er, I may have missed it, but what does TPD stand for?
In answer to the other half of the comment, my favourite moment of the 2015 election night was not when Reckless lost his seat, but when Gavin Barwell held his seat by a margin of 165 votes. My second favourite moment was when George Galloway lost his seat - a moment of joy which we could share with our Labour rivals.
As for Reckless, I went with Gavin (and a few other people) to campaign in Rochester & Strood for the by-election in 2014. Gavin told us then fairly robustly that Reckless should never have been allowed to become an MP in the first place.
Like the Catholic church's doctrine that the sun went round the earth and forcing Galileo to recant, and comparing it with John Redwood's insistence that the Hammond come out with more Brexit-friendly figures.
A tariff on imports from the EU is a tax imposed by the UK government on UK consumers who purchase them. They are a tax, not an income. For Redwood to misinterpret this as an income worries me: not that he thinks so (he's thick), but that other people believe him.
This thinking is why Brexit is doomed to fail. The only reason to leave the EU is to stop the consumer debt led approach to our economy and rebuild our industry behind trade barriers. This has been done successfully by countries such as Korea recently. John Redwood approach is like having one last party before we become the new Venezuela.
Like the Catholic church's doctrine that the sun went round the earth and forcing Galileo to recant, and comparing it with John Redwood's insistence that the Hammond come out with more Brexit-friendly figures.
A tariff on imports from the EU is a tax imposed by the UK government on UK consumers who purchase them. They are a tax, not an income. For Redwood to misinterpret this as an income worries me: not that he thinks so (he's thick), but that other people believe him.
This thinking is why Brexit is doomed to fail. The only reason to leave the EU is to stop the consumer debt led approach to our economy and rebuild our industry behind trade barriers. This has been done successfully by countries such as Korea recently. John Redwood approach is like having one last party before we become the new Venezuela.
I hope that you are wrong: I fear you may be right.
Like the Catholic church's doctrine that the sun went round the earth and forcing Galileo to recant, and comparing it with John Redwood's insistence that the Hammond come out with more Brexit-friendly figures.
A tariff on imports from the EU is a tax imposed by the UK government on UK consumers who purchase them. They are a tax, not an income. For Redwood to misinterpret this as an income worries me: not that he thinks so (he's thick), but that other people believe him.
Except that's not what he says. He doesn't refer to it as an income. He says that the tariff would bring in [to the Treasury] approximately £12bn on EU imports. Yes this would be paid by the consumer. His proposal is to lower taxes/raise benefits by £12bn which would make this revenue-neutral.
If this happens it is entirely possible that the UK consumer would in that instance ultimately switch consumption from EU goods to either UK goods or other rest of the world WTO goods. For some reason people in this debate always seem to forget about the rest of the world.
Currently EU goods compete with domestic goods at domestic taxes. Redwood's proposal would make the EU goods equivalent to rest of the world goods and could see eg less imports from France but more from New Zealand etc
Like the Catholic church's doctrine that the sun went round the earth and forcing Galileo to recant, and comparing it with John Redwood's insistence that the Hammond come out with more Brexit-friendly figures.
A tariff on imports from the EU is a tax imposed by the UK government on UK consumers who purchase them. They are a tax, not an income. For Redwood to misinterpret this as an income worries me: not that he thinks so (he's thick), but that other people believe him.
Except that's not what he says. He doesn't refer to it as an income. He says that the tariff would bring in [to the Treasury] approximately £12bn on EU imports. Yes this would be paid by the consumer. His proposal is to lower taxes/raise benefits by £12bn which would make this revenue-neutral.
If this happens it is entirely possible that the UK consumer would in that instance ultimately switch consumption from EU goods to either UK goods or other rest of the world WTO goods. For some reason people in this debate always seem to forget about the rest of the world.
Currently EU goods compete with domestic goods at domestic taxes. Redwood's proposal would make the EU goods equivalent to rest of the world goods and could see eg less imports from France but more from New Zealand etc
If it's revenue-neutral....why do it? Is there something inherently objectionable about French goods that you think I should not purchase them? Shouldn't that choice be left up to me and not him?
And, given that tariffs are imposed by the domestic government importing, not the foreign government exporting, why would placing a tariff on French goods level the playing field with NZ goods? You're not proposing placing a tariff on NZ goods (I assume), so why place one on French goods? If your aim is to maximise my utility then remove all tariffs from French and NZ goods and let me choose as I feel appropriate.
If course, if Redwood's aim is to exploit a widespread misconception about tariffs to indulge his own twisted animus about French goods and make me buy non-EU goods whether I like it or not, then his statement makes sense...
Like the Catholic church's doctrine that the sun went round the earth and forcing Galileo to recant, and comparing it with John Redwood's insistence that the Hammond come out with more Brexit-friendly figures.
A tariff on imports from the EU is a tax imposed by the UK government on UK consumers who purchase them. They are a tax, not an income. For Redwood to misinterpret this as an income worries me: not that he thinks so (he's thick), but that other people believe him.
Except that's not what he says. He doesn't refer to it as an income. He says that the tariff would bring in [to the Treasury] approximately £12bn on EU imports. Yes this would be paid by the consumer. His proposal is to lower taxes/raise benefits by £12bn which would make this revenue-neutral.
If this happens it is entirely possible that the UK consumer would in that instance ultimately switch consumption from EU goods to either UK goods or other rest of the world WTO goods. For some reason people in this debate always seem to forget about the rest of the world.
Currently EU goods compete with domestic goods at domestic taxes. Redwood's proposal would make the EU goods equivalent to rest of the world goods and could see eg less imports from France but more from New Zealand etc
If it's revenue-neutral....why do it? Is there something inherently objectionable about French goods that you think I should not purchase them? Shouldn't that choice be left up to me and not him?
And, given that tariffs are imposed by the domestic government importing, not the foreign government exporting, why would placing a tariff on French goods level the playing field with NZ goods? You're not proposing placing a tariff on NZ goods (I assume), so why place one on French goods? If your aim is to maximise my utility then remove all tariffs from French and NZ goods and let me choose as I feel appropriate.
If course, if Redwood's aim is to exploit a widespread misconception about tariffs to indulge his own twisted animus about French goods and make me buy non-EU goods whether I like it or not, then his statement makes sense...
There is already a tariff on NZ goods - the CET. This would become a WTO tariff until we sign a mutual FTA with NZ (which will not take long).
Redwood and PT are correct - if the EU will not agree to a mutual FTA it is quite sensible to impose tariffs, even if revenue neutral, to redirect consumption to nations that are actually interested in free trade.
Its an option. If the EU reject the proposed €40bn payment for a deal and demand even more money then that's not revenue-neutral. His point is I believe that things like tariffs aren't the end of the world if exorbitant demands are made for a deal.
Is there something inherently objectionable about French goods that you think I should not purchase them? Shouldn't that choice be left up to me and not him?
He's not making any choices for you, quite the opposite! He's proposing that you should be left no worse off by choosing to continue importing French goods. I've suggested you might be better off by choosing to take the tariff-subsidy and choose something else instead.
And, given that tariffs are imposed by the domestic government importing, not the foreign government exporting, why would placing a tariff on French goods level the playing field with NZ goods? You're not proposing placing a tariff on NZ goods (I assume), so why place one on French goods? If your aim is to maximise my utility then remove all tariffs from French and NZ goods and let me choose as I feel appropriate.
If the French refuse to give us a trade deal (which is not what we are seeking, we are seeking a deal but they are seeking to screw us out of as much money as possible first) then French goods would fall under WTO terms onto the same tariff structure that imports from other WTO nations like New Zealand already face.
There is already a tariff on NZ goods - the CET. This would become a WTO tariff until we sign a mutual FTA with NZ (which will not take long).
Redwood and PT are correct - if the EU will not agree to a mutual FTA it is quite sensible to impose tariffs, even if revenue neutral, to redirect consumption to nations that are actually interested in free trade.
Absolutely correct!
If the EU will not agree to a mutual FTA then not only would it be quite sensible to impose tariffs it will be legally mandated under WTO terms to do so unless we were to unilaterally abolish tariffs with the entire world. That is an option I would actually be OK with but I doubt many others would.
The point is we want a trade deal but if the EU don't we can't force them to give us one.
That Kantar turnout adjusted poll would give the Tories an overall majority on 233 seats to 248 for Labour and 14 for the LDs.
Even just taking the figures for all voters the Tories would still be the largest party on 297 seats to 283 for Labour.
Don't give Kim Jong May ideas....
I highly doubt she would even consider it but an astonishingly good poll for the Tories given the last few weeks nonetheless.
Have we seen Peak Corbyn?
Maybe not quite Peak Corbyn but he is certainly nearing the summit and it will be all downhill from there
What he has done is reset the Labour brand. It is now distinctively different from the Blair years. The press and Tories have so far helped.
That's right. Corbyn's personal ratings have by no means declined - May retains the incumbency bonus as "best PM" but is otherwise well behind on most counts. I think that most people have got used to the idea that Corbyn might become PM and it could be OK, which just a year ago wasn't the case.
However, Corbyn has reset the Labour brand as "real left" (we argue about what that means, but most people have a general concept of it), and that's a package that floating voters treat with caution. They don't rule it out and even more extreme leftism isn't as tainted as right-wingers would like (cf. the poll showing that a huge majority would prefer communism to fascism in a forced choice), but it means that they don't automatically flip when the Government's in trouble.
I don't think a Labour win is a slam-dunk, given the huge uncertainties ahead, and I think there will be periods where the Tories do well when the EU negotiations succeed (as they will in the end). But the visible fatigue of office will pull them back and in the end I do expect Labour to win next time by a modest majority.
That Kantar turnout adjusted poll would give the Tories an overall majority on 233 seats to 248 for Labour and 14 for the LDs.
Even just taking the figures for all voters the Tories would still be the largest party on 297 seats to 283 for Labour.
Don't give Kim Jong May ideas....
I highly doubt she would even consider it but an astonishingly good poll for the Tories given the last few weeks nonetheless.
Have we seen Peak Corbyn?
Maybe not quite Peak Corbyn but he is certainly nearing the summit and it will be all downhill from there
What he has done is reset the Labour brand. It is now distinctively different from the Blair years. The press and Tories have so far helped.
That's right. Corbyn's personal ratings have by no means declined - May retains the incumbency bonus as "best PM" but is otherwise well behind on most counts. I think that most people have got used to the idea that Corbyn might become PM and it could be OK, which just a year ago wasn't the case.
However, Corbyn has reset the Labour brand as "real left" (we argue about what that means, but most people have a general concept of it), and that's a package that floating voters treat with caution. They don't rule it out and even more extreme leftism isn't as tainted as right-wingers would like (cf. the poll showing that a huge majority would prefer communism to fascism in a forced choice), but it means that they don't automatically flip when the Government's in trouble.
I don't think a Labour win is a slam-dunk, given the huge uncertainties ahead, and I think there will be periods where the Tories do well when the EU negotiations succeed (as they will in the end). But the visible fatigue of office will pull them back and in the end I do expect Labour to win next time by a modest majority.
Even Churchill preferred communism to fascism although he loathed both
Comments
We all have them. Shouting 'Learn' from a pulpit is pretty silly.
Economically Corbyn would be little different to Attlee and Wilson, complete with the strikes of the latter Wilson and Callaghan years (of course for all of Attlee's premiership and most of Wilson's we were outside the EEC too), on social policy similar to Wilson, where he does differ is on foreign policy and an opposition to nuclear weapons but he has promised not to impose his personal views there on the party.
Of course Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam War so was no militarist either, though Attlee backed the US in Korea.
As well as the dementia tax and the dreadful campaign there was another key point about GE 2017 made by John Curtice:
Historically, early elections very often go wrong for the party that calls them.
A key, very simple, reason - people think "Why are you calling an early election?" Obvious answer: "Because something is about to go wrong". Result: people doubt the incumbent party.
Moving on to the next GE anything could happen but one non-political point to bear in mind:
Corbyn will have lost the element of surprise. Many were gobsmacked (positively) by his popular policies which thus attracted big support. Next time, the same policies may still be popular but they won't be a surprise and the Conservatives will be much better placed and prepared to attack them.
What if the next Tory leader tanks like May. No-one has a clue.
Also SeanT's point is a good one. Corbyn's popularity was based on a chimera. Fashions like that, based on nothing substantial, can easily change.
Of course, none of this means that we should be complacent, or that it's guaranteed that voters will come to their senses. Far from it - I think that at the next election you'll see huge determination to make sure that the disaster doesn't happen.
He believes in a pre 1979 Britain of strong welfare state, of strong unions, of taxation to redistribute wealth, of imperial retreat and of nationalisation. He even believes in free university tuition, which stayed until the late Eighties along with student grants.
Jezza has a very old fashioned view of the future.
There are however, a heck of a lot of Tories saying that Labour people know Corbyn will walk it.
Then expounding theories ranging from the reasonably credible, to the outright fantastical.
Most can be summed up by "People will see sense and vote Tory."
As I pointed out on the eve of the GE (although I have to say I didn't quite believe the extent of the swing), May set light to her massive lead with the middle aged, and in the end it was pretty much neck and neck with those 30-40 year olds.
Current polling doesn't show much shift away from that situation. Pissing about with take away tray taxes isn't going to change that.
I also wouldn’t agree Corbyn’s popularity is based on nothing substantial. As has been discussed on here, his popularity is related to a lot of the current economic issues affecting those under 50, and his ability to tap into that disaffection. It’s also related to the culture wars that have been unleashed since Brexit.
Theresa May’s relationship with Philip Hammond is close to breaking point after Downing Street took control of a last-minute Budget briefing amid fears Wednesday's financial statement will fall flat
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/21/theresa-mays-relationship-philip-hammond-hits-new-low-botched/
Anyone who is certain is certain to be proved wrong.
btw Are we not coming up to the anniversary of Ms Abbott saying Labour would catch up in the polls in a year?
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/nov/21/john-lasseter-taking-leave-from-pixar-citing-missteps-and-unwanted-hugs
As for culture wars, that's an interesting point, because of course Corbyn and McDonnell and the other hard-left extremist who have taken over the party are very far from the liberal-left 21st century attitudes of the youngsters who voted for them. It is indeed a funny old world.
I’m not a fan of Galileo: he was right for the wrong reasons.
What he mostly achieved was keeping Labour in the game. Tories anticipated a crushing defeat of Labour that would destroy the Labour party for a generation or longer. What they got was a reality check. At the very least the next election will be on a knife edge. If the Tories make a net loss of a handful of seats, there goes their ability to form a government.
Sure, the Tories will be better prepared next time, but so will Labour. Labour has rediscovered its Mojo and has a renewed sense of mission and purpose.
The group states that it could raise £25.8million if the top eight-per cent of homes – roughly 15,266 households – were charged 200 per cent more than their current rates. This would see those living in the most expensive ‘band H’ properties pay almost £10,800 a year, compared to the current £3,599.50 bill.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/increase-council-tax-200-richest-806346
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/932933839227441152
Was in reply to @HYUFD's post of "if Corbyn were a Marxist". It was another example of why Corbyn isn't a Marxist, as HYUFD was also saying.
He is not a Marxist, he is an old-fashioned Socialist.
If we are about to give the EU what they want on the topic of money so long as there's a deal then why would there ultimately be no deal? That just doesn't seem plausible to me?
@Richard_Nabavi and many of Corbyn’s supporters believe in the solutions he offers. You may not (hell, I’m somewhat sceptical) but they do.
http://www.communistvoice.org/23cWTOMarxFreeTrade.html
We've got old grannies waiting on trolley's in hospital corridors for 12hrs and suddenly they can just come up with 40bn (and we don't even know if this is the final offer or just for starters)
If they've really got 40bn just sitting around waiting to be given away then give it to our hospitals for god's sake.
Oh, and just let Hammond start raising taxes on families to pay for this EU giveaway tomorrow...
We could be entering an ERM style meltdown for the Tories...
There needs to be more bands added to the top and a re-valuation.
However, this would take several years and involve many appeals.
But it is needed
They slipped just a little. Nobody can be that good or lucky all the time.
They subsequently dropped like a stone, reputation shot, profits down the pan. Now working very hard to recover.
Corbyn is currently successful Tesco. He can get away with nearly anything.
But it only takes a minor slip, and down he goes.
Happened to Tesco, M&S, the banks.
He's got to ride the wave for another 4 years. Nearly impossible for a bloke with all his baggage.
We do have legally enforceable commitments up to 2020 but seriously... 40bn?
As for the timescale I assume that will be whatever timescale is dictated to us... After all these years of austerity the optics though are going to be dreadful for the government...
When was Corbyn ever the ultimate boy of retail politics?
Tesco is less an analogy for Corbyn specifically and more political careers in general. We all know that most political careers end in failure. The question is, will the failure be as opposition leader or as PM?
Corbyn wasn’t supposed to survive the last two years, and definitely not a GE campaign with all his baggage, and yet he did. Then there’s also the matter that things could get worse for the government over the years, not better.
The Tories made no attempt to show people how Labour's policies would actually make them worse off - they were either trying to put out fires in the form of the dementia tax and other unforced gaffes - or shouting "IRA! IRA!" at Corbyn which as we know appears to have had little resonance.
Labour effectively got a free pass at GE2017, the Tories job now is to ensure they don't next time around.
The cost will be paid in installments, not very different to current EU subs, if it goes through at all.
We need access to various agencies and above all else we need to show Internationally that we accept our obligations entered into during our membership. If we renege on these commitments the idea Countries would be falling over to do trade deals is put in doubt to a considerable degree
The dividend comes after we leave and stop paying, saving tens of billions over the following years
The course of action of walking away on a hard brexit may happen, but 40 billion is a price worth paying if, and only if, a trade deal follows
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/stephen-kinnock-helle-thorning-schmidt_uk_5a135c0ae4b0aa32975d54f8?ncid=fcbklnkukhpmg00000001
In other news I've picked up, it seems that the Corbyn/Momentum slate is sweeping the votes for the Executive Committee of the Labour Party. If that is the case, it is more than likely that some LP MP's will be considering their future chances of advancement or employment elsewhere.
Lastly, and here it is very speculative, there are rumours that a Tory cabinet minister has shot his mouth off, and confirmed that their internal polling has shown a 12 point lead for Labour.
With that, I'm off to bed..
And your story on a Tory cabinet minister was debunked days ago
They are trading tens of billions with no actual costing at all.... Madness!
However some of it will be not just for the next few years but for commitments like pension liabilities which could still be getting paid fifty years from now.
Incidentally if this is correctly our share of money that we did already owe but hadn't yet paid then it's entirely possible that £10bn per annum that the EU was costing us was an underestimate as all these liabilities should have been accrued too.
We will end up being obliged to pay the 40bn at the time of Brexit but with no actual trade deal agreed and basically being stuck for the whole transition period in limbo but with all our cards played.
We should walk now unless the EU explicitly agree the terms of payment.
In answer to the other half of the comment, my favourite moment of the 2015 election night was not when Reckless lost his seat, but when Gavin Barwell held his seat by a margin of 165 votes. My second favourite moment was when George Galloway lost his seat - a moment of joy which we could share with our Labour rivals.
As for Reckless, I went with Gavin (and a few other people) to campaign in Rochester & Strood for the by-election in 2014. Gavin told us then fairly robustly that Reckless should never have been allowed to become an MP in the first place.
If this happens it is entirely possible that the UK consumer would in that instance ultimately switch consumption from EU goods to either UK goods or other rest of the world WTO goods. For some reason people in this debate always seem to forget about the rest of the world.
Currently EU goods compete with domestic goods at domestic taxes. Redwood's proposal would make the EU goods equivalent to rest of the world goods and could see eg less imports from France but more from New Zealand etc
And, given that tariffs are imposed by the domestic government importing, not the foreign government exporting, why would placing a tariff on French goods level the playing field with NZ goods? You're not proposing placing a tariff on NZ goods (I assume), so why place one on French goods? If your aim is to maximise my utility then remove all tariffs from French and NZ goods and let me choose as I feel appropriate.
If course, if Redwood's aim is to exploit a widespread misconception about tariffs to indulge his own twisted animus about French goods and make me buy non-EU goods whether I like it or not, then his statement makes sense...
Redwood and PT are correct - if the EU will not agree to a mutual FTA it is quite sensible to impose tariffs, even if revenue neutral, to redirect consumption to nations that are actually interested in free trade.
If the EU will not agree to a mutual FTA then not only would it be quite sensible to impose tariffs it will be legally mandated under WTO terms to do so unless we were to unilaterally abolish tariffs with the entire world. That is an option I would actually be OK with but I doubt many others would.
The point is we want a trade deal but if the EU don't we can't force them to give us one.
According to a senior Conservative, they might be.
[Stephen Bush]"
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/11/are-labour-really-12-points-ahead-polls
However, Corbyn has reset the Labour brand as "real left" (we argue about what that means, but most people have a general concept of it), and that's a package that floating voters treat with caution. They don't rule it out and even more extreme leftism isn't as tainted as right-wingers would like (cf. the poll showing that a huge majority would prefer communism to fascism in a forced choice), but it means that they don't automatically flip when the Government's in trouble.
I don't think a Labour win is a slam-dunk, given the huge uncertainties ahead, and I think there will be periods where the Tories do well when the EU negotiations succeed (as they will in the end). But the visible fatigue of office will pull them back and in the end I do expect Labour to win next time by a modest majority.