I have no problem with Nick Clegg's knighthood though I do not agree with his politics.
A Royal Yacht is a good idea but only if it is paid for and maintained by business and used to promote trade Worldwide. It should not be supported by lottery funds
Maybe Blair and Brown don't want a gong? Wouldn't fit wit the very humble way that Brown has gone about his charity work. And Blair is a Brand. Doesn't need anything adding to it that Blair can't add himself (like talking cash from tinpot dictators)
As for Clegg, I'm not arguing that he isn't entitled to one as an ex-DPM. I'm making the point that his own party members think he destroyed the party and shouldn't accept one as a token of humility.
I'm feeling generous. Yesterday I said something nice about Corbyn. Today I will add that while I consider Brown was the worst Prime Minister since the abject Goderich in 1827-28, his conduct since leaving office has unlike Blair's or Thatcher's been pretty much irreproachable. Good for him. The only minor blemish would be staying in Parliament while not attending, but there he was placed in a pretty difficult position - nobody wanted a by-election or him chuntering away from the back benches.
Lucky you. We have chuntering 'interventions' from Brown every few months (every week in 2014).
It is worth adding that Baldwin was made a KG even before leaving office, as was Churchill (1953) as was Eden (1956). Wilson was April 1976. Callaghan was 1981. Thatcher was 1995. Attlee was also 1956 - I'm assuming he refused it until after he had resigned as Labour leader.
This delay looks odd.
I suppose they delayed it until after the Chilcot inquiry.
Churchill and honours is worthy of book on its own.
Didn't he decline a Dukedom/Hereditary peerage because he wanted his son/grandkids to follow him in Parliament, and at the time it was nigh on impossible to disclaim a title.
On a similar theme, there is a fantastic financial biography of Churchill, called No More Champagne, I think.
No More Champagne is an excellent book. Churchill was always skint (and might have had trouble with a modern ethics committee and perhaps even a jury) but leaving that aside, it is interesting that 100 years ago Cabinet Ministers were paid the rough equivalent of £500,000 and the Prime Minister double that. But they were expected to meet their own household expenses. As First Lord, Churchill had to shut half Admiralty House down as he could not afford twelve domestic servants. Shades of Jim Hacker's cook in Yes Prime Minister.
Support amongst Tory members for May leading the party into the next general election reaches 39% though 51% still want her to go before 2022 but only 7% want her to leave now
We've moved on from blue passports to new boats. I guess that's some kind of win.
Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs confirms they are moving just 20 jobs to Dublin to establish the EU holding company. Seems like bigger news that the most hostile bank to Brexit Britain is basically staying in London and buying a brass plate in Dublin.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
Given your well known hatred of nostalgic Britain, maybe it's time to buck that particular trend then? Why should senior ex-politicians be automatically assumed to be worthy of any sort of gong? There are no people in the political public eye I'd call Sir or Dame to their face, just because they got their snout in the trough. The same goes for all of he celebs who get gongs. I'd never ever say the words "Sir David Beckham" in the same sentence (if he ever gets one!). In fact, I'd go out of my way to not say the word "Sir" if I ever met any celeb who had been Knighted!
The "honours" system is a genuine anachronism. As a card carrying trot I am very much pro-monarchy (because it works) but think that pomp and circumstance should just be there as a honey trap for the tourists.
Once we get to Brenda giving a gong or a peerage to business people who coincidentally happened to provide cash/services to a political party, it brings the country into disrepute never mind the "honour" being "awarded".
If the monarch retains the honours which are solely in their remit thats fine.; Its the political ones that stick in the craw - too many Lord Baldricks.
The "honours" system is a genuine anachronism. As a card carrying trot I am very much pro-monarchy (because it works) but think that pomp and circumstance should just be there as a honey trap for the tourists.
Once we get to Brenda giving a gong or a peerage to business people who coincidentally happened to provide cash/services to a political party, it brings the country into disrepute never mind the "honour" being "awarded".
If the monarch retains the honours which are solely in their remit thats fine.; Its the political ones that stick in the craw - too many Lord Baldricks.
I was wryly amused that Lord Ashcroft was running a twitter poll on whether Nick Clegg or Nigel Farage should be knighted. Evidently some honours are to be taken as read as deserved.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
Brexit continues to be the poison that sours the political milk - a deeply divided Labour Party are neck and neck with the Tories because we are deeply divided both as a party and as an electorate over Brexit. So I understand that.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
Given your well known hatred of nostalgic Britain, maybe it's time to buck that particular trend then? Why should senior ex-politicians be automatically assumed to be worthy of any sort of gong? There are no people in the political public eye I'd call Sir or Dame to their face, just because they got their snout in the trough. The same goes for all of he celebs who get gongs. I'd never ever say the words "Sir David Beckham" in the same sentence (if he ever gets one!). In fact, I'd go out of my way to not say the word "Sir" if I ever met any celeb who had been Knighted!
I think I'd make an exception for Lord Buckethead. Might even give a wee curtsy.
The lottery is a raffle with odious state pretensions: I should be free to choose to buy tickets for a new Royal Yacht (as any democrat would agree). This site is full of upper middle-class pretension and snobbery: Should the yacht fail then the market will have spoken (as it should for the disasters that the NHS and legal-system exemplify yet are protected from).
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
I expect the other three are waiting for the Order of the Garter or the Order of the Thistle. I imagine they've been sounded out for peerages and declined.
Ta. I must admit that although I love the history and ceremony surrounding all these awards, I don't really like them from a political point of view so have not paid any attention to who is supposed to get what and for why.
The Knighthood I wanted was to become a Knight Grand Cross of The Order of St Michael and St George, it would have given me the post nominal GCMG, which stands for 'God Calls Me God'
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
I expect the other three are waiting for the Order of the Garter or the Order of the Thistle. I imagine they've been sounded out for peerages and declined.
Ta. I must admit that although I love the history and ceremony surrounding all these awards, I don't really like them from a political point of view so have not paid any attention to who is supposed to get what and for why.
The Knighthood I wanted was to become a Knight Grand Cross of The Order of St Michael and St George, it would have given me the post nominal GCMG, which stands for 'God Calls Me God'
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parliamentary party sucked it up and voted time after time after time for all the things they claimed to oppose.
Whatever else happens in 2018, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be an ex-party.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
I expect the other three are waiting for the Order of the Garter or the Order of the Thistle. I imagine they've been sounded out for peerages and declined.
Ta. I must admit that although I love the history and ceremony surrounding all these awards, I don't really like them from a political point of view so have not paid any attention to who is supposed to get what and for why.
The Knighthood I wanted was to become a Knight Grand Cross of The Order of St Michael and St George, it would have given me the post nominal GCMG, which stands for 'God Calls Me God'
Indeed Mr P; as one who canvassed etc for the Libs and then the LD’s for manyn years I was horrified by some of the things to which they agreed. For me, the worst thing was the emasculation of Legal Aid.
Charles Kennedy was one of the true gentlemen of politics. And transformed his party into a campaigning and successful party on the up. They took his alcoholism as an excuse to not just remove him but utterly change direction. That their electorate didn't support their new policies didn't matter, simply publicly hold up pledge cards for the press whilst simultaneously telling your shadow team that the policy wouldn't work and would be the first thing in the bin.
That Clegg was openly exposed being so two-faced was bad enough. But then they decided that coalition meant openly supporting every policy the Tories threw down no matter how much it contradicted their ethos and shamed their membership. That they managed to stick a yellow bow tie on the dog turd was supposed to be something people would be grateful for.
Farron - one of a tiny handful of MPs not to support the coalition - was supposed to be the guy to drag them away from the Tories, But with so few MPs left he embarrassed himself desperately trying to get called at PMQs then on the odd occasion he did talkedat500mphtotryandcramitallin. Nobody listened. Until he started channelling Glenn Hoddle. Then they listened. And so we have Sir Vince. A man once popular for one well delivered gag at PMQs and reviled for 5 years of sitting in the heart of the coalition.
If they don't have a clue what they stand for any more, its no surprise that the voters don't either.
To be fair their policy on the EU seems clear.compared to the Tories and Labour.
It is worth adding that Baldwin was made a KG even before leaving office, as was Churchill (1953) as was Eden (1956). Wilson was April 1976. Callaghan was 1981. Thatcher was 1995. Attlee was also 1956 - I'm assuming he refused it until after he had resigned as Labour leader.
This delay looks odd.
I suppose they delayed it until after the Chilcot inquiry.
Churchill and honours is worthy of book on its own.
Didn't he decline a Dukedom/Hereditary peerage because he wanted his son/grandkids to follow him in Parliament, and at the time it was nigh on impossible to disclaim a title.
IIRC an offer was made to make Churchill 'Duke of London' with the assumption that he would decline.
Churchill then pretended to accept the offer causing some temporary consternation.
Reading LibDemVoice on the forthcoming Clegg gong has been illuminating. A small minority of members very proud of their record in government. A large majority scathing about Clegg and his cabal, and asking if his knighthood is for services to the Conservative Party.
The LibDems on the other hand are united. Against Brexit and against the Causes of Brexit. With a very large number of virulent remain votes up for grabs in seats where they previously have done very well. Yet their poll remains woeful with zero signs of life coming back.
Why?
Because LibDems are liars. Not just normal political liars (i.e. all parties) but blatant abusive shyster liars, specifically over tuition fees. I know that most voters aren't that bothered by tuition fees, but they are bothered by a party which lied to their face and then lied about not lying to their face. Yes I know that the liar was (Sir?) Nick Clegg not the party, But almost the entire parl
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
I expect the other three are waiting for the Order of the Garter or the Order of the Thistle. I imagine they've been sounded out for peerages and declined.
Ta. I must admit that although I love the history and ceremony surrounding all these awards, I don't really like them from a political point of view so have not paid any attention to who is supposed to get what and for why.
The Knighthood I wanted was to become a Knight Grand Cross of The Order of St Michael and St George, it would have given me the post nominal GCMG, which stands for 'God Calls Me God'
Yes, Clegg deserves a knighthood. Of course he does. The Coalition was among the best governments this country has had, and history will judge him a fine Deputy PM.
The Royal Yacht story shows, as does the blue passport news, exactly how delusional nostalgia seems to drive our governing class these days. It’s a depressing little story to end the year.
Predictions?
May will continue through 18. She has earned grudging respect from hanging on. Davis, Hammond, and Johnson have all disqualified themselves from the big job. If she goes, it will be because of events dear boy, and the race to succeed her will be between Rudd, Hunt, and Rees-Mogg - which Hunt will win.
I hope she clings on and hands over to the younger generation in 2019.
Corbyn is safe as long as May is, and is secured by the same forces of stasis. It should be clear to all now that he represents no threat at all to the government and in fact it is convenient to the Tories to keep him in place. Should he stumble, his replacement will be Emily Thornberry, who would be much more of a threat.
Brexit will, as others have suggested, be an ongoing source of discontent. It is the mother of all culture wars and while Remainers look to be accepting finally that Brexit is happening and is unstoppable, I don’t know anyone reconciled to it.
What is interesting though is how little conversation there is about what a good Brexit looks like, and by default the vision for Britain in the 2020s and beyond.
The Leaver vs Remain debate has become quite sterile, and the argument on how to leave is a process story - uninteresting and unintelligible to the great majority.
Which brings me to the Lib Dems. They are probably irrelevant until they somehow accept Brexit as a political fact. Ironically, it may only be possible to overcome economic cultural Brexit by first accepting it as a political reality.
Whoever can offer a real and believable vision for this country which somehow transcends Brexit divides has a huge political opportunity. It is my great hope for 2018 that we the beginnings of this - although I am pessimistic.
Indeed Mr P; as one who canvassed etc for the Libs and then the LD’s for manyn years I was horrified by some of the things to which they agreed. For me, the worst thing was the emasculation of Legal Aid.
Charles Kennedy was one of the true gentlemen of politics. And transformed his party into a campaigning and successful party on the up. They took his alcoholism as an excuse to not just remove him but utterly change direction. That their electorate didn't support their new policies didn't matter, simply publicly hold up pledge cards for the press whilst simultaneously telling your shadow team that the policy wouldn't work and would be the first thing in the bin.
That Clegg was openly exposed being so two-faced was bad enough. But then they decided that coalition meant openly supporting every policy the Tories threw down no matter how much it contradicted their ethos and shamed their membership. That they managed to stick a yellow bow tie on the dog turd was supposed to be something people would be grateful for.
Farron - one of a tiny handful of MPs not to support the coalition - was supposed to be the guy to drag them away from the Tories, But with so few MPs left he embarrassed himself desperately trying to get called at PMQs then on the odd occasion he did talkedat500mphtotryandcramitallin. Nobody listened. Until he started channelling Glenn Hoddle. Then they listened. And so we have Sir Vince. A man once popular for one well delivered gag at PMQs and reviled for 5 years of sitting in the heart of the coalition.
If they don't have a clue what they stand for any more, its no surprise that the voters don't either.
To be fair their policy on the EU seems clear.compared to the Tories and Labour.
To run away from the declared will of the voters? Brave indeed.....
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
And before Tezza works out that legalisation of cannabis will be an old and blue turnout machine as its health benefits are made available to sufferers from chronic pain and other neurological conditions.
It is a shame we can't separate this into two entirely separate issues, A. therapeutic cannabis in proper pharmacologically prepared form and B. recreational use. A. should automatically be a thing if it meets the usual tests for prescription drugs. As to B, the unfettered abuse of high quality modern cannabis (doesn't even have to be skunk) produces full on batshit craziness in both the short, medium and long term. Legalising it is an utterly terrible idea.
I am with you on this one. I have seen too many lives destroyed by cannabis, too many apathetic youth, too much paranoid psychosis.
Decriminalisation possibly, but legal licensing? No.
Indeed Mr P; as one who canvassed etc for the Libs and then the LD’s for manyn years I was horrified by some of the things to which they agreed. For me, the worst thing was the emasculation of Legal Aid.
Charles Kennedy was one of the true gentlemen of politics. And transformed his party into a campaigning and successful party on the up. They took his alcoholism as an excuse to not just remove him but utterly change direction. That their electorate didn't support their new policies didn't matter, simply publicly hold up pledge cards for the press whilst simultaneously telling your shadow team that the policy wouldn't work and would be the first thing in the bin.
That Clegg was openly exposed being so two-faced was bad enough. But then they decided that coalition meant openly supporting every policy the Tories threw down no matter how much it contradicted their ethos and shamed their membership. That they managed to stick a yellow bow tie on the dog turd was supposed to be something people would be grateful for.
Farron - one of a tiny handful of MPs not to support the coalition - was supposed to be the guy to drag them away from the Tories, But with so few MPs left he embarrassed himself desperately trying to get called at PMQs then on the odd occasion he did talkedat500mphtotryandcramitallin. Nobody listened. Until he started channelling Glenn Hoddle. Then they listened. And so we have Sir Vince. A man once popular for one well delivered gag at PMQs and reviled for 5 years of sitting in the heart of the coalition.
If they don't have a clue what they stand for any more, its no surprise that the voters don't either.
To be fair their policy on the EU seems clear.compared to the Tories and Labour.
To run away from the declared will of the voters? Brave indeed.....
I suppose or cynical in expecting a bounce from the 48.1% .
It is very brave to make predictions. That Brexit would make the Conservatives more popular was something I believed, and was very plausible from the polling as recently as last May.
To run away from the declared will of the voters? Brave indeed.....
Come on - democracy includes the right of parties - especially small parties - to say that they disagree with the majority of voters and wish to campaign for a different approach. Otherwise we'd all have to embrace the policies of every party that won an election.
And if you were speaking in terms of political savvy, being the champion of a cause embraced by 48% might well be a good policy for a small party. The reason it hasn't worked is that most remainers don't see it as very credible either to insist on another referendum or that the LibDems could deliver one.
To run away from the declared will of the voters? Brave indeed.....
Come on - democracy includes the right of parties - especially small parties - to say that they disagree with the majority of voters and wish to campaign for a different approach. Otherwise we'd all have to embrace the policies of every party that won an election.
And if you were speaking in terms of political savvy, being the champion of a cause embraced by 48% might well be a good policy for a small party. The reason it hasn't worked is that most remainers don't see it as very credible either to insist on another referendum or that the LibDems could deliver one.
It is very brave to make predictions. That Brexit would make the Conservatives more popular was something I believed, and was very plausible from the polling as recently as last May.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future"
I broadly agree with Alastair. Nothing much will happen, bar the phoney war with the EU over the negotiations. There. I have offered my hostage to fortune.
Yes, Clegg deserves a knighthood. Of course he does. The Coalition was among the best governments this country has had, and history will judge him a fine Deputy PM.
The Royal Yacht story shows, as does the blue passport news, exactly how delusional nostalgia seems to drive our governing class these days. It’s a depressing little story to end the year.
Predictions?
May will continue through 18. She has earned grudging respect from hanging on. Davis, Hammond, and Johnson have all disqualified themselves from the big job. If she goes, it will be because of events dear boy, and the race to succeed her will be between Rudd, Hunt, and Rees-Mogg - which Hunt will win.
I hope she clings on and hands over to the younger generation in 2019.
Corbyn is safe as long as May is, and is secured by the same forces of stasis. It should be clear to all now that he represents no threat at all to the government and in fact it is convenient to the Tories to keep him in place. Should he stumble, his replacement will be Emily Thornberry, who would be much more of a threat.
Brexit will, as others have suggested, be an ongoing source of discontent. It is the mother of all culture wars and while Remainers look to be accepting finally that Brexit is happening and is unstoppable, I don’t know anyone reconciled to it.
What is interesting though is how little conversation there is about what a good Brexit looks like, and by default the vision for Britain in the 2020s and beyond.
The Leaver vs Remain debate has become quite sterile, and the argument on how to leave is a process story - uninteresting and unintelligible to the great majority.
Which brings me to the Lib Dems. They are probably irrelevant until they somehow accept Brexit as a political fact. Ironically, it may only be possible to overcome economic cultural Brexit by first accepting it as a political reality.
Whoever can offer a real and believable vision for this country which somehow transcends Brexit divides has a huge political opportunity. It is my great hope for 2018 that we the beginnings of this - although I am pessimistic.
One trick would be to articulate how the additional powers derived from Brexit, such as in the field of the environment and agriculture, could be used to pursue progressive causes.
Andrew Marr wrote interestingly on this some months back.
Of course Nick Clegg should get at least a knighthood, if honours are to mean anything. He's earned it. He was Deputy Prime Minister for five years. Every previous Deputy Prime Minister got a peerage.
I do see that and don't disagree. What I find surprising is that he is getting one ahead of Blair, Brown or Cameron. I am not saying I personally believe they should get awards (certainly not in the case of Blair anyway) but if having achieved high office is the criteria then they are surely ahead in the queue
I expect the other three are waiting for the Order of the Garter or the Order of the Thistle. I imagine they've been sounded out for peerages and declined.
Ta. I must admit that although I love the history and ceremony surrounding all these awards, I don't really like them from a political point of view so have not paid any attention to who is supposed to get what and for why.
Oh I'm with you. I think the whole thing is a nonsense (though honours are a very cheap way of incentivising public servants). Within the confines of the system, Nick Clegg is fully deserving of his award on the usual rules.
I'd have thought it's pretty obvious why Nigel Farage has yet to receive an honour. The relevant committee is presumably waiting to see what if anything comes out of the FBI investigation where he has been named as a person of interest. It would be excruciatingly embarrassing to honour someone who was immediately the subject of sensational revelations. Better to wait and see.
Regardless of that, why the hell should Farage get any sort of honour at all? His antics with the AfD and his remarks about Jewish influence should disqualify him. IMO.
Like him or not, Nigel Farage has been one of the most influential and successful British politicians of this century. His advocacy and achievements deserve some form of recognition.
His egoism and petulance make him his own worst enemy, however. I think he craves acceptance within the British political establishment and his utterances of the last two years - most of which I doubt he really believes - are because he's been cleaving to Trump, who he feels took him in as the British political class shut the door on him in the moment of his greatest triumph.
It is very brave to make predictions. That Brexit would make the Conservatives more popular was something I believed, and was very plausible from the polling as recently as last May.
In voteshare terms it did, the 42.4% the Tories got in June was their highest voteshare since 1983, it was just Labour also took 20% of UKIP voters while winning the majority of Remainers hence the Tory gain in votes did not translate into gains in seats
I have no problem with Nick Clegg's knighthood though I do not agree with his politics.
A Royal Yacht is a good idea but only if it is paid for and maintained by business and used to promote trade Worldwide. It should not be supported by lottery funds
What business could the UK win that would not otherwise be possible by spending a few hundred million on HMY Britannia II?
I expect the Admiralty would (figuratively) torpedo it as the last thing they need is to lose 200+ officers and ratings to crew a gin palace.
I can never get worked up about honours because it seems like every time a list cones out loads of people forget the way the system works and are stunned at some of those who receive a gong. Particularly silly was outrage at Camerons resignation honours as though it was egregious, when if ever a set is more reasonable, to the extent that's possible, to reward cronies it's resignation honours.
But generally it's a nice if objectively silly way of recognising some very worthy people, at the cost of some establishment types getting them just because. And it's far better than giving people peerages, which grants them legislative power, however small.
Indeed Mr P; as one who canvassed etc for the Libs and then the LD’s for manyn years I was horrified by some of the things to which they agreed. For me, the worst thing was the emasculation of Legal Aid.
Charles Kennedy was one of the true gentlemen of politics. And transformed his party into a campaigning and successful party on the up. They took his alcoholism as an excuse to not just remove him but utterly change direction. That their electorate didn't support their new policies didn't matter, simply publicly hold up pledge cards for the press whilst simultaneously telling your shadow team that the policy wouldn't work and would be the first thing in the bin.
That Clegg was openly exposed being so two-faced was bad enough. But then they decided that coalition meant openly supporting every policy the Tories threw down no matter how much it contradicted their ethos and shamed their membership. That they managed to stick a yellow bow tie on the dog turd was supposed to be something people would be grateful for.
Farron - one of a tiny handful of MPs not to support the coalition - was supposed to be the guy to drag them away from the Tories, But with so few MPs left he embarrassed himself desperately trying to get called at PMQs then on the odd occasion he did talkedat500mphtotryandcramitallin. Nobody listened. Until he started channelling Glenn Hoddle. Then they listened. And so we have Sir Vince. A man once popular for one well delivered gag at PMQs and reviled for 5 years of sitting in the heart of the coalition.
If they don't have a clue what they stand for any more, its no surprise that the voters don't either.
To be fair their policy on the EU seems clear.compared to the Tories and Labour.
On topic, this is a very good thread by Alastair. Thank you for putting it togrther.
Yes, it's open to the standard criticism of any future prediction - that it takes present day trends and largely just extrapolates them - but what else can be done?
There isn't any evidence to suggest anything else might be going on so any bold predictions would be a gamble, with the risk of ridicule if wildly wrong and soothsayer status and all-round plaudits if correct, but both would be largely down to luck.
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
And before Tezza works out that legalisation of cannabis will be an old and blue turnout machine as its health benefits are made available to sufferers from chronic pain and other neurological conditions.
It is a shame we can't separate this into two entirely separate issues, A. therapeutic cannabis in proper pharmacologically prepared form and B. recreational use. A. should automatically be a thing if it meets the usual tests for prescription drugs. As to B, the unfettered abuse of high quality modern cannabis (doesn't even have to be skunk) produces full on batshit craziness in both the short, medium and long term. Legalising it is an utterly terrible idea.
I am with you on this one. I have seen too many lives destroyed by cannabis, too many apathetic youth, too much paranoid psychosis.
Decriminalisation possibly, but legal licensing? No.
It's had a greater impact medically than alcohol being abused?
Never partaken of the stuff myself, but places which have legalised don't seem to have destroyed themselves by doing so, so I don't see why it woukd be inevitable the worst examples woukd be the norm.
I have no problem with Nick Clegg's knighthood though I do not agree with his politics.
A Royal Yacht is a good idea but only if it is paid for and maintained by business and used to promote trade Worldwide. It should not be supported by lottery funds
What business could the UK win that would not otherwise be possible by spending a few hundred million on HMY Britannia II?
I expect the Admiralty would (figuratively) torpedo it as the last thing they need is to lose 200+ officers and ratings to crew a gin palace.
Perhaps it could be crewed by our surplus admirals?
"Rear Admiral Bloggs will be serving tea and scones baked by Vice Admiral Jones on the quarter deck"
Maybe Blair and Brown don't want a gong? Wouldn't fit wit the very humble way that Brown has gone about his charity work. And Blair is a Brand. Doesn't need anything adding to it that Blair can't add himself (like talking cash from tinpot dictators)
As for Clegg, I'm not arguing that he isn't entitled to one as an ex-DPM. I'm making the point that his own party members think he destroyed the party and shouldn't accept one as a token of humility.
I'm feeling generous. Yesterday I said something nice about Corbyn. Today I will add that while I consider Brown was the worst Prime Minister since the abject Goderich in 1827-28, his conduct since leaving office has unlike Blair's or Thatcher's been pretty much irreproachable. Good for him. The only minor blemish would be staying in Parliament while not attending, but there he was placed in a pretty difficult position - nobody wanted a by-election or him chuntering away from the back benches.
I am confused about what you consider Thatcher's bad behaviour after leaving office. I can understand lots of people opposing her whilst she was PM but not sure what she did post Government that you find so annoying.
' The economy has been lacklustre all year: when the rest of the world is seeing healthy growth, Britain’s economy is anaemic, having slipped from first to last place in the G7 since the referendum result. That said, it has continued to grow – slowly – and employment statistics continue to sparkle even as wages and productivity continue to disappoint. Economists seem to be predicting that Britain will remain in a holding pattern pending Brexit. Some straws in the wind suggest that Britain’s economy might surprise a little on the upside in 2018 but we’re unlikely to see anything amazing. '
Britain's economy began to rebalance in 2017.
For this to happen the wealth creating sectors need to grow faster than the economy as a whole. The problem is that nearly twenty years of Osbrown economics has left Britain's wealth creating sectors shrunken thus even when they have a good year, as in 2017, growth in the consumption side of the economy needs to be restrained for economic rebalancing to happen.
If the economy continues to rebalance its not impossible that 2018 will see the odd month of trade surplus for the UK - which would be the first since January 1998.
I would have thought they could have raised that from business sponsorship with guarantee that sponsors are always on the VIP list for events ie nudge nudge you get chance to get your money back via direct access to world leaders / royalty etc.
Yep, a bond issue is the way I’d fund it, plenty of companies and businessmen who’d subscribe and it would get funded in about a week. A lottery’s a silly idea, people given the choice will refer to fund other good causes.
You have to wonder where the Telegraph found 50 MPs with such a political tin ear.
Blue passports, a royal yacht, Big Ben’s chimes ... these are genuinely important pieces of symbolism for a fair chunk of the Tory voting population and their representatives. Nostalgia is hugely political in the UK. The leaderships and memberships of both major parties hanker back these days; they do not look forwards.
I really hope something as nationally iconic as Big Ben's chimes doesn't become politicised either which way.
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
And before Tezza works out that legalisation of cannabis will be an old and blue turnout machine as its health benefits are made available to sufferers from chronic pain and other neurological conditions.
It is a shame we can't separate this into two entirely separate issues, A. therapeutic cannabis in proper pharmacologically prepared form and B. recreational use. A. should automatically be a thing if it meets the usual tests for prescription drugs. As to B, the unfettered abuse of high quality modern cannabis (doesn't even have to be skunk) produces full on batshit craziness in both the short, medium and long term. Legalising it is an utterly terrible idea.
I am with you on this one. I have seen too many lives destroyed by cannabis, too many apathetic youth, too much paranoid psychosis.
Decriminalisation possibly, but legal licensing? No.
It's had a greater impact medically than alcohol being abused?
Never partaken of the stuff myself, but places which have legalised don't seem to have destroyed themselves by doing so, so I don't see why it woukd be inevitable the worst examples woukd be the norm.
I have seen plenty of lives ruined by alcohol too, but druggies appathetically wasting their lives is particularly depressing.
Having partaken socially in my youth, I understand the attraction. Well balanced people tend to manage both alcohol and dope fairly well, but when those with mental health or emotional issues start using it spirals out of control pretty badly.
I can never get worked up about honours because it seems like every time a list cones out loads of people forget the way the system works and are stunned at some of those who receive a gong. Particularly silly was outrage at Camerons resignation honours as though it was egregious, when if ever a set is more reasonable, to the extent that's possible, to reward cronies it's resignation honours.
But generally it's a nice if objectively silly way of recognising some very worthy people, at the cost of some establishment types getting them just because. And it's far better than giving people peerages, which grants them legislative power, however small.
Outrage at the impending New Year's Honours list is an annual British festive tradition.
Next up will be attacking/defending the few who turned them down on political grounds.
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
And before Tezza works out that legalisation of cannabis will be an old and blue turnout machine as its health benefits are made available to sufferers from chronic pain and other neurological conditions.
It is a shame we can't separate this into two entirely separate issues, A. therapeutic cannabis in proper pharmacologically prepared form and B. recreational use. A. should automatically be a thing if it meets the usual tests for prescription drugs. As to B, the unfettered abuse of high quality modern cannabis (doesn't even have to be skunk) produces full on batshit craziness in both the short, medium and long term. Legalising it is an utterly terrible idea.
I am with you on this one. I have seen too many lives destroyed by cannabis, too many apathetic youth, too much paranoid psychosis.
Decriminalisation possibly, but legal licensing? No.
It's had a greater impact medically than alcohol being abused?
Never partaken of the stuff myself, but places which have legalised don't seem to have destroyed themselves by doing so, so I don't see why it woukd be inevitable the worst examples woukd be the norm.
I have seen plenty of lives ruined by alcohol too, but druggies appathetically wasting their lives is particularly depressing.
Having partaken socially in my youth, I understand the attraction. Well balanced people tend to manage both alcohol and dope fairly well, but when those with mental health or emotional issues start using it spirals out of control pretty badly.
Could you not legally make avilable only the mild stuff while retaining strict penalties against any of the harder types ?
Indeed Mr P; as one who canvassed etc for the Libs and then the LD’s for manyn years I was horrified by some of the things to which they agreed. For me, the worst thing was the emasculation of Legal Aid.
Charles Kennedy was one of the true gentlemen of politics. And transformed his party into a campaigning and successful party on the up. They took his alcoholism as an excuse to not just remove him but utterly change direction. That their electorate didn't support their new policies didn't matter, simply publicly hold up pledge cards for the press whilst simultaneously telling your shadow team that the policy wouldn't work and would be the first thing in the bin.
That Clegg was openly exposed being so two-faced was bad enough. But then they decided that coalition meant openly supporting every policy the Tories threw down no matter how much it contradicted their ethos and shamed their membership. That they managed to stick a yellow bow tie on the dog turd was supposed to be something people would be grateful for.
Farron - one of a tiny handful of MPs not to support the coalition - was supposed to be the guy to drag them away from the Tories, But with so few MPs left he embarrassed himself desperately trying to get called at PMQs then on the odd occasion he did talkedat500mphtotryandcramitallin. Nobody listened. Until he started channelling Glenn Hoddle. Then they listened. And so we have Sir Vince. A man once popular for one well delivered gag at PMQs and reviled for 5 years of sitting in the heart of the coalition.
If they don't have a clue what they stand for any more, its no surprise that the voters don't either.
To be fair their policy on the EU seems clear.compared to the Tories and Labour.
To run away from the declared will of the voters? Brave indeed.....
Sticking to principles even when it is clear the vast majority of the country do not agree with you. Yes I think that is something to be admired and is also politically brave.
As long as their opposition is framed in a democratic manner then they are absolutely right to stick to their guns. It is exactly what the Eurosceptics spent 30 years doing and we know how that has ended.
Evening all. I hope you all had as merry a Christmas as I did.
On topic, Alastair has been uncharacteristically vague in his predictions. 2 is probably right. 3 is true in a literal sense ('There will be more Cabinet departures'), but is wrong in analysis; the three resignations under Theresa May haven't been caused by lack of loyalty nor by her being willing to throw ministers under buses, but by three individuals being unfortunately prone, retrospectively at least, to self-induced prostration under buses. 4 is probably right.
The one I would really take issue with is 1. Yes, there will be a Brexit deal, unless things go badly wrong (still a significant risk). However, every indication is that the EU is gradually dissolving its red lines. Of course, any deal will be depicted by the irreconcilables and partisan opponents of the government as being on the EU's terms, but I don't think that will be the reality. We will, in all likelihood, have some modicum of having our cake and eating it, with good access to the Single Market but without freedom of movement de jure.
Which leads me to my main prediction for 2018. I agree with Alastair both that there will with alarums, excursions and brouhahas on the Brexit negotiations, and that the UK economy will surprise to the upside*. But I go further: Theresa May's political reputation will surprise to the upside.
" This is not investment advice, but you might like to consider the discount to NAV of British Land... Do your own research, etc etc.
The oft mentioned weighting in Brexit negotiations is 27 countries to 1. In reality, it's much more like 5 or 6 to 1 due to Britain's population, and economic/military weight. With all due respect to Malta and Cyprus, they're not really the dealmakers here.
In terms of negotiating heft it's more like 2:1. The EU got about 60-65% of what it wanted In Phase 1 and the UK about 35-40%. It wasn't a 90%+ slam dunk to the EU.
Of course you can argue it would have only been truly fair had it been a 50/50 compromise, but that didnt apply to European Council negotiations when the UK was a full member either.
When two sides sit down across a table both have to deal with the other fairly for a deal to be done.
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
And before Tezza works out that legalisation of cannabis will be an old and blue turnout machine as its health benefits are made available to sufferers from chronic pain and other neurological conditions.
It is a shame we can't separate this into two entirely separate issues, A. therapeutic cannabis in proper pharmacologically prepared form and B. recreational use. A. should automatically be a thing if it meets the usual tests for prescription drugs. As to B, the unfettered abuse of high quality modern cannabis (doesn't even have to be skunk) produces full on batshit craziness in both the short, medium and long term. Legalising it is an utterly terrible idea.
I am with you on this one. I have seen too many lives destroyed by cannabis, too many apathetic youth, too much paranoid psychosis.
Decriminalisation possibly, but legal licensing? No.
It's had a greater impact medically than alcohol being abused?
Never partaken of the stuff myself, but places which have legalised don't seem to have destroyed themselves by doing so, so I don't see why it woukd be inevitable the worst examples woukd be the norm.
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
And before Tezza works out that legalisation of cannabis will be an old and blue turnout machine as its health benefits are made available to sufferers from chronic pain and other neurological conditions.
It is a shame we can't separate this into two entirely separate issues, A. therapeutic cannabis in proper pharmacologically prepared form and B. recreational use. A. should automatically be a thing if it meets the usual tests for prescription drugs. As to B, the unfettered abuse of high quality modern cannabis (doesn't even have to be skunk) produces full on batshit craziness in both the short, medium and long term. Legalising it is an utterly terrible idea.
I am with you on this one. I have seen too many lives destroyed by cannabis, too many apathetic youth, too much paranoid psychosis.
Decriminalisation possibly, but legal licensing? No.
It's had a greater impact medically than alcohol being abused?
Never partaken of the stuff myself, but places which have legalised don't seem to have destroyed themselves by doing so, so I don't see why it woukd be inevitable the worst examples woukd be the norm.
Alcohol would only be an argument if the proposal were a straight swap (ban booze, make dope legal) which nobody is suggesting. The argument against legalisation doesn't require that the worst examples become the norm, only that they become more prevalent. And people smoke the stuff, which is a really bad idea in its own right. Statistics from the states where it is legal are meaningless because of the million and one other things which influence overall crime rates, so this is a case where expert first hand evidence like frinstance that of dr foxinsox is the best guide
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
And before Tezza works out that legalisation of cannabis will be an old and blue turnout machine as its health benefits are made available to sufferers from chronic pain and other neurological conditions.
It is a shame we can't separate this into two entirely separate issues, A. therapeutic cannabis in proper pharmacologically prepared form and B. recreational use. A. should automatically be a thing if it meets the usual tests for prescription drugs. As to B, the unfettered abuse of high quality modern cannabis (doesn't even have to be skunk) produces full on batshit craziness in both the short, medium and long term. Legalising it is an utterly terrible idea.
I am with you on this one. I have seen too many lives destroyed by cannabis, too many apathetic youth, too much paranoid psychosis.
Decriminalisation possibly, but legal licensing? No.
It's had a greater impact medically than alcohol being abused?
Never partaken of the stuff myself, but places which have legalised don't seem to have destroyed themselves by doing so, so I don't see why it woukd be inevitable the worst examples woukd be the norm.
Alcohol would only be an argument if the proposal were a straight swap (ban booze, make dope legal) which nobody is suggesting. The argument against legalisation doesn't require that the worst examples become the norm, only that they become more prevalent. And people smoke the stuff, which is a really bad idea in its own right. Statistics from the states where it is legal are meaningless because of the million and one other things which influence overall crime rates, so this is a case where expert first hand evidence like frinstance that of dr foxinsox is the best guide
If tobacco or alcohol was only discovered now (with the known side-effects) they would never be legalized.
Right you can smoke this stuff, it is addictive and long term use will wreck your lungs and with a high probability it give you lung cancer.
And booze, well if you drink it neat you will die, so we water it down to 5% and in many cases it causes reckless behaviour including increased likelihood of violence. And long term it screws your liver.
I think cannabis legalisation is an idea than has missed the bus. Use in the USA is vastly higher than here, and the U.K. kids of today are consuming less than those of 10 years ago.
If Labour or the Liberals declare themselves to be in favour, it will on balance favour the Tories. I think many older voters are much more hostile in their attitude to weed than younger voters are in favour.
I think cannabis legalisation is an idea than has missed the bus. Use in the USA is vastly higher than here, and the U.K. kids of today are consuming less than those of 10 years ago.
If Labour or the Liberals declare themselves to be in favour, it will on balance favour the Tories. I think many older voters are much more hostile in their attitude to weed than younger voters are in favour.
If my memory serves me correctly, the Lib Dems were in favour at the last GE.
There seems like there are genuine medical uses for especially CBD oil. However, given in the US "medical" use has been used as a soft legalization, I think it probably has politically harmed chance of places like the UK to have a sensible halfway house i.e. find out genuine benefits / dosages, let those that it will help have it, but not the approach in places like California where literally any random nonsense can get you your exemption card.
I have a lot less faith in 538 doing politics, now that a) Nate Silver basically doesn't spend any of this time on it and b) 538 business model now revolves around sports analytics.
It is not the same organism that got all the Obama stuff right, which was Nate Silver slogging away day and night completely focused on just that election.
I think cannabis legalisation is an idea than has missed the bus. Use in the USA is vastly higher than here, and the U.K. kids of today are consuming less than those of 10 years ago.
If Labour or the Liberals declare themselves to be in favour, it will on balance favour the Tories. I think many older voters are much more hostile in their attitude to weed than younger voters are in favour.
Depends what you mean by "old." I know many in their 50's and 60's who are regular users. The idea that drugs are used exclusively or even predominantly by the young is a somewhat outdated if persistent myth.
I think cannabis legalisation is an idea than has missed the bus. Use in the USA is vastly higher than here, and the U.K. kids of today are consuming less than those of 10 years ago.
If Labour or the Liberals declare themselves to be in favour, it will on balance favour the Tories. I think many older voters are much more hostile in their attitude to weed than younger voters are in favour.
If my memory serves me correctly, the Lib Dems were in favour at the last GE.
Hope all posters and lurkers had a joyful and restful Christmas - gutted to miss the StJohn special but my wife told me to put the iPad away on Christmas day!
Yes Lib Dems had a mushy 'move ownership policy from home office to department of health' policy on drugs in 2015 and a much clearer 'we will decriminalise cannabis' policy in 2017. An example of Farron's strengths: he knew the clarity needed on how to get ideas noticed. The weakness however was that it was strongly attacked and there didn't seem to be much rebuttal. The word clouds for what was noticed about the Lib Dems in the General Election had Brexit as #1 policy and drugs as #2 - but it seemed to lose as many votes as it gained. However now there's a mainstream party with it as policy it becomes easier for other parties to look at it.
Also agree with comments re: Vince Cable below. Really not sure where he is taking Lib Dems. Needs some big vision and bold ideas in the new year or I will simply switch off; it sounds like it's already too late for others.
"Just 19 percent of Americans said that “Die Hard” is a Christmas movie in a YouGov poll; 56 percent think it is not a Christmas movie."
Remind me how good 538 said Clinton was doing? *innocent face*
They said she was just an average polling error away from losing, and gave her a far lower chance of winning than many other models.
They got Trump winning the primary totally wrong.
Correct. They also were far more realistic about the UK election than most people here. They're certainly not right about everything all the time, but overall they have a good track record.
Ban alcohol and the Jocks will call their version of whiskey a 'medicinal-compound' (just like the Bogtrotters used to with their Irish version of London Stout, with NHS support). One of the few things that I think the government should regulate and control are drugs.
Ban alcohol and the Jocks will call their version of whiskey a 'medicinal-compound' (just like the Bogtrotters used to with their Irish version of London Stout, with NHS support). One of the few things that I think the government should regulate and control are drugs.
"The economy has been lacklustre all year: when the rest of the world is seeing healthy growth, Britain’s economy is anaemic, having slipped from first to last place in the G7 since the referendum result."
This is commonly believed but not actually correct.
Firstly, in 2016 as a whole, the latest figures show that the UK was joint top with Germany for growth among the G7, at 1.9%.
However, 2016 comprised 6 months (give or take a week) pre-referendum and 6 months post-referendum. The UK's growth in the first 6 months of 2016 was only 0.7%; in the second 6 months of 2016 it was 1.2%. In the 6 months prior to the referendum, the UK was not the fastest growing among the G7.
In 2017, the UK may end up as the slowest growing but we don't know yet. The signs are of a strong Q4 and it is perfectly possible the UK will end up faster growing than Italy. I am not arguing this would be a stellar performance for 2017.
Now, there are respectable arguments for why we should not be looking at these figures at all: one could argue that it is far too early to see the true economic impact of leaving the EU, or that the merits of leaving the EU are about much more than economics.
Nevertheless, if we are going to talk about the short-term impact of of the vote to leave, then we need to get our facts right and deploy a logical approach. The hinge point to measure against is not the end of 2016, it is the end of June 2016.
Around March 2018 we will know growth figures for Q4 2017 and then be able to make a meaningful comment about UK GDP performance in the fist 18 months after the referendum.
Lib Dems will have good local results and sort out some coherent policies again.
They need to stake a claim on legalisation of cannabis before Jezza works out it will be an under 25 voter turnout machine.
And before Tezza works out that legalisation of cannabis will be an old and blue turnout machine as its health benefits are made available to sufferers from chronic pain and other neurological conditions.
It is a shame we can't separate this into two entirely separate issues, A. therapeutic cannabis in proper pharmacologically prepared form and B. recreational use. A. should automatically be a thing if it meets the usual tests for prescription drugs. As to B, the unfettered abuse of high quality modern cannabis (doesn't even have to be skunk) produces full on batshit craziness in both the short, medium and long term. Legalising it is an utterly terrible idea.
I am with you on this one. I have seen too many lives destroyed by cannabis, too many apathetic youth, too much paranoid psychosis.
Decriminalisation possibly, but legal licensing? No.
It's had a greater impact medically than alcohol being abused?
Never partaken of the stuff myself, but places which have legalised don't seem to have destroyed themselves by doing so, so I don't see why it woukd be inevitable the worst examples woukd be the norm.
Alcohol would only be an argument if the proposal were a straight swap (ban booze, make dope legal) which nobody is suggesting. The argument against legalisation doesn't require that the worst examples become the norm, only that they become more prevalent. And people smoke the stuff, which is a really bad idea in its own right. Statistics from the states where it is legal are meaningless because of the million and one other things which influence overall crime rates, so this is a case where expert first hand evidence like frinstance that of dr foxinsox is the best guide
And if I find a doctor who says it'll be fine or at least no worse than booze and fags are?
That's the problem relying on first hand evidence from anecdotes.
I dont know what the medical evidence says, but if it is no more harmful than other substances we allow, I don't see how it can logically be justified in keeping it banned.
If it is appreciably worse, then fine, though it s surely relevant other developed nations with presumed medical knowhow don't think it is. That some will abuse it isn't a compelling argument on its own.
Is the biggest political market at Betfair currently the one for the next German chancellor? Stakes are at £2.6 million. I'm surprised there hasn't been more interest at PB.
A YouGov poll suggests that support for Merkel leaving office before the next scheduled general election in 2021 is running at 47%. Among SPD supporters, it's 64%. Both the SPD's Schulz and the CDU's Merkel will have difficulty concluding an agreement with Merkel staying as chancellor, either with or without SPD ministers in the government. "Merkel out in less than four years" would more than likely mean she is out now: Germans won't swallow a "Merkel and Schulz at Granita" story.
The FPD has announced that it might still return to "Jamaica" negotiations (aiming for a CDU-FPD-Green agreement, probably a coalition), but only on condition that Merkel resigns.
Merkel has been highly competent for a long period of time, but things do tend to come to an end and there is a long history of government leaders who have been seen as strong and secure for about a decade suddenly finding that the wind has blown them out of office - including De Gaulle and Thatcher.
Meanwhile, the CDU, CSU and SPD are fighting over refugee policy and Europe. Jamaica it may well turn out to be.
It really does not look good for Merkel. Her Betfair midprice of 1.075 to be confirmed as non-caretaker chancellor is ridiculous. The lay looks good value, as does Von der Leyen's price of 65. Given that the second and third favourites among those for whom both positive bets and lays are available are Schulz (backable at 40) and Steinmeier (50), this doesn't look like a very educated market at all.
Merkel's price is drifting out but slowly. It may well soon go "whoosh".
"The economy has been lacklustre all year: when the rest of the world is seeing healthy growth, Britain’s economy is anaemic, having slipped from first to last place in the G7 since the referendum result."
This is commonly believed but not actually correct.
Firstly, in 2016 as a whole, the latest figures show that the UK was joint top with Germany for growth among the G7, at 1.9%.
However, 2016 comprised 6 months (give or take a week) pre-referendum and 6 months post-referendum. The UK's growth in the first 6 months of 2016 was only 0.7%; in the second 6 months of 2016 it was 1.2%. In the 6 months prior to the referendum, the UK was not the fastest growing among the G7.
In 2017, the UK may end up as the slowest growing but we don't know yet. The signs are of a strong Q4 and it is perfectly possible the UK will end up faster growing than Italy. I am not arguing this would be a stellar performance for 2017.
Now, there are respectable arguments for why we should not be looking at these figures at all: one could argue that it is far too early to see the true economic impact of leaving the EU, or that the merits of leaving the EU are about much more than economics.
Nevertheless, if we are going to talk about the short-term impact of of the vote to leave, then we need to get our facts right and deploy a logical approach. The hinge point to measure against is not the end of 2016, it is the end of June 2016.
Around March 2018 we will know growth figures for Q4 2017 and then be able to make a meaningful comment about UK GDP performance in the fist 18 months after the referendum.
I know there have been whisperings about Clegg getting a knighthood and people have been awfully exercised over the thought but is there actually any foundation for these tales?
Comments
A Royal Yacht is a good idea but only if it is paid for and maintained by business and used to promote trade Worldwide. It should not be supported by lottery funds
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/12/our-survey-support-for-may-leading-the-conservatives-into-the-next-election-hits-its-highest-total-yet.html
Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs confirms they are moving just 20 jobs to Dublin to establish the EU holding company. Seems like bigger news that the most hostile bank to Brexit Britain is basically staying in London and buying a brass plate in Dublin.
Once we get to Brenda giving a gong or a peerage to business people who coincidentally happened to provide cash/services to a political party, it brings the country into disrepute never mind the "honour" being "awarded".
If the monarch retains the honours which are solely in their remit thats fine.; Its the political ones that stick in the craw - too many Lord Baldricks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eagle_Scout_medal_(Boy_Scouts_of_America).png
Churchill then pretended to accept the offer causing some temporary consternation.
Edit: and of course the footy!
Like the rest of us would have to do.
You are truly entering the dark-side...!
Only hardcore Leavers who think getting a Royal Yacht will help us get awesome trade deals want the yacht.
Yes, Clegg deserves a knighthood. Of course he does. The Coalition was among the best governments this country has had, and history will judge him a fine Deputy PM.
The Royal Yacht story shows, as does the blue passport news, exactly how delusional nostalgia seems to drive our governing class these days. It’s a depressing little story to end the year.
Predictions?
May will continue through 18. She has earned grudging respect from hanging on. Davis, Hammond, and Johnson have all disqualified themselves from the big job. If she goes, it will be because of events dear boy, and the race to succeed her will be between Rudd, Hunt, and Rees-Mogg - which Hunt will win.
I hope she clings on and hands over to the younger generation in 2019.
Corbyn is safe as long as May is, and is secured by the same forces of stasis. It should be clear to all now that he represents no threat at all to the government and in fact it is convenient to the Tories to keep him in place.
Should he stumble, his replacement will be Emily Thornberry, who would be much more of a threat.
Brexit will, as others have suggested, be an ongoing source of discontent. It is the mother of all culture wars and while Remainers look to be accepting finally that Brexit is happening and is unstoppable, I don’t know anyone reconciled to it.
What is interesting though is how little conversation there is about what a good Brexit looks like, and by default the vision for Britain in the 2020s and beyond.
The Leaver vs Remain debate has become quite sterile, and the argument on how to leave is a process story - uninteresting and unintelligible to the great majority.
Which brings me to the Lib Dems. They are probably irrelevant until they somehow accept Brexit as a political fact. Ironically, it may only be possible to overcome economic cultural Brexit by first accepting it as a political reality.
Whoever can offer a real and believable vision for this country which somehow transcends Brexit divides has a huge political opportunity. It is my great hope for 2018 that we the beginnings of this - although I am pessimistic.
Decriminalisation possibly, but legal licensing? No.
https://www.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3
And if you were speaking in terms of political savvy, being the champion of a cause embraced by 48% might well be a good policy for a small party. The reason it hasn't worked is that most remainers don't see it as very credible either to insist on another referendum or that the LibDems could deliver one.
What has to be done?. Trot-on son, trot-on.
Good read, and also interesting if you substitute Brexit for Trump
https://twitter.com/katyturnbc/status/945672117961613312
I broadly agree with Alastair. Nothing much will happen, bar the phoney war with the EU over the negotiations. There. I have offered my hostage to fortune.
Andrew Marr wrote interestingly on this some months back.
His egoism and petulance make him his own worst enemy, however. I think he craves acceptance within the British political establishment and his utterances of the last two years - most of which I doubt he really believes - are because he's been cleaving to Trump, who he feels took him in as the British political class shut the door on him in the moment of his greatest triumph.
It's a cry for help.
I expect the Admiralty would (figuratively) torpedo it as the last thing they need is to lose 200+ officers and ratings to crew a gin palace.
But generally it's a nice if objectively silly way of recognising some very worthy people, at the cost of some establishment types getting them just because. And it's far better than giving people peerages, which grants them legislative power, however small.
Yes, it's open to the standard criticism of any future prediction - that it takes present day trends and largely just extrapolates them - but what else can be done?
There isn't any evidence to suggest anything else might be going on so any bold predictions would be a gamble, with the risk of ridicule if wildly wrong and soothsayer status and all-round plaudits if correct, but both would be largely down to luck.
I could do no better.
Never partaken of the stuff myself, but places which have legalised don't seem to have destroyed themselves by doing so, so I don't see why it woukd be inevitable the worst examples woukd be the norm.
"Rear Admiral Bloggs will be serving tea and scones baked by Vice Admiral Jones on the quarter deck"
Britain's economy began to rebalance in 2017.
For this to happen the wealth creating sectors need to grow faster than the economy as a whole. The problem is that nearly twenty years of Osbrown economics has left Britain's wealth creating sectors shrunken thus even when they have a good year, as in 2017, growth in the consumption side of the economy needs to be restrained for economic rebalancing to happen.
If the economy continues to rebalance its not impossible that 2018 will see the odd month of trade surplus for the UK - which would be the first since January 1998.
Having partaken socially in my youth, I understand the attraction. Well balanced people tend to manage both alcohol and dope fairly well, but when those with mental health or emotional issues start using it spirals out of control pretty badly.
Next up will be attacking/defending the few who turned them down on political grounds.
As long as their opposition is framed in a democratic manner then they are absolutely right to stick to their guns. It is exactly what the Eurosceptics spent 30 years doing and we know how that has ended.
Up and down faster than a hookers draws.
In terms of negotiating heft it's more like 2:1. The EU got about 60-65% of what it wanted In Phase 1 and the UK about 35-40%. It wasn't a 90%+ slam dunk to the EU.
Of course you can argue it would have only been truly fair had it been a 50/50 compromise, but that didnt apply to European Council negotiations when the UK was a full member either.
When two sides sit down across a table both have to deal with the other fairly for a deal to be done.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-democrats-wave-could-turn-into-a-flood/?ex_cid=story-twitter
NB for TSE:
"Just 19 percent of Americans said that “Die Hard” is a Christmas movie in a YouGov poll; 56 percent think it is not a Christmas movie."
Right you can smoke this stuff, it is addictive and long term use will wreck your lungs and with a high probability it give you lung cancer.
And booze, well if you drink it neat you will die, so we water it down to 5% and in many cases it causes reckless behaviour including increased likelihood of violence. And long term it screws your liver.
If Labour or the Liberals declare themselves to be in favour, it will on balance favour the Tories. I think many older voters are much more hostile in their attitude to weed than younger voters are in favour.
It is not the same organism that got all the Obama stuff right, which was Nate Silver slogging away day and night completely focused on just that election.
Yes Lib Dems had a mushy 'move ownership policy from home office to department of health' policy on drugs in 2015 and a much clearer 'we will decriminalise cannabis' policy in 2017. An example of Farron's strengths: he knew the clarity needed on how to get ideas noticed. The weakness however was that it was strongly attacked and there didn't seem to be much rebuttal. The word clouds for what was noticed about the Lib Dems in the General Election had Brexit as #1 policy and drugs as #2 - but it seemed to lose as many votes as it gained. However now there's a mainstream party with it as policy it becomes easier for other parties to look at it.
Also agree with comments re: Vince Cable below. Really not sure where he is taking Lib Dems. Needs some big vision and bold ideas in the new year or I will simply switch off; it sounds like it's already too late for others.
This is commonly believed but not actually correct.
Firstly, in 2016 as a whole, the latest figures show that the UK was joint top with Germany for growth among the G7, at 1.9%.
However, 2016 comprised 6 months (give or take a week) pre-referendum and 6 months post-referendum. The UK's growth in the first 6 months of 2016 was only 0.7%; in the second 6 months of 2016 it was 1.2%. In the 6 months prior to the referendum, the UK was not the fastest growing among the G7.
In 2017, the UK may end up as the slowest growing but we don't know yet. The signs are of a strong Q4 and it is perfectly possible the UK will end up faster growing than Italy. I am not arguing this would be a stellar performance for 2017.
Now, there are respectable arguments for why we should not be looking at these figures at all: one could argue that it is far too early to see the true economic impact of leaving the EU, or that the merits of leaving the EU are about much more than economics.
Nevertheless, if we are going to talk about the short-term impact of of the vote to leave, then we need to get our facts right and deploy a logical approach. The hinge point to measure against is not the end of 2016, it is the end of June 2016.
Around March 2018 we will know growth figures for Q4 2017 and then be able to make a meaningful comment about UK GDP performance in the fist 18 months after the referendum.
That's the problem relying on first hand evidence from anecdotes.
I dont know what the medical evidence says, but if it is no more harmful than other substances we allow, I don't see how it can logically be justified in keeping it banned.
If it is appreciably worse, then fine, though it s surely relevant other developed nations with presumed medical knowhow don't think it is. That some will abuse it isn't a compelling argument on its own.
A YouGov poll suggests that support for Merkel leaving office before the next scheduled general election in 2021 is running at 47%. Among SPD supporters, it's 64%. Both the SPD's Schulz and the CDU's Merkel will have difficulty concluding an agreement with Merkel staying as chancellor, either with or without SPD ministers in the government. "Merkel out in less than four years" would more than likely mean she is out now: Germans won't swallow a "Merkel and Schulz at Granita" story.
The FPD has announced that it might still return to "Jamaica" negotiations (aiming for a CDU-FPD-Green agreement, probably a coalition), but only on condition that Merkel resigns.
Merkel has been highly competent for a long period of time, but things do tend to come to an end and there is a long history of government leaders who have been seen as strong and secure for about a decade suddenly finding that the wind has blown them out of office - including De Gaulle and Thatcher.
Meanwhile, the CDU, CSU and SPD are fighting over refugee policy and Europe. Jamaica it may well turn out to be.
It really does not look good for Merkel. Her Betfair midprice of 1.075 to be confirmed as non-caretaker chancellor is ridiculous. The lay looks good value, as does Von der Leyen's price of 65. Given that the second and third favourites among those for whom both positive bets and lays are available are Schulz (backable at 40) and Steinmeier (50), this doesn't look like a very educated market at all.
Merkel's price is drifting out but slowly. It may well soon go "whoosh".
https://twitter.com/ireland_thinks/status/946279549779578880
I'm still looking forward to a poll on whether the Irish want to rejoin Brexit UK.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/datasets/gdpperheadtablep
And now time to do some shopping - I may post an update as to how busy places are later.
NEW THREAD