Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Meanwhile a slight increase in approval for the handling of Br

1356

Comments

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 11,501

    We're running out of Cabinet slots, so I assume Gove is staying put? Good. Though there's still DWP and I suppose Education if she's quit.

    Edit: confirmed. Yay!

    Gove back to education would be funny. :D
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,878
    Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Be good if the housing minister took a serious look at UK housebuilders selling new houses on a leasehold basis.Seems to me just a scam to make more money .Also it leaves the buyers in a leasehold property trap.

    Already been stopped.
    CE of Persimmon been awarded a £110m bonus for boosting profits mainly due to Leasehold trap according to Look North.
    I don't think that Persimmon has been particularly bad in this respect, has it? It's Taylor Wimpey and some other firms who had the unreasonable terms in their leases (which BTW the purchasers' solicitors should have noticed).
    Taylor Wimpey set a trap, and solicitors walked into it. Of course, lawyers are in the business of spotting traps, but there we go.
    The entire purpose of lawyers is to protect you from this kind of thing. It seems to me that they've got off scot-free.
    Yes I appreciate there is a housing shortage, but surely the solicitors adviced their clients buying a new build house on a leaseholder agreement rather than a freehold , is not a good idea.
    If the solicitor paid for by the developer sends a 25 page report on title, with a 50 page lease, a 30 page Section 106 Agreement, stacks of planning and building consents, reams of title deeds, and searches to the buyer, you can be sure that 95% of buyers will never read the stuff. Added to that, he's likely managing 20 semi-qualified staff, and you can never meet him face to face, but hey! The developer gave you "free" conveyancing.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,938

    Hancock gets Culture Media and also Sport

    Hancock has the town of Newmarket in his constituency and is a big friend of horse racing.

    May be interesting looking at the issue of FOBTs in betting shops.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,879
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT as more relevant here:

    HYUFD said:

    No it isn't, even Barnier has said we will get a Canada style FTA on goods if we leave the single market and end free movement
    Where ‘we’ doesn’t mean the United Kingdom, but Great Britain. Can the Conservative and Unionist Party, propped up by the DUP, afford to do that?

    Wrong again, it was agreement over the Irish border and some regulatory alignment which enabled FTA talks to begin but free movement will still end and we will still leave the single market
    Do you really believe the agreement means that a Canada style deal could apply to Northern Ireland?
    As I said the regulatory alignment in so far as NI goes will apply but the UK will still end free movement and leave the single market
    Will a Polish citizen in Dublin need a work permit to transfer to the Belfast branch of their company or will free movement apply?
    Probably the former but as NI voted Remain some flexibility could be allowed, it is England and Wales where free movement really has to end as both voted Leave
    Full alignment with the rules of the single market that support the all-island economy would absolutely rule out imposing work permits in cases like that.

    Interesting that 'the UK' has now become 'England and Wales'.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 1,762
    Yorkcity said:

    Sean_F said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Be good if the housing minister took a serious look at UK housebuilders selling new houses on a leasehold basis.Seems to me just a scam to make more money .Also it leaves the buyers in a leasehold property trap.

    Already been stopped.
    CE of Persimmon been awarded a £110m bonus for boosting profits mainly due to Leasehold trap according to Look North.
    I don't think that Persimmon has been particularly bad in this respect, has it? It's Taylor Wimpey and some other firms who had the unreasonable terms in their leases (which BTW the purchasers' solicitors should have noticed).
    Taylor Wimpey set a trap, and solicitors walked into it. Of course, lawyers are in the business of spotting traps, but there we go.
    The entire purpose of lawyers is to protect you from this kind of thing. It seems to me that they've got off scot-free.
    If they're new builds, the developer will offer to pay the buyer's legal fees, so long as they use the solicitor he chooses. That solicitor will then protect himself by writing pages of gobbledegook to the buyer. "What, you mean you didn't read the pile of documents and reports I sent you?"
    I suppose people who have bought a new build house on a leasehold basis will now be in a difficult position when selling the property.
    The key thing to understand is that if you have a ground rent which doubles every decade, the property isn't an asset but a liability. It might not be visibly unaffordable for decades, but if it will be in 100 years then no-one will buy it in 90. And if it can't be sold in 90 years no-one will want it in 80. And so on.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,037
    edited January 8
    PClipp said:

    JohnO said:

    Green paper on social care now moved to Health Department. Sky reporting a chorus of approval for this move

    As a county councillor all I can say is that the sooner adult social care is reintegrated with the health service and funded by direct taxation, the better. The present arrangement is a nightmare.
    I thought that was what the Coalition Government was working towards. Unfortunately the Independent Conservative Government put an end to it. And now they seem to be doing a U-turn.

    I see the Conservatives as just incompetent.
    It's a nightmare for families and the elderly needing care - including the difference between what should be NHS continuing health care and what is local authority social care.

    And of course we have the nonsense whereby an elderly person on a low income who owns a £3m house but has only £20k in savings can receive totally free home care but an elderly person on the same income who has £40k in savings (perhaps inherited from a friend) but lives in a rented council flat and owns no home has to pay 100 per cent of their home care costs.

    How immoral is it that someone with £3m in assets gets free home care but someone with only £40k pays 100 per cent of the costs until their savings are below £23k - just because the latters assets are not in bricks and mortar?

    Mrs May of course sought to address that shameful situation with her ill fated dementia tax - but Labour was on the side of the multi millionaire home owner not the council tenant!
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,596
    crandles said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Be good if the housing minister took a serious look at UK housebuilders selling new houses on a leasehold basis.Seems to me just a scam to make more money .Also it leaves the buyers in a leasehold property trap.

    It's going to be banned, the government has announced.

    Interestingly they are seeking to bean leasehold "houses" (i.e. not flats) rather than just escalating ground rents. I do wonder how that is supposed to work.
    Thats cos you can't ban leasehold flats, the flats belong to whoever owns the land so to do flats on different floors belonging to different people there is no other way than having leasehold flats. Think they are just banning new leasehold houses.
    I meant, how it is they can ban leasehold houses and more than flats.

    There is no legal thing as a flat. If anything its leaseholds status is a giveaway.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,596
    Sean_F said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Be good if the housing minister took a serious look at UK housebuilders selling new houses on a leasehold basis.Seems to me just a scam to make more money .Also it leaves the buyers in a leasehold property trap.

    Already been stopped.
    CE of Persimmon been awarded a £110m bonus for boosting profits mainly due to Leasehold trap according to Look North.
    I don't think that Persimmon has been particularly bad in this respect, has it? It's Taylor Wimpey and some other firms who had the unreasonable terms in their leases (which BTW the purchasers' solicitors should have noticed).
    Taylor Wimpey set a trap, and solicitors walked into it. Of course, lawyers are in the business of spotting traps, but there we go.
    The entire purpose of lawyers is to protect you from this kind of thing. It seems to me that they've got off scot-free.
    If they're new builds, the developer will offer to pay the buyer's legal fees, so long as they use the solicitor he chooses. That solicitor will then protect himself by writing pages of gobbledegook to the buyer. "What, you mean you didn't read the pile of documents and reports I sent you?"
    I am sure some conveyancers will indeed face negligence claims.

    Though those that merely copy/pasted the provision - effectively inviting the buyer themselves to fall into the trap - will likely get off.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,588

    Anazina said:

    JohnO said:

    JohnO said:

    Jonathan said:

    JohnO said:

    Jonathan said:

    JohnO said:

    I despair. She simply isn't up to it, is she?

    Er, yes. That has been obvious for some time, but your lot have some kind of fetish for more punishment.
    But who can take her place at present? And certainly not your grim and ghastly crowd.
    Your party needs to make a choice of direction and get on with it. You're currently pissing around in no man's land.
    And your party needs to regain its sanity. As Sean Fear wrote on the previous thread: this is a mediocre government but it's not doing much harm. Under its present leadership, Labour would be catastrophic. But I suspect you know that too.
    It's a mediocre government whose sole purpose at present is to implement Brexit, the most gratuitously harmful policy undertaken by a government in living memory.
    And one that you almost supported.
    I think it's impossible that anyone barring the clinically insane could support this dimwitted band of clowns and halfwits.
    You have just insulted at least 40% of the population
    It's okay, they are all too stupid to notice.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,596
    Sean_F said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Be good if the housing minister took a serious look at UK housebuilders selling new houses on a leasehold basis.Seems to me just a scam to make more money .Also it leaves the buyers in a leasehold property trap.

    Already been stopped.
    CE of Persimmon been awarded a £110m bonus for boosting profits mainly due to Leasehold trap according to Look North.
    I don't think that Persimmon has been particularly bad in this respect, has it? It's Taylor Wimpey and some other firms who had the unreasonable terms in their leases (which BTW the purchasers' solicitors should have noticed).
    Taylor Wimpey set a trap, and solicitors walked into it. Of course, lawyers are in the business of spotting traps, but there we go.
    The entire purpose of lawyers is to protect you from this kind of thing. It seems to me that they've got off scot-free.
    Yes I appreciate there is a housing shortage, but surely the solicitors adviced their clients buying a new build house on a leaseholder agreement rather than a freehold , is not a good idea.
    If the solicitor paid for by the developer sends a 25 page report on title, with a 50 page lease, a 30 page Section 106 Agreement, stacks of planning and building consents, reams of title deeds, and searches to the buyer, you can be sure that 95% of buyers will never read the stuff. Added to that, he's likely managing 20 semi-qualified staff, and you can never meet him face to face, but hey! The developer gave you "free" conveyancing.
    Only 95%????
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,878
    brendan16 said:

    Reports that Chuka Umanna has flounced out of a PLP meeting because Corbyn has reiterated Labour's policy of leaving the Single Market and Customs Union:

    18:55

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/08/cabinet-reshuffle-theresa-may-tory-government-pm-to-start-shifting-ministers-politics-live

    Has Corbyn cleared the line with Keir Starmer?

    Neither major party seems entirely clear what their position is - including how we solve the Irish border issue if we leave the customs union.
    I think we have no choice but to leave the Customs Union. My guess is that if the parties wish to solve the Border issue, rather than use it as a pretext for grandstanding, they will do. Switzerland is not in the customs union, but people have no difficulty trading and commuting to and from Austria, Italy, Germany, and France.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    Don't stop Hancock now:

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,509
    The press notice, the MPs (who's career depends on this stuff) notice. All in all, a timely reminder arriving when the memory of last years' failures fade.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,879
    Sean_F said:

    brendan16 said:

    Reports that Chuka Umanna has flounced out of a PLP meeting because Corbyn has reiterated Labour's policy of leaving the Single Market and Customs Union:

    18:55

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/08/cabinet-reshuffle-theresa-may-tory-government-pm-to-start-shifting-ministers-politics-live

    Has Corbyn cleared the line with Keir Starmer?

    Neither major party seems entirely clear what their position is - including how we solve the Irish border issue if we leave the customs union.
    I think we have no choice but to leave the Customs Union. My guess is that if the parties wish to solve the Border issue, rather than use it as a pretext for grandstanding, they will do. Switzerland is not in the customs union, but people have no difficulty trading and commuting to and from Austria, Italy, Germany, and France.
    But that cannot mean the whole of the UK leaves the Customs Union so for that to happen we need to be logistically, as well as politically, ready for Great Britain to go it alone. When will that be possible?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,168
    Are we sure she hasn't left by the back door?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,544

    crandles said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Be good if the housing minister took a serious look at UK housebuilders selling new houses on a leasehold basis.Seems to me just a scam to make more money .Also it leaves the buyers in a leasehold property trap.

    It's going to be banned, the government has announced.

    Interestingly they are seeking to bean leasehold "houses" (i.e. not flats) rather than just escalating ground rents. I do wonder how that is supposed to work.
    Thats cos you can't ban leasehold flats, the flats belong to whoever owns the land so to do flats on different floors belonging to different people there is no other way than having leasehold flats. Think they are just banning new leasehold houses.
    I meant, how it is they can ban leasehold houses and more than flats.

    There is no legal thing as a flat. If anything its leaseholds status is a giveaway.
    Even if you are right, our dear old friend parliamentary sovereignty comes into play - there will be a legal definition of a flat if the Queen in parliament says so. In fact there are freehold, non-ground-floor flats - it's called a flying freehold. There are also sometimes valid reasons for having leasehold houses; say you have a gated community with non-adopted roads, it's easier to enforce mutual obligations to pay for upkeep etc. if the obligations are in leases.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT as more relevant here:

    HYUFD said:

    No it isn't, even Barnier has said we will get a Canada style FTA on goods if we leave the single market and end free movement
    Where ‘we’ doesn’t mean the United Kingdom, but Great Britain. Can the Conservative and Unionist Party, propped up by the DUP, afford to do that?

    Wrong again, it was agreement over the Irish border and some regulatory alignment which enabled FTA talks to begin but free movement will still end and we will still leave the single market
    Do you really believe the agreement means that a Canada style deal could apply to Northern Ireland?
    As I said the regulatory alignment in so far as NI goes will apply but the UK will still end free movement and leave the single market
    Will a Polish citizen in Dublin need a work permit to transfer to the Belfast branch of their company or will free movement apply?
    Probably the former but as NI voted Remain some flexibility could be allowed, it is England and Wales where free movement really has to end as both voted Leave
    Full alignment with the rules of the single market that support the all-island economy would absolutely rule out imposing work permits in cases like that.

    Interesting that 'the UK' has now become 'England and Wales'.
    No it wouldn't as what Ireland cares about is no tariffs not free movement for Polish plumbers in Ireland.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 1,174

    Sean_F said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Be good if the housing minister took a serious look at UK housebuilders selling new houses on a leasehold basis.Seems to me just a scam to make more money .Also it leaves the buyers in a leasehold property trap.

    Already been stopped.
    CE of Persimmon been awarded a £110m bonus for boosting profits mainly due to Leasehold trap according to Look North.
    I don't think that Persimmon has been particularly bad in this respect, has it? It's Taylor Wimpey and some other firms who had the unreasonable terms in their leases (which BTW the purchasers' solicitors should have noticed).
    Taylor Wimpey set a trap, and solicitors walked into it. Of course, lawyers are in the business of spotting traps, but there we go.
    The entire purpose of lawyers is to protect you from this kind of thing. It seems to me that they've got off scot-free.
    Yes I appreciate there is a housing shortage, but surely the solicitors adviced their clients buying a new build house on a leaseholder agreement rather than a freehold , is not a good idea.
    If the solicitor paid for by the developer sends a 25 page report on title, with a 50 page lease, a 30 page Section 106 Agreement, stacks of planning and building consents, reams of title deeds, and searches to the buyer, you can be sure that 95% of buyers will never read the stuff. Added to that, he's likely managing 20 semi-qualified staff, and you can never meet him face to face, but hey! The developer gave you "free" conveyancing.
    Only 95%????
    The fact that this house is freehold was one of the things that encouraged me to buy it. I didn't read all the documents but I did skim them, thereby clocking that there's a coal seam under the street (a long way under!) and a transmitter on a nearby building, etc. I would imagine that most people investing a 6-figure sum would spend a bit of time reading.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,168
    Leadsom to be new Minister for The Family?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    edited January 8
    brendan16 said:

    PClipp said:

    JohnO said:

    Green paper on social care now moved to Health Department. Sky reporting a chorus of approval for this move

    As a county councillor all I can say is that the sooner adult social care is reintegrated with the health service and funded by direct taxation, the better. The present arrangement is a nightmare.
    I thought that was what the Coalition Government was working towards. Unfortunately the Independent Conservative Government put an end to it. And now they seem to be doing a U-turn.

    I see the Conservatives as just incompetent.
    It's a nightmare for families and the elderly needing care - including the difference between what should be NHS continuing health care and what is local authority social care.

    And of course we have the nonsense whereby an elderly person on a low income who owns a £3m house but has only £20k in savings can receive totally free home care but an elderly person on the same income who has £40k in savings (perhaps inherited from a friend) but lives in a rented council flat and owns no home has to pay 100 per cent of their home care costs.

    How immoral is it that someone with £3m in assets gets free home care but someone with only £40k pays 100 per cent of the costs until their savings are below £23k - just because the latters assets are not in bricks and mortar?

    Mrs May of course sought to address that shameful situation with her ill fated dementia tax - but Labour was on the side of the multi millionaire home owner not the council tenant!
    That is only the case with personal care at home, if residential care is needed that £3m home would have to be sold and only £23k guaranteed to be kept
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,938
    brendan16 said:


    It's a nightmare for families and the elderly needing care - including the difference between what should be NHS continuing health care and what is local authority social care.

    And of course we have the nonsense whereby an elderly person on a low income who owns a £3m house but has only £20k in savings can receive totally free home care but an elderly person on the same income who has £40k in savings (perhaps inherited from a friend) but lives in a rented council flat and owns no home has to pay 100 per cent of their home care costs.

    How immoral is it that someone with £3m in assets gets free home care but someone with only £40k pays 100 per cent of the costs until their savings are below £23k - just because the latters assets are not in bricks and mortar?

    Mrs May of course sought to address that shameful situation with her ill fated dementia tax - but Labour was on the side of the multi millionaire home owner not the council tenant!

    I've been through this recently with Mr Stodge Senior who has gone into residential care. Care at home wasn't an option - he needs more than three home visits per day and the care home can provide that level of support.

    It costs £1000 per week which isn't unusual - financially it's a bad decision for us but it's the best for Dad and his needs. The anomaly is one set of financial conditions apply if you go into a care home, another if you stay at home and that all depends on the assets available.

    There's no easy or simple answer - if there was, we'd be doing it now. Throw in the thorny political and social question of "inheritance" and it's a quagmire.

    I do credit May and the 2017 Conservative GE Manifesto for offering some different ideas - I didn't think they were very good ideas or well thought through but the current situation is unsustainable.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,509
    edited January 8

    Leadsom to be new Minister for The Family?

    Leadsom and Universal Credit? A perfect sacrificial anode.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,878
    Dadge said:

    Sean_F said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Be good if the housing minister took a serious look at UK housebuilders selling new houses on a leasehold basis.Seems to me just a scam to make more money .Also it leaves the buyers in a leasehold property trap.

    Already been stopped.
    CE of Persimmon been awarded a £110m bonus for boosting profits mainly due to Leasehold trap according to Look North.
    I don't think that Persimmon has been particularly bad in this respect, has it? It's Taylor Wimpey and some other firms who had the unreasonable terms in their leases (which BTW the purchasers' solicitors should have noticed).
    Taylor Wimpey set a trap, and solicitors walked into it. Of course, lawyers are in the business of spotting traps, but there we go.
    The entire purpose of lawyers is to protect you from this kind of thing. It seems to me that they've got off scot-free.
    Yes I appreciate there is a housing shortage, but surely the solicitors adviced their clients buying a new build house on a leaseholder agreement rather than a freehold , is not a good idea.
    If the solicitor paid for by the developer sends a 25 page report on title, with a 50 page lease, a 30 page Section 106 Agreement, stacks of planning and building consents, reams of title deeds, and searches to the buyer, you can be sure that 95% of buyers will never read the stuff. Added to that, he's likely managing 20 semi-qualified staff, and you can never meet him face to face, but hey! The developer gave you "free" conveyancing.
    Only 95%????
    The fact that this house is freehold was one of the things that encouraged me to buy it. I didn't read all the documents but I did skim them, thereby clocking that there's a coal seam under the street (a long way under!) and a transmitter on a nearby building, etc. I would imagine that most people investing a 6-figure sum would spend a bit of time reading.
    You'd be surprised what people will sign up to, without checking.

    If I were the solicitor, I'd send a letter, no more than 3 pages, drawing attention to salient points to the client, and have a meeting to discuss them. But, I'd expect to be paid accordingly.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 11,501
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,596
    On a point of order Truss only attends Cabinet.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 11,501
    edited January 8

    Leadsom to be new Minister for The Family?

    Minister For Motherhood (and apple pie) ? :D
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,168
    HYUFD said:

    brendan16 said:

    PClipp said:

    JohnO said:

    Green paper on social care now moved to Health Department. Sky reporting a chorus of approval for this move

    As a county councillor all I can say is that the sooner adult social care is reintegrated with the health service and funded by direct taxation, the better. The present arrangement is a nightmare.
    I thought that was what the Coalition Government was working towards. Unfortunately the Independent Conservative Government put an end to it. And now they seem to be doing a U-turn.

    I see the Conservatives as just incompetent.
    It's a nightmare for families and the elderly needing care - including the difference between what should be NHS continuing health care and what is local authority social care.

    And of course we have the nonsense whereby an elderly person on a low income who owns a £3m house but has only £20k in savings can receive totally free home care but an elderly person on the same income who has £40k in savings (perhaps inherited from a friend) but lives in a rented council flat and owns no home has to pay 100 per cent of their home care costs.

    How immoral is it that someone with £3m in assets gets free home care but someone with only £40k pays 100 per cent of the costs until their savings are below £23k - just because the latters assets are not in bricks and mortar?

    Mrs May of course sought to address that shameful situation with her ill fated dementia tax - but Labour was on the side of the multi millionaire home owner not the council tenant!
    That is only the case with personal care at home, if residential care is needed that £3m home would have to be sold and only £23k guaranteed to be kept
    Or a charge put on the house, to be sold on death.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,574
    Of topic - Yeovil hit jackpot - Man Utd at home in FA cup. Bet that is televised
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,168
    I am slightly reassured that Hunt is taking charge of the Social Care Green Paper. Maybe naive, but perhaps finally we will have someone prepared to drive through a long term solution to this mess.
  • Grayling confirmed as embarrassing himself at Transport.

    Still time for them to delete the tweet...
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,079
    She didn't ditch Grayling?!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,879
    GIN1138 said:
    May seems to suffer from a variant of esprit de l'escalier where bold decisions occur to her about 3 weeks too late.

    If she wanted to do a reshuffle, the time to do it was on the day she sacked Damian Green when the mood would have been much more favourable to her imposing her authority.
  • crandlescrandles Posts: 26

    crandles said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Be good if the housing minister took a serious look at UK housebuilders selling new houses on a leasehold basis.Seems to me just a scam to make more money .Also it leaves the buyers in a leasehold property trap.

    It's going to be banned, the government has announced.

    Interestingly they are seeking to bean leasehold "houses" (i.e. not flats) rather than just escalating ground rents. I do wonder how that is supposed to work.
    Thats cos you can't ban leasehold flats, the flats belong to whoever owns the land so to do flats on different floors belonging to different people there is no other way than having leasehold flats. Think they are just banning new leasehold houses.
    I meant, how it is they can ban leasehold houses and more than flats.

    There is no legal thing as a flat. If anything its leaseholds status is a giveaway.
    Did you mean "how it is they can ban leasehold houses any more than flats?"
    Note I said it was *new* leasehold houses they are banning. So if it is existing house or flat it can continue, but if you try to do it with a newly built house, presumably 'leasehold sale' will be voidable as illegal.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,574

    I am slightly reassured that Hunt is taking charge of the Social Care Green Paper. Maybe naive, but perhaps finally we will have someone prepared to drive through a long term solution to this mess.

    It is the best part of the reshuffle. He has taken over the green paper from the DCLG on social care and this could be his time if he can put in place an integrated health and social care system on a long term funding basis
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    edited January 8

    HYUFD said:

    brendan16 said:

    PClipp said:

    JohnO said:

    Green paper on social care now moved to Health Department. Sky reporting a chorus of approval for this move

    As a county councillor all I can say is that the sooner adult social care is reintegrated with the health service and funded by direct taxation, the better. The present arrangement is a nightmare.
    I thought that was what the Coalition Government was working towards. Unfortunately the Independent Conservative Government put an end to it. And now they seem to be doing a U-turn.

    I see the Conservatives as just incompetent.
    It's a nightmare for families and the elderly needing care - including the difference between what should be NHS continuing health care and what is local authority social care.

    And of course we have the nonsense whereby an elderly person on a low income who owns a £3m house but has only £20k in savings can receive totally free home care but an elderly person on the same income who has £40k in savings (perhaps inherited from a friend) but lives in a rented council flat and owns no home has to pay 100 per cent of their home care costs.

    How immoral is it that someone with £3m in assets gets free home care but someone with only £40k pays 100 per cent of the costs until their savings are below £23k - just because the latters assets are not in bricks and mortar?

    Mrs May of course sought to address that shameful situation with her ill fated dementia tax - but Labour was on the side of the multi millionaire home owner not the council tenant!
    That is only the case with personal care at home, if residential care is needed that £3m home would have to be sold and only £23k guaranteed to be kept
    Or a charge put on the house, to be sold on death.
    Still with the same effect.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,200
    Honestly, how could May have survived so long in politics and been so utterly rubbish at it?

    How?

  • DadgeDadge Posts: 1,174
    She was probably starting to feel like she'd been kidnapped.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,447
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT as more relevant here:

    HYUFD said:

    No it isn't, even Barnier has said we will get a Canada style FTA on goods if we leave the single market and end free movement
    Where ‘we’ doesn’t mean the United Kingdom, but Great Britain. Can the Conservative and Unionist Party, propped up by the DUP, afford to do that?

    Wrong again, it was agreement over the Irish border and some regulatory alignment which enabled FTA talks to begin but free movement will still end and we will still leave the single market
    Do you really believe the agreement means that a Canada style deal could apply to Northern Ireland?
    As I said the regulatory alignment in so far as NI goes will apply but the UK will still end free movement and leave the single market
    Will a Polish citizen in Dublin need a work permit to transfer to the Belfast branch of their company or will free movement apply?
    Probably the former but as NI voted Remain some flexibility could be allowed, it is England and Wales where free movement really has to end as both voted Leave
    Splendid news. By that token London will also have 'flexibility' on freedom of movement as it voted heavily for Remain. At last some sense is being restored to proceedings!!
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,596
    crandles said:

    crandles said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Be good if the housing minister took a serious look at UK housebuilders selling new houses on a leasehold basis.Seems to me just a scam to make more money .Also it leaves the buyers in a leasehold property trap.

    It's going to be banned, the government has announced.

    Interestingly they are seeking to bean leasehold "houses" (i.e. not flats) rather than just escalating ground rents. I do wonder how that is supposed to work.
    Thats cos you can't ban leasehold flats, the flats belong to whoever owns the land so to do flats on different floors belonging to different people there is no other way than having leasehold flats. Think they are just banning new leasehold houses.
    I meant, how it is they can ban leasehold houses and more than flats.

    There is no legal thing as a flat. If anything its leaseholds status is a giveaway.
    Did you mean "how it is they can ban leasehold houses any more than flats?"
    Note I said it was *new* leasehold houses they are banning. So if it is existing house or flat it can continue, but if you try to do it with a newly built house, presumably 'leasehold sale' will be voidable as illegal.
    Yes, I meant "any more than flats".

    It is conceptually quite difficult to do. There are some luxury developments, in particular, where leasehold service charges make sense for houses.

    Which raises the question: is it the leasehold we have a problem with? Or was it a novel investment product - the ground rent escalator - that the housebuilders invented, then flogged?

    If the ground rent had been a flat £100/year, I doubt anyone would have cared.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,574
    Cyclefree said:

    Honestly, how could May have survived so long in politics and been so utterly rubbish at it?

    How?

    Shows how poor her opposition is then
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,665
    Cyclefree said:

    Honestly, how could May have survived so long in politics and been so utterly rubbish at it?

    How?

    We the British public.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,447
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT as more relevant here:

    HYUFD said:

    No it isn't, even Barnier has said we will get a Canada style FTA on goods if we leave the single market and end free movement
    Where ‘we’ doesn’t mean the United Kingdom, but Great Britain. Can the Conservative and Unionist Party, propped up by the DUP, afford to do that?

    Wrong again, it was agreement over the Irish border and some regulatory alignment which enabled FTA talks to begin but free movement will still end and we will still leave the single market
    Do you really believe the agreement means that a Canada style deal could apply to Northern Ireland?
    As I said the regulatory alignment in so far as NI goes will apply but the UK will still end free movement and leave the single market
    Will a Polish citizen in Dublin need a work permit to transfer to the Belfast branch of their company or will free movement apply?
    Probably the former but as NI voted Remain some flexibility could be allowed, it is England and Wales where free movement really has to end as both voted Leave
    Full alignment with the rules of the single market that support the all-island economy would absolutely rule out imposing work permits in cases like that.

    Interesting that 'the UK' has now become 'England and Wales'.
    No it wouldn't as what Ireland cares about is no tariffs not free movement for Polish plumbers in Ireland.
    Your posts appear to be a series of contentions presented as facts. That is not to say they aren't opinions worth reading, simply that their presentation is somewhat off-key.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,037
    edited January 8
    HYUFD said:

    brendan16 said:

    PClipp said:

    JohnO said:

    Green paper on social care now moved to Health Department. Sky reporting a chorus of approval for this move

    As a county councillor all I can say is that the sooner adult social care is reintegrated with the health service and funded by direct taxation, the better. The present arrangement is a nightmare.
    I thought that was what the Coalition Government was working towards. Unfortunately the Independent Conservative Government put an end to it. And now they seem to be doing a U-turn.

    I see the Conservatives as just incompetent.
    It's a nightmare for families and the elderly needing care - including the difference between what should be NHS continuing health care and what is local authority social care.

    And of course we have the nonsense whereby an elderly person on a low income who owns a £3m house but has only £20k in savings can receive totally free home care but an elderly person on the same income who has £40k in savings (perhaps inherited from a friend) but lives in a rented council flat and owns no home has to pay 100 per cent of their home care costs.

    How immoral is it that someone with £3m in assets gets free home care but someone with only £40k pays 100 per cent of the costs until their savings are below £23k - just because the latters assets are not in bricks and mortar?

    Mrs May of course sought to address that shameful situation with her ill fated dementia tax - but Labour was on the side of the multi millionaire home owner not the council tenant!
    That is only the case with personal care at home, if residential care is needed that £3m home would have to be sold and only £23k guaranteed to be kept
    Yes - but even personal care at home can cost tens of thousands a year if it's round the clock or involves multiple visits per day. Those £17 per hour costs - when the carer provably barely spends 20 minutes with the client - soon add up. Why does the person worth £3m pay nothing but the person worth £40k pays the entire cost until they hit £23k? Why should the means test differ depending on whether its home or residential care.

    The value of home should be taken account of with all other assets - not ignored for home care. A charge can be placed on the home and paid out of the estate when they die - so the elderly person bears no costs while alive.

    Of course as we saw with the dementia tax debate many people seem to care more about their future inheritance than the well being of granny!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,168
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    brendan16 said:

    PClipp said:

    JohnO said:

    Green paper on social care now moved to Health Department. Sky reporting a chorus of approval for this move

    As a county councillor all I can say is that the sooner adult social care is reintegrated with the health service and funded by direct taxation, the better. The present arrangement is a nightmare.
    I thought that was what the Coalition Government was working towards. Unfortunately the Independent Conservative Government put an end to it. And now they seem to be doing a U-turn.

    I see the Conservatives as just incompetent.
    It's a nightmare for families and the elderly needing care - including the difference between what should be NHS continuing health care and what is local authority social care.

    And of course we have the nonsense whereby an elderly person on a low income who owns a £3m house but has only £20k in savings can receive totally free home care but an elderly person on the same income who has £40k in savings (perhaps inherited from a friend) but lives in a rented council flat and owns no home has to pay 100 per cent of their home care costs.

    How immoral is it that someone with £3m in assets gets free home care but someone with only £40k pays 100 per cent of the costs until their savings are below £23k - just because the latters assets are not in bricks and mortar?

    Mrs May of course sought to address that shameful situation with her ill fated dementia tax - but Labour was on the side of the multi millionaire home owner not the council tenant!
    That is only the case with personal care at home, if residential care is needed that £3m home would have to be sold and only £23k guaranteed to be kept
    Or a charge put on the house, to be sold on death.
    Still with the same effect.
    Indeed. Although some may prefer a Charge as they don't actually see their family home sold in their own lifetime. Might be a source of some small comfort.

    But it's a mess. A total mess. And politicians of all parties should be ashamed that they have let it get into this mess over years if not decades.
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 1,069
    Cyclefree said:

    Honestly, how could May have survived so long in politics and been so utterly rubbish at it?

    How?

    She's very talented until she actually has to do something.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT as more relevant here:

    HYUFD said:

    No it isn't, even Barnier has said we will get a Canada style FTA on goods if we leave the single market and end free movement
    Where ‘we’ doesn’t mean the United Kingdom, but Great Britain. Can the Conservative and Unionist Party, propped up by the DUP, afford to do that?

    Wrong again, it was agreement over the Irish border and some regulatory alignment which enabled FTA talks to begin but free movement will still end and we will still leave the single market
    Do you really believe the agreement means that a Canada style deal could apply to Northern Ireland?
    As I said the regulatory alignment in so far as NI goes will apply but the UK will still end free movement and leave the single market
    Will a Polish citizen in Dublin need a work permit to transfer to the Belfast branch of their company or will free movement apply?
    Probably the former but as NI voted Remain some flexibility could be allowed, it is England and Wales where free movement really has to end as both voted Leave
    Splendid news. By that token London will also have 'flexibility' on freedom of movement as it voted heavily for Remain. At last some sense is being restored to proceedings!!
    No as London is not one of the 3 nations and 1 province of the UK but a city of England. In any case it is tariffs the Irish want to avoid not to protect free movement for Polish plumbers
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380

    Cyclefree said:

    Honestly, how could May have survived so long in politics and been so utterly rubbish at it?

    How?

    Shows how poor her opposition is then
    You mean Boris? Yes, he's crap.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,069
    Cyclefree said:

    Honestly, how could May have survived so long in politics and been so utterly rubbish at it?

    How?

    I’d dispute that she’s “utterly rubbish”. Although I know there have been gripes with her tenure, you don’t generate the staying power in a department like the Home Office without having something about you.

    However, as with Brown who built up a fiefdom at the Treasury, these examples show us that managing a Great Office of State doesn’t mean you’ll translate that into success as a party leader and PM.

    I still think she’s better than Brown though. Who can forget the absolute shambles the last couple of years of his government was. No matter how disorganised and disoreintated this government is, it has not yet stopped to those lows.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380
    BBC blooper - they haven't edited the montage shown just before the news headlines on the hour - still shows Carrie reporting from China!
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,447
    Reshuffle latest:

    Aitor Karanka named as Forest manager.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    edited January 8
    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    brendan16 said:

    PClipp said:

    JohnO said:

    Green paper on social care now moved to Health Department. Sky reporting a chorus of approval for this move

    As a county councillor all I can say is that the sooner adult social care is reintegrated with the health service and funded by direct taxation, the better. The present arrangement is a nightmare.
    I thought that was what the Coalition Government was working towards. Unfortunately the Independent Conservative Government put an end to it. And now they seem to be doing a U-turn.

    I see the Conservatives as just incompetent.
    It's a nightmare for families and the elderly needing care - including the difference between what should be NHS continuing health care and what is local authority social care.

    And of course we have the nonsense whereby an elderly person on a low income who owns a £3m house but has only £20k in savings can receive totally free home care but me owner not the council tenant!
    That is only the case with personal care at home, if residential care is needed that £3m home would have to be sold and only £23k guaranteed to be kept
    Yes - but even personal care at home can cost tens of thousands a year if it's round the clock or involves multiple visits per day. Those £17 per hour costs - when the carer provably barely spends 20 minutes with the client - soon add up. Why does the person worth £3m pay nothing but the person worth £40k pays the entire cost until they hit £23k? Why should the means test differ depending on whether its home or residential care.

    The value of home should be taken account of with all other assets - not ignored for home care. A charge can be placed on the home and paid out of the estate when they die - so the elderly person bears no costs while alive.

    Of course as we saw with the dementia tax debate many people seem to care more about their future inheritance than the well being of granny!
    As the home is the biggest family asset and as the general election proved voters believe should be protected if the owner is still living in it but receiving care not sold to pay for care as is the case if they move into residential care and leave the home. May proposed a dementia tax, she lost the majority needed to push it through, that is democracy, tough
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,574

    Cyclefree said:

    Honestly, how could May have survived so long in politics and been so utterly rubbish at it?

    How?

    Shows how poor her opposition is then
    You mean Boris? Yes, he's crap.
    I agree Boris is hopeless
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,588

    crandles said:

    crandles said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Be good if the housing minister took a serious look at UK housebuilders selling new houses on a leasehold basis.Seems to me just a scam to make more money .Also it leaves the buyers in a leasehold property trap.

    It's going to be banned, the government has announced.

    Interestingly they are seeking to bean leasehold "houses" (i.e. not flats) rather than just escalating ground rents. I do wonder how that is supposed to work.
    Thats cos you can't ban leasehold flats, the flats belong to whoever owns the land so to do flats on different floors belonging to different people there is no other way than having leasehold flats. Think they are just banning new leasehold houses.
    I meant, how it is they can ban leasehold houses and more than flats.

    There is no legal thing as a flat. If anything its leaseholds status is a giveaway.
    Did you mean "how it is they can ban leasehold houses any more than flats?"
    Note I said it was *new* leasehold houses they are banning. So if it is existing house or flat it can continue, but if you try to do it with a newly built house, presumably 'leasehold sale' will be voidable as illegal.
    Yes, I meant "any more than flats".

    It is conceptually quite difficult to do. There are some luxury developments, in particular, where leasehold service charges make sense for houses.

    Which raises the question: is it the leasehold we have a problem with? Or was it a novel investment product - the ground rent escalator - that the housebuilders invented, then flogged?

    If the ground rent had been a flat £100/year, I doubt anyone would have cared.
    Feu duty was abolished in Scotland.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    brendan16 said:

    PClipp said:

    JohnO said:

    Green paper on social care now moved to Health Department. Sky reporting a chorus of approval for this move

    As a county councillor all I can say is that the sooner adult social care is reintegrated with the health service and funded by direct taxation, the better. The present arrangement is a nightmare.
    I thought that was what the Coalition Government was working towards. Unfortunately the Independent Conservative Government put an end to it. And now they seem to be doing a U-turn.

    I see the Conservatives as just incompetent.
    It's a nightmare for families and the elderly needing care - including the difference between what should be NHS continuing health care and what is local authority social care.

    And of course we have the nonsense whereby an elderly person on a low income who owns a £3m house but has only £20k in savings can receive totally free home care but an elderly person on the same income who has £40k in savings (perhaps inherited from a friend) but lives in a rented council flat and owns no home has to pay 100 per cent of their home care costs.

    How immoral is it that someone with £3m in assets gets free home care but someone with only £40k pays 100 per cent of the costs until their savings are below £23k - just because the latters assets are not in bricks and mortar?

    Mrs May of course sought to address that shameful situation with her ill fated dementia tax - but Labour was on the side of the multi millionaire home owner not the council tenant!
    That is only the case with personal care at home, if residential care is needed that £3m home would have to be sold and only £23k guaranteed to be kept
    Or a charge put on the house, to be sold on death.
    Still with the same effect.
    Indeed. Although some may prefer a Charge as they don't actually see their family home sold in their own lifetime. Might be a source of some small comfort.

    But it's a mess. A total mess. And politicians of all parties should be ashamed that they have let it get into this mess over years if not decades.
    Most countries pay for social care through social insurance as should we through National Insurance
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380
    So May was too weak to sack Greening. Instead she offered her another job and Greening told her to do one. Now May is scratching her head trying to fill the DWP job.

    Surely Tezzie will sack Loathsome properly - and with a smile on her face.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 897
    So, has the Minister for Hard Brexit been named yet?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,692
    Is this one of those times we're expected to agree with Hodges, or act like anything he says is wrong?
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,447
    Does the government even have a Brexit majority in Parliament? The recent vote that they lost thanks to a europhile rebellion suggests not.

    P.S. I don't remember Justine being one of the rebels. I see that she could make matters worse!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,879

    Surely Tezzie will sack Loathsome properly - and with a smile on her face.

    She might regret that. Leadsom has a clean pair of hands on the government's Brexit delivery and can legitimately point to her argument during the leadership election that we needed a PM who believed in Brexit.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,741
    Anazina said:

    Does the government even have a Brexit majority in Parliament? The recent vote that they lost thanks to a europhile rebellion suggests not.

    P.S. I don't remember Justine being one of the rebels. I see that she could make matters worse!
    Greening was part of the "payroll vote" she'd have to resign from Cabinet to rebel.

    Now she's a free agent. She only has the whip to worry about so she can rebel to her hearts content.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    Anazina said:

    Does the government even have a Brexit majority in Parliament? The recent vote that they lost thanks to a europhile rebellion suggests not.

    P.S. I don't remember Justine being one of the rebels. I see that she could make matters worse!
    Yes as Corbyn backs Brexit
  • Ugh, Damian Hinds is a former grammar school boy.

    Hopefully Mrs May will have learned the lesson of last June that grammar schools were rejected by the country when they denied her a majority.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,879

    Anazina said:

    Does the government even have a Brexit majority in Parliament? The recent vote that they lost thanks to a europhile rebellion suggests not.

    P.S. I don't remember Justine being one of the rebels. I see that she could make matters worse!
    Greening was part of the "payroll vote" she'd have to resign from Cabinet to rebel.

    Now she's a free agent. She only has the whip to worry about so she can rebel to her hearts content.
    She also has one of the most pro-Remain constituencies in the country.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,183
    HYUFD said:

    Reports that Chuka Umanna has flounced out of a PLP meeting because Corbyn has reiterated Labour's policy of leaving the Single Market and Customs Union:

    18:55

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/08/cabinet-reshuffle-theresa-may-tory-government-pm-to-start-shifting-ministers-politics-live

    The battle between Umunna and Corbyn's view of the Labour Party will dominate Labour for the next decade, Umunna clearly wants to be Macron to Corbyn's Hollande
    Except Umunna and Ian Murray still believe that they are Blair's successors, along with Kinnock and Smith, and that all they have to do is just wait until the membership sees the errors of their ways and return to the true New Labour path... Ain't gonna happen. Murray is a very good constituency MP, just a very lousy tactical Westminster one, but like Kinnock and Smith, if the new constituency alignments come in, then they will lose their seats, and with their records, they will have difficulty in getting new ones as the new CLP's will be able to decide who the candidates will be, and the new executive committees will not be made up from the friends of the previous MP's.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,213
    @bbcnickrobinson: New Education Secretary @DamianHinds is a grammar school boy. Is that why he was preferred to @JustineGreening ?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,213
    @matt_dathan: At the moment the Cabinet has fewer women in than this morning. This re-branding exercise is going really well
    #Reshuffle
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828

    Ugh, Damian Hinds is a former grammar school boy.

    Hopefully Mrs May will have learned the lesson of last June that grammar schools were rejected by the country when they denied her a majority.

    If she was after someone who went to a thoroughly shite comprehensive, I'd happily have taken a peerage.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,692
    Scott_P said:

    @matt_dathan: At the moment the Cabinet has fewer women in than this morning. This re-branding exercise is going really well
    #Reshuffle

    Was that one of the aims of the reshuffle, to rebrand their feminine credentials?
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,981
    OchEye said:

    HYUFD said:

    Reports that Chuka Umanna has flounced out of a PLP meeting because Corbyn has reiterated Labour's policy of leaving the Single Market and Customs Union:

    18:55

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/08/cabinet-reshuffle-theresa-may-tory-government-pm-to-start-shifting-ministers-politics-live

    The battle between Umunna and Corbyn's view of the Labour Party will dominate Labour for the next decade, Umunna clearly wants to be Macron to Corbyn's Hollande
    Except Umunna and Ian Murray still believe that they are Blair's successors, along with Kinnock and Smith, and that all they have to do is just wait until the membership sees the errors of their ways and return to the true New Labour path... Ain't gonna happen. Murray is a very good constituency MP, just a very lousy tactical Westminster one, but like Kinnock and Smith, if the new constituency alignments come in, then they will lose their seats, and with their records, they will have difficulty in getting new ones as the new CLP's will be able to decide who the candidates will be, and the new executive committees will not be made up from the friends of the previous MP's.
    Good observation. I have a feeling that the Labour Party in a few years time won't look like anything that Blair or Corbyn would recognise. All those new members are learning the ropes and assessing the landscape. When it turns out that Corbyn isn't what they are projecting onto him, the hunt will be on for someone who is. I don't think the Blairites will like that any more than they like Corbyn.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736

    Ugh, Damian Hinds is a former grammar school boy.

    Hopefully Mrs May will have learned the lesson of last June that grammar schools were rejected by the country when they denied her a majority.

    No, the Tories had a big poll lead with the grammar school policy it was the dementia tax that lost the majority. Every poll shows a plurality back more grammars and a majority existing grammars
  • tlg86 said:

    Ugh, Damian Hinds is a former grammar school boy.

    Hopefully Mrs May will have learned the lesson of last June that grammar schools were rejected by the country when they denied her a majority.

    If she was after someone who went to a thoroughly shite comprehensive, I'd happily have taken a peerage.
    When I become the country's first Directly Elected Dictator you can be my Education Secretary.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,976

    Anazina said:

    Does the government even have a Brexit majority in Parliament? The recent vote that they lost thanks to a europhile rebellion suggests not.

    P.S. I don't remember Justine being one of the rebels. I see that she could make matters worse!
    Greening was part of the "payroll vote" she'd have to resign from Cabinet to rebel.

    Now she's a free agent. She only has the whip to worry about so she can rebel to her hearts content.
    She also has one of the most pro-Remain constituencies in the country.
    Fairly marginal too...
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,069
    Sad to see Greening go. Hopefully she will return to the front benches soon, though I imagine it’ll be after the May premiership comes to an end.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,692
    Scott_P said:
    I'm sure she was capable of being convinced otherwise on the subject.

    A dull reshuffle though, doesn't seem like achieving much in fairness.
  • Damian Hinds gets worse.

    1) He's a Papist

    2) He went to Oxford

    3) He read PPE
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    OchEye said:

    HYUFD said:

    Reports that Chuka Umanna has flounced out of a PLP meeting because Corbyn has reiterated Labour's policy of leaving the Single Market and Customs Union:

    18:55

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/08/cabinet-reshuffle-theresa-may-tory-government-pm-to-start-shifting-ministers-politics-live

    The battle between Umunna and Corbyn's view of the Labour Party will dominate Labour for the next decade, Umunna clearly wants to be Macron to Corbyn's Hollande
    Except Umunna and Ian Murray still believe that they are Blair's successors, along with Kinnock and Smith, and that all they have to do is just wait until the membership sees the errors of their ways and return to the true New Labour path... Ain't gonna happen. Murray is a very good constituency MP, just a very lousy tactical Westminster one, but like Kinnock and Smith, if the new constituency alignments come in, then they will lose their seats, and with their records, they will have difficulty in getting new ones as the new CLP's will be able to decide who the candidates will be, and the new executive committees will not be made up from the friends of the previous MP's.
    Macron only got elected after Hollande faced heavy defeat, Hollande still narrowly beat Sarkozy first
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    So is Labour going to argue that the Tories should never have called the referendum , they should never have consulted the People about their future, that its none of the People's business?
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,447
    edited January 8
    HYUFD said:

    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT as more relevant here:

    HYUFD said:

    No it isn't, even Barnier has said we will get a Canada style FTA on goods if we leave the single market and end free movement
    Where ‘we’ doesn’t mean the United Kingdom, but Great Britain. Can the Conservative and Unionist Party, propped up by the DUP, afford to do that?

    Wrong again, it was agreement over the Irish border and some regulatory alignment which enabled FTA talks to begin but free movement will still end and we will still leave the single market
    Do you really believe the agreement means that a Canada style deal could apply to Northern Ireland?
    As I said the regulatory alignment in so far as NI goes will apply but the UK will still end free movement and leave the single market
    Will a Polish citizen in Dublin need a work permit to transfer to the Belfast branch of their company or will free movement apply?
    Probably the former but as NI voted Remain some flexibility could be allowed, it is England and Wales where free movement really has to end as both voted Leave
    Splendid news. By that token London will also have 'flexibility' on freedom of movement as it voted heavily for Remain. At last some sense is being restored to proceedings!!
    No as London is not one of the 3 nations and 1 province of the UK but a city of England. In any case it is tariffs the Irish want to avoid not to protect free movement for Polish plumbers
    Brexit is a complete mess and requires imaginative thinking. London is a devolved region of the UK with its own directly elected administration. Regional visas work perfectly well in other countries, such as Canada. The obsession from neobrexiteers like yourself with forcing restrictions on free movement on the UK, sorry GB, sorry England & Wales is prevent sensible solutions being found.
This discussion has been closed.