Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » DefSec & ex-chief whip, Gavin Williamson, – a good bet at 7/1

124»

Comments

  • HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Hardly a surprise a libertarian like the author dislikes May, however given the Tories are almost level with Labour in the polls a change could make things worse, as well as being self indulgent with Brexit talks ongoing
    We changed PMs during both world wars, we can ditch Theresa May during Brexit.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    Foxy said:

    There is real scope for a Chancellor to reduce that rate of interest. At the moment 6.1% does look like they are milking it, relative to what the Govt. can borrow at.

    It's very largely meaningless anyway. Its main effect is to increase the nominal amount which in the majority of cases gets written off at the end.
    As most of the debt will be written off (paid by the taxpayer), why not write it off now, while the sums are merely large rather than later when they will be huge?

    A problem ignored doesn't go away, it worsens.
    It's not a problem, it's a feature. It means that those who end up earning a lot pay a lot, those who don't don't. The mistake was not calling it what it is: a (very progressive) Graduate Tax.
    It is going to be a problem, and not just for the LibDems. Those carrying the debt are not going to feel kindly to Tory baby boomers.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why a Brexiteer obsessed with sovereignty would quote with approval a text suggesting that the Empire be divided up between the Medes and the Persians is something of a puzzle.

    Rooting for Scottish independence, perhaps ?
    And abandoning Northern Ireland...
    Mogg has always said Scottish independence is up to the Scots, he would be happy with England and Wales as pre 1707 provided they were outside the EU
    As the Hon Member for the 18th century, it is no surprise he’s happy to revert to the pre-1707 constitutional status.

    Of course, as a Roman Catholic he should rightly be barred from public office in the event we repeal the 1829 Roman Catholic Relief Act.
    The EU or the Pope as your lord and master.

    Tough call.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572

    Foxy said:

    There is real scope for a Chancellor to reduce that rate of interest. At the moment 6.1% does look like they are milking it, relative to what the Govt. can borrow at.

    It's very largely meaningless anyway. Its main effect is to increase the nominal amount which in the majority of cases gets written off at the end.
    As most of the debt will be written off (paid by the taxpayer), why not write it off now, while the sums are merely large rather than later when they will be huge?

    A problem ignored doesn't go away, it worsens.
    It's not a problem, it's a feature. It means that those who end up earning a lot pay a lot, those who don't don't. The mistake was not calling it what it is: a (very progressive) Graduate Tax.
    Progressive only up to a certain point, then regressive, due to the interest.
    A graduate tax would be progressive only if the older graduates paid it too. At the moment we have a 9% income tax surcharge on the younger generation of graduates, very likely to last 30 years. Graduates from their mid 40s upwards have paid nothing and never will pay anything as things stand. Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and Blair for example.

    Bear in mind too that degrees were valued by employers when the baby boomers went to university. Since the expansion of higher education I don't think that can be said anymore for the most part, so the link to higher lifetime earnings is going to be far more questionable.
  • HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Hardly a surprise a libertarian like the author dislikes May, however given the Tories are almost level with Labour in the polls a change could make things worse, as well as being self indulgent with Brexit talks ongoing
    The Conservatives should appeal to libertarians.

    If May can't she should go for that reason alone.
  • HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Hardly a surprise a libertarian like the author dislikes May, however given the Tories are almost level with Labour in the polls a change could make things worse, as well as being self indulgent with Brexit talks ongoing
    The Conservatives should appeal to libertarians.

    If May can't she should go for that reason alone.
    The only Tory to win a majority this century was often called a Liberal (Conservative)

    I wonder if there’s a link...
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited January 2018

    I'm not sure. I'm also surprised it's that low actually, feel free to double-check in case I screwed something up.

    Martin Lewis has some good blog posts on this. This one has some useful tables:

    https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes#multiThree-tabTwo

    Looking at the table ' How much will you repay? (2017 starters)', assuming £9K fees and £8.2K borrowed for living expenses, he has figures for the total amount repaid (in today's prices) for different levels of starting salary (he assumes graduate earnings growing at inflation + 2% per year).

    The point at which it stops being progressive on that basis is around a £45k starting salary, equating to £79K salary at current prices in 30 years' time.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,407

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why a Brexiteer obsessed with sovereignty would quote with approval a text suggesting that the Empire be divided up between the Medes and the Persians is something of a puzzle.

    Rooting for Scottish independence, perhaps ?
    And abandoning Northern Ireland...
    Mogg has always said Scottish independence is up to the Scots, he would be happy with England and Wales as pre 1707 provided they were outside the EU
    As the Hon Member for the 18th century, it is no surprise he’s happy to revert to the pre-1707 constitutional status.

    Of course, as a Roman Catholic he should rightly be barred from public office in the event we repeal the 1829 Roman Catholic Relief Act.
    "Roman Catholic Relief" - I thought that sort of thing was considered to be a sin.

    Boxing gloves in bed.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Hardly a surprise a libertarian like the author dislikes May, however given the Tories are almost level with Labour in the polls a change could make things worse, as well as being self indulgent with Brexit talks ongoing
    The Conservatives should appeal to libertarians.

    If May can't she should go for that reason alone.
    The only Tory to win a majority this century was often called a Liberal (Conservative)

    I wonder if there’s a link...
    The conservatives need to be liberal in the sense of Social Economics. That direction of travel is only one way.

    They need to win the arguement on the actual economics and be much more rigerous and radical in that area though.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    I'm not sure. I'm also surprised it's that low actually, feel free to double-check in case I screwed something up.

    Martin Lewis has some good blog posts on this. This one has some useful tables:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jan/29/can-you-really-save-for-a-deposit-by-ditching-coffee-and-avocado-toast-i-tried-to-find-out

    Looking at the table ' How much will you repay? (2017 starters)', assuming £9K fees and £8.2K borrowed for living expenses, he has figures for the total amount repaid (in today's prices) for different levels of starting salary (he assumes graduate earnings growing at inflation + 2% per year).

    The point at which it stops being progressive on that basis is around a £45k starting salary, equating to £79K salary at current prices in 30 years' time.
    Interesting that they haven't opened that article up to comments. Not the conclusion, perhaps, that the Graun was after: "I feel a bit ashamed, not least because I am the exception to the rule: for me, if not most millennials, Lewis is suggesting it really is a matter of cutting down on the avocado toast."

    A bit of a weaselly "if not most millenials..."
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Hmm I think @Stereotomy numbers are right for a £30k debt (Starting salary 45k/yr increasing 3% pa), but that only leaves £2550 for 3 years worth of rent and food if you have 3 yrs of tuition at £9250, so I think the debt of current graduates is probably higher than £30k on average.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    The problem with Mrs May's leadership is not just that she isn't a leader, though she isn't. It's not just that she has awful judgment about people. It's not just that her self-confidence has probably been shattered by the GE. It's not just that she probably would prefer to concentrate on the matters set out in her first speech rather than on chewing the wasp that is Brexit. It's not just that she doesn't have the majority to push through the Commons whatever she wants. And it's not just that she doesn't appear to know what sort of deal she wants.

    There are two further big problems:-

    1. She has now seen or been told the very real constraints on any British government in negotiating a departure from the EU which doesn't crash the economy or put it in breach of other obligations - from Toyota to the position of Northern Ireland. Her room for manoeuvre - or for any leader - is in reality really quite limited. All very well for BoJo to talk about "buccaneering" Brexit but this isn't the 16th century and we can't go round the world like pirates singing our allies' beards and seizing whatever we want.

    2. If she takes a definite position one way or the other she risks infuriating one party cabal or another. The Tory party does not want to be led - it is hostage to purist Brexiteers who are making it ungovernable. The realists within it (I hope there are some left. Or is it just Hammond?) realise that a clean break/crash out could be disastrous on so many levels but are unwilling to spell this out. And the rest realise that even if Brexit is resolved in some way the electorate are looking at the Tories and wondering when they will rejoin Planet Earth and talk about the stuff that matters to most voters.

    So she is a non-leader trying to lead a party that doesn't want to be led in circumstances when making any sort of decision will bring wrath down on her head.

    Solomon would find this a tough gig. Never mind Mrs May.
  • TOPPING said:

    I'm not sure. I'm also surprised it's that low actually, feel free to double-check in case I screwed something up.

    Martin Lewis has some good blog posts on this. This one has some useful tables:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jan/29/can-you-really-save-for-a-deposit-by-ditching-coffee-and-avocado-toast-i-tried-to-find-out

    Looking at the table ' How much will you repay? (2017 starters)', assuming £9K fees and £8.2K borrowed for living expenses, he has figures for the total amount repaid (in today's prices) for different levels of starting salary (he assumes graduate earnings growing at inflation + 2% per year).

    The point at which it stops being progressive on that basis is around a £45k starting salary, equating to £79K salary at current prices in 30 years' time.
    Interesting that they haven't opened that article up to comments. Not the conclusion, perhaps, that the Graun was after: "I feel a bit ashamed, not least because I am the exception to the rule: for me, if not most millennials, Lewis is suggesting it really is a matter of cutting down on the avocado toast."

    A bit of a weaselly "if not most millenials..."
    I screwed up my pasting, that was a different article! But I agree with you.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @faisalislam: From Team Barnier re Eu transition negotiation guidelines:
    Not bespoke.
    Ends Dec 2020.
    Agreed by EU27 foreign mins twitter.com/weyandsabine/s…
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    TOPPING said:

    I'm not sure. I'm also surprised it's that low actually, feel free to double-check in case I screwed something up.

    Martin Lewis has some good blog posts on this. This one has some useful tables:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jan/29/can-you-really-save-for-a-deposit-by-ditching-coffee-and-avocado-toast-i-tried-to-find-out

    Looking at the table ' How much will you repay? (2017 starters)', assuming £9K fees and £8.2K borrowed for living expenses, he has figures for the total amount repaid (in today's prices) for different levels of starting salary (he assumes graduate earnings growing at inflation + 2% per year).

    The point at which it stops being progressive on that basis is around a £45k starting salary, equating to £79K salary at current prices in 30 years' time.
    Interesting that they haven't opened that article up to comments. Not the conclusion, perhaps, that the Graun was after: "I feel a bit ashamed, not least because I am the exception to the rule: for me, if not most millennials, Lewis is suggesting it really is a matter of cutting down on the avocado toast."

    A bit of a weaselly "if not most millenials..."
    Yep, it was pretty interesting. I think the thing is that modern life has changed so much that these things (eating out, coffees etc) are so ingrained to seem normal, that they don't seem like spending.

    I'll admit. I don't even think about spending money day to day. I'm well enough off to not really worry about it, and it's so easy to wave a card and not thing about it at all.
  • Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Mrs May's leadership is not just that she isn't a leader, though she isn't. It's not just that she has awful judgment about people. It's not just that her self-confidence has probably been shattered by the GE. It's not just that she probably would prefer to concentrate on the matters set out in her first speech rather than on chewing the wasp that is Brexit. It's not just that she doesn't have the majority to push through the Commons whatever she wants. And it's not just that she doesn't appear to know what sort of deal she wants.

    There are two further big problems:-

    1. She has now seen or been told the very real constraints on any British government in negotiating a departure from the EU which doesn't crash the economy or put it in breach of other obligations - from Toyota to the position of Northern Ireland. Her room for manoeuvre - or for any leader - is in reality really quite limited. All very well for BoJo to talk about "buccaneering" Brexit but this isn't the 16th century and we can't go round the world like pirates singing our allies' beards and seizing whatever we want.

    2. If she takes a definite position one way or the other she risks infuriating one party cabal or another. The Tory party does not want to be led - it is hostage to purist Brexiteers who are making it ungovernable. The realists within it (I hope there are some left. Or is it just Hammond?) realise that a clean break/crash out could be disastrous on so many levels but are unwilling to spell this out. And the rest realise that even if Brexit is resolved in some way the electorate are looking at the Tories and wondering when they will rejoin Planet Earth and talk about the stuff that matters to most voters.

    So she is a non-leader trying to lead a party that doesn't want to be led in circumstances when making any sort of decision will bring wrath down on her head.

    Solomon would find this a tough gig. Never mind Mrs May.

    Yep, spot-on. And of course changing leader would at best fix only the Theresa-May-specific part of the problem, whilst at the same time introducing a new cause of instability.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Scott_P said:
    He does not put her on notice at all. Very shoddy spinning .
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Hardly a surprise a libertarian like the author dislikes May, however given the Tories are almost level with Labour in the polls a change could make things worse, as well as being self indulgent with Brexit talks ongoing
    We changed PMs during both world wars, we can ditch Theresa May during Brexit.
    Sure. But looking at the candidates on offer it would be like picking between Chamberlain and Halifax, only worse.....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    I'm not sure. I'm also surprised it's that low actually, feel free to double-check in case I screwed something up.

    Martin Lewis has some good blog posts on this. This one has some useful tables:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jan/29/can-you-really-save-for-a-deposit-by-ditching-coffee-and-avocado-toast-i-tried-to-find-out

    Looking at the table ' How much will you repay? (2017 starters)', assuming £9K fees and £8.2K borrowed for living expenses, he has figures for the total amount repaid (in today's prices) for different levels of starting salary (he assumes graduate earnings growing at inflation + 2% per year).

    The point at which it stops being progressive on that basis is around a £45k starting salary, equating to £79K salary at current prices in 30 years' time.
    Interesting that they haven't opened that article up to comments. Not the conclusion, perhaps, that the Graun was after: "I feel a bit ashamed, not least because I am the exception to the rule: for me, if not most millennials, Lewis is suggesting it really is a matter of cutting down on the avocado toast."

    A bit of a weaselly "if not most millenials..."
    Yep, it was pretty interesting. I think the thing is that modern life has changed so much that these things (eating out, coffees etc) are so ingrained to seem normal, that they don't seem like spending.

    I'll admit. I don't even think about spending money day to day. I'm well enough off to not really worry about it, and it's so easy to wave a card and not thing about it at all.
    Yes. I'm sure there will be a test case soon about it being a human right to have a mobile phone. But the article's conclusion was well articulated by Lewis - it is a question of priorities. And delayed consumption.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669
    Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Mrs May's leadership is not just that she isn't a leader, though she isn't. It's not just that she has awful judgment about people. It's not just that her self-confidence has probably been shattered by the GE. It's not just that she probably would prefer to concentrate on the matters set out in her first speech rather than on chewing the wasp that is Brexit. It's not just that she doesn't have the majority to push through the Commons whatever she wants. And it's not just that she doesn't appear to know what sort of deal she wants.

    There are two further big problems:-

    1. She has now seen or been told the very real constraints on any British government in negotiating a departure from the EU which doesn't crash the economy or put it in breach of other obligations - from Toyota to the position of Northern Ireland. Her room for manoeuvre - or for any leader - is in reality really quite limited. All very well for BoJo to talk about "buccaneering" Brexit but this isn't the 16th century and we can't go round the world like pirates singing our allies' beards and seizing whatever we want.

    2. If she takes a definite position one way or the other she risks infuriating one party cabal or another. The Tory party does not want to be led - it is hostage to purist Brexiteers who are making it ungovernable. The realists within it (I hope there are some left. Or is it just Hammond?) realise that a clean break/crash out could be disastrous on so many levels but are unwilling to spell this out. And the rest realise that even if Brexit is resolved in some way the electorate are looking at the Tories and wondering when they will rejoin Planet Earth and talk about the stuff that matters to most voters.

    So she is a non-leader trying to lead a party that doesn't want to be led in circumstances when making any sort of decision will bring wrath down on her head.

    Solomon would find this a tough gig. Never mind Mrs May.

    Spot on.
    The Tory party is not fit for (this) purpose.
  • Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Hardly a surprise a libertarian like the author dislikes May, however given the Tories are almost level with Labour in the polls a change could make things worse, as well as being self indulgent with Brexit talks ongoing
    We changed PMs during both world wars, we can ditch Theresa May during Brexit.
    Sure. But looking at the candidates on offer it would be like picking between Chamberlain and Halifax, only worse.....
    Well Halifax was in the Lords, perhaps that’s where we should be looking.

    Perhaps ennoble somebody...
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Mrs May's leadership is not just that she isn't a leader, though she isn't. It's not just that she has awful judgment about people. It's not just that her self-confidence has probably been shattered by the GE. It's not just that she probably would prefer to concentrate on the matters set out in her first speech rather than on chewing the wasp that is Brexit. It's not just that she doesn't have the majority to push through the Commons whatever she wants. And it's not just that she doesn't appear to know what sort of deal she wants.

    There are two further big problems:-

    1. She has now seen or been told the very real constraints on any British government in negotiating a departure from the EU which doesn't crash the economy or put it in breach of other obligations - from Toyota to the position of Northern Ireland. Her room for manoeuvre - or for any leader - is in reality really quite limited. All very well for BoJo to talk about "buccaneering" Brexit but this isn't the 16th century and we can't go round the world like pirates singing our allies' beards and seizing whatever we want.

    2. If she takes a definite position one way or the other she risks infuriating one party cabal or another. The Tory party does not want to be led - it is hostage to purist Brexiteers who are making it ungovernable. The realists within it (I hope there are some left. Or is it just Hammond?) realise that a clean break/crash out could be disastrous on so many levels but are unwilling to spell this out. And the rest realise that even if Brexit is resolved in some way the electorate are looking at the Tories and wondering when they will rejoin Planet Earth and talk about the stuff that matters to most voters.

    So she is a non-leader trying to lead a party that doesn't want to be led in circumstances when making any sort of decision will bring wrath down on her head.

    Solomon would find this a tough gig. Never mind Mrs May.

    Yep, spot-on. And of course changing leader would at best fix only the Theresa-May-specific part of the problem, whilst at the same time introducing a new cause of instability.
    I think Cyclefree underestimates the power of determined leadership. With the right person the situation could change quickly. You need someone with vision and the confidence to get off the fence.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    BREAKING: EU General Affairs Council adopts guidelines for #Brexit negotiations within 2 min: status quo transition without institutional representation, lasting from #Brexit date to 31 December 2020
  • That said 5 and a half years at Health makes Jeremy Hunt the only candidate to succeed Mrs May who will make a success of Brexit and win the Tories a majority in 2022.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    TOPPING said:

    I'm not sure. I'm also surprised it's that low actually, feel free to double-check in case I screwed something up.

    Martin Lewis has some good blog posts on this. This one has some useful tables:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jan/29/can-you-really-save-for-a-deposit-by-ditching-coffee-and-avocado-toast-i-tried-to-find-out

    Looking at the table ' How much will you repay? (2017 starters)', assuming £9K fees and £8.2K borrowed for living expenses, he has figures for the total amount repaid (in today's prices) for different levels of starting salary (he assumes graduate earnings growing at inflation + 2% per year).

    The point at which it stops being progressive on that basis is around a £45k starting salary, equating to £79K salary at current prices in 30 years' time.
    Interesting that they haven't opened that article up to comments. Not the conclusion, perhaps, that the Graun was after: "I feel a bit ashamed, not least because I am the exception to the rule: for me, if not most millennials, Lewis is suggesting it really is a matter of cutting down on the avocado toast."

    A bit of a weaselly "if not most millenials..."
    Yep, it was pretty interesting. I think the thing is that modern life has changed so much that these things (eating out, coffees etc) are so ingrained to seem normal, that they don't seem like spending.

    I'll admit. I don't even think about spending money day to day. I'm well enough off to not really worry about it, and it's so easy to wave a card and not thing about it at all.
    The whole takeaway coffee thing is something I've never quite been able to fathom !
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    That said 5 and a half years at Health makes Jeremy Hunt the only candidate to succeed Mrs May who will make a success of Brexit and win the Tories a majority in 2022.

    Isn't that the closest cabinet CV to Gordon Brown or Theresa May?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,725

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Hardly a surprise a libertarian like the author dislikes May, however given the Tories are almost level with Labour in the polls a change could make things worse, as well as being self indulgent with Brexit talks ongoing
    The Conservatives should appeal to libertarians.

    If May can't she should go for that reason alone.
    The only Tory to win a majority this century was often called a Liberal (Conservative)

    I wonder if there’s a link...
    He's called a lot of other things. Nowadays, especially.
  • Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Mrs May's leadership is not just that she isn't a leader, though she isn't. It's not just that she has awful judgment about people. It's not just that her self-confidence has probably been shattered by the GE. It's not just that she probably would prefer to concentrate on the matters set out in her first speech rather than on chewing the wasp that is Brexit. It's not just that she doesn't have the majority to push through the Commons whatever she wants. And it's not just that she doesn't appear to know what sort of deal she wants.

    There are two further big problems:-

    1. She has now seen or been told the very real constraints on any British government in negotiating a departure from the EU which doesn't crash the economy or put it in breach of other obligations - from Toyota to the position of Northern Ireland. Her room for manoeuvre - or for any leader - is in reality really quite limited. All very well for BoJo to talk about "buccaneering" Brexit but this isn't the 16th century and we can't go round the world like pirates singing our allies' beards and seizing whatever we want.

    2. If she takes a definite position one way or the other she risks infuriating one party cabal or another. The Tory party does not want to be led - it is hostage to purist Brexiteers who are making it ungovernable. The realists within it (I hope there are some left. Or is it just Hammond?) realise that a clean break/crash out could be disastrous on so many levels but are unwilling to spell this out. And the rest realise that even if Brexit is resolved in some way the electorate are looking at the Tories and wondering when they will rejoin Planet Earth and talk about the stuff that matters to most voters.

    So she is a non-leader trying to lead a party that doesn't want to be led in circumstances when making any sort of decision will bring wrath down on her head.

    Solomon would find this a tough gig. Never mind Mrs May.

    Excellent summary
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Dura_Ace said:

    Rees Mosely really is as mad as a shithouse rat.
    If JRM's sppeech was all in Latin then only Boris would understand what he said.
    That’s ancient Babylonian isn’t jit?
    Assyrian i think (the precursor to Aramaic)
  • Jonathan said:

    I think Cyclefree underestimates the power of determined leadership. With the right person the situation could change quickly. You need someone with vision and the confidence to get off the fence.

    That's an interesting observation. However, people have to be willing to be led, and whoever is leader won't have a majority, which would make it hard to stare down the malcontents. Plus there isn't someone obvious who has charisma and is widely respected.
  • That said 5 and a half years at Health makes Jeremy Hunt the only candidate to succeed Mrs May who will make a success of Brexit and win the Tories a majority in 2022.

    Isn't that the closest cabinet CV to Gordon Brown or Theresa May?
    Nope.

    The gruesome twosome held but one cabinet job before becoming PM, Jezza Hunt had another job.
  • felix said:

    Scott_P said:
    He does not put her on notice at all. Very shoddy spinning .
    Nothing more than most of us think to be fair. It is a statement of the obvious
  • @Charles - we greatly enjoyed the jazz exhibition.
  • HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Hardly a surprise a libertarian like the author dislikes May, however given the Tories are almost level with Labour in the polls a change could make things worse, as well as being self indulgent with Brexit talks ongoing
    The Conservatives should appeal to libertarians.

    If May can't she should go for that reason alone.
    The only Tory to win a majority this century was often called a Liberal (Conservative)

    I wonder if there’s a link...
    He's called a lot of other things. Nowadays, especially.
    History will be kind to Dave.

    An election on Thursday and Dave crushes Corbyn.
  • Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Mrs May's leadership is not just that she isn't a leader, though she isn't. It's not just that she has awful judgment about people. It's not just that her self-confidence has probably been shattered by the GE. It's not just that she probably would prefer to concentrate on the matters set out in her first speech rather than on chewing the wasp that is Brexit. It's not just that she doesn't have the majority to push through the Commons whatever she wants. And it's not just that she doesn't appear to know what sort of deal she wants.

    There are two further big problems:-

    1. She has now seen or been told the very real constraints on any British government in negotiating a departure from the EU which doesn't crash the economy or put it in breach of other obligations - from Toyota to the position of Northern Ireland. Her room for manoeuvre - or for any leader - is in reality really quite limited. All very well for BoJo to talk about "buccaneering" Brexit but this isn't the 16th century and we can't go round the world like pirates singing our allies' beards and seizing whatever we want.

    2. If she takes a definite position one way or the other she risks infuriating one party cabal or another. The Tory party does not want to be led - it is hostage to purist Brexiteers who are making it ungovernable. The realists within it (I hope there are some left. Or is it just Hammond?) realise that a clean break/crash out could be disastrous on so many levels but are unwilling to spell this out. And the rest realise that even if Brexit is resolved in some way the electorate are looking at the Tories and wondering when they will rejoin Planet Earth and talk about the stuff that matters to most voters.

    So she is a non-leader trying to lead a party that doesn't want to be led in circumstances when making any sort of decision will bring wrath down on her head.

    Solomon would find this a tough gig. Never mind Mrs May.

    Spot on.
    The Tory party is not fit for (this) purpose.
    And neither is labour - and there is the problem
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    .

    Jonathan said:

    I think Cyclefree underestimates the power of determined leadership. With the right person the situation could change quickly. You need someone with vision and the confidence to get off the fence.

    That's an interesting observation. However, people have to be willing to be led, and whoever is leader won't have a majority, which would make it hard to stare down the malcontents. Plus there isn't someone obvious who has charisma and is widely respected.
    I think the only solution is to let each of the leading Brexiteers have a go at the job, see how far they get negotiating with the EU and when they don't manage to achieve all that they promised us in the referendum, sack them and move on to the next one. That seems the only way to flush the madness out.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    @Charles - we greatly enjoyed the jazz exhibition.

    Thank you. So did the Guardian and the Times
  • Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Mrs May's leadership is not just that she isn't a leader, though she isn't. It's not just that she has awful judgment about people. It's not just that her self-confidence has probably been shattered by the GE. It's not just that she probably would prefer to concentrate on the matters set out in her first speech rather than on chewing the wasp that is Brexit. It's not just that she doesn't have the majority to push through the Commons whatever she wants. And it's not just that she doesn't appear to know what sort of deal she wants.

    There are two further big problems:-

    1. She has now seen or been told the very real constraints on any British government in negotiating a departure from the EU which doesn't crash the economy or put it in breach of other obligations - from Toyota to the position of Northern Ireland. Her room for manoeuvre - or for any leader - is in reality really quite limited. All very well for BoJo to talk about "buccaneering" Brexit but this isn't the 16th century and we can't go round the world like pirates singing our allies' beards and seizing whatever we want.

    2. If she takes a definite position one way or the other she risks infuriating one party cabal or another. The Tory party does not want to be led - it is hostage to purist Brexiteers who are making it ungovernable. The realists within it (I hope there are some left. Or is it just Hammond?) realise that a clean break/crash out could be disastrous on so many levels but are unwilling to spell this out. And the rest realise that even if Brexit is resolved in some way the electorate are looking at the Tories and wondering when they will rejoin Planet Earth and talk about the stuff that matters to most voters.

    So she is a non-leader trying to lead a party that doesn't want to be led in circumstances when making any sort of decision will bring wrath down on her head.

    Solomon would find this a tough gig. Never mind Mrs May.

    Perhaps it's time to lance the boil once and for all. Give Boris the leadership with Gove, Rees-Mogg etc. in suitable positions of power. Then just let them get on with it. No fudge, no blaming others, no excuses - just their vision of Brexit implemented fully and without restraint. If it's a catastrophe then at least it will serve as a salutary lesson for future generations.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    TOPPING said:

    I'm not sure. I'm also surprised it's that low actually, feel free to double-check in case I screwed something up.

    Martin Lewis has some good blog posts on this. This one has some useful tables:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jan/29/can-you-really-save-for-a-deposit-by-ditching-coffee-and-avocado-toast-i-tried-to-find-out

    Looking at the table ' How much will you repay? (2017 starters)', assuming £9K fees and £8.2K borrowed for living expenses, he has figures for the total amount repaid (in today's prices) for different levels of starting salary (he assumes graduate earnings growing at inflation + 2% per year).

    The point at which it stops being progressive on that basis is around a £45k starting salary, equating to £79K salary at current prices in 30 years' time.
    Interesting that they haven't opened that article up to comments. Not the conclusion, perhaps, that the Graun was after: "I feel a bit ashamed, not least because I am the exception to the rule: for me, if not most millennials, Lewis is suggesting it really is a matter of cutting down on the avocado toast."

    A bit of a weaselly "if not most millenials..."
    Even so, it is a cheap part of London and she is earning well above the national average salary which a generation ago would have been enough to buy that flat. One significant expense of modern life is phone, internet and television subscriptions, at least two of which are more-or-less necessary for most people.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    If there is a Conservative leadership election shortly, the Conservatives are going to be having an unusually pure discussion of Brexit strategies and end games from here. No one will be advocating Remain, but there will no doubt be some wanting to prioritise trade and some wanting to prioritise sovereignty. (Anyone seeking to set up a third way is going to be sunk by facts - a third way won't work.) While I suspect the traders are stronger in Parliament, I wonder whether that's true in the Conservative party membership.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    If there is a Conservative leadership election shortly, the Conservatives are going to be having an unusually pure discussion of Brexit strategies and end games from here. No one will be advocating Remain, but there will no doubt be some wanting to prioritise trade and some wanting to prioritise sovereignty. (Anyone seeking to set up a third way is going to be sunk by facts - a third way won't work.) While I suspect the traders are stronger in Parliament, I wonder whether that's true in the Conservative party membership.

    That is probably the way forward.

    We had a referendum, and the issues were not discussed.

    We had an election, and the issues were not relevant.

    We need a National debate. It may be that it is confined to the Parliamentary Tory Party, but the outcomes will be visible to all
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    JonathanD said:

    .

    Jonathan said:

    I think Cyclefree underestimates the power of determined leadership. With the right person the situation could change quickly. You need someone with vision and the confidence to get off the fence.

    That's an interesting observation. However, people have to be willing to be led, and whoever is leader won't have a majority, which would make it hard to stare down the malcontents. Plus there isn't someone obvious who has charisma and is widely respected.
    I think the only solution is to let each of the leading Brexiteers have a go at the job, see how far they get negotiating with the EU and when they don't manage to achieve all that they promised us in the referendum, sack them and move on to the next one. That seems the only way to flush the madness out.
    We are leaving. The more sensible Brexiteers (like me!!!) will be satisfied that we have some sovereignty back. The hard Brexiteers not so much
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Mrs May's leadership is not just that she isn't a leader, though she isn't. It's not just that she has awful judgment about people. It's not just that her self-confidence has probably been shattered by the GE. It's not just that she probably would prefer to concentrate on the matters set out in her first speech rather than on chewing the wasp that is Brexit. It's not just that she doesn't have the majority to push through the Commons whatever she wants. And it's not just that she doesn't appear to know what sort of deal she wants.

    There are two further big problems:-

    1. She has now seen or been told the very real constraints on any British government in negotiating a departure from the EU which doesn't crash the economy or put it in breach of other obligations - from Toyota to the position of Northern Ireland. Her room for manoeuvre - or for any leader - is in reality really quite limited. All very well for BoJo to talk about "buccaneering" Brexit but this isn't the 16th century and we can't go round the world like pirates singing our allies' beards and seizing whatever we want.

    2. If she takes a definite position one way or the other she risks infuriating one party cabal or another. The Tory party does not want to be led - it is hostage to purist Brexiteers who are making it ungovernable. The realists within it (I hope there are some left. Or is it just Hammond?) realise that a clean break/crash out could be disastrous on so many levels but are unwilling to spell this out. And the rest realise that even if Brexit is resolved in some way the electorate are looking at the Tories and wondering when they will rejoin Planet Earth and talk about the stuff that matters to most voters.

    So she is a non-leader trying to lead a party that doesn't want to be led in circumstances when making any sort of decision will bring wrath down on her head.

    Solomon would find this a tough gig. Never mind Mrs May.

    Yep, spot-on. And of course changing leader would at best fix only the Theresa-May-specific part of the problem, whilst at the same time introducing a new cause of instability.
    I think Cyclefree underestimates the power of determined leadership. With the right person the situation could change quickly. You need someone with vision and the confidence to get off the fence.
    I don't underestimate it. I just don't see anyone in the Tory party with that vision or confidence or competence, frankly.

    Or in any other party.

    And those with the vision - the BoJos and Goves and Davis's and Fox's - have the kind of vision which is so unrealistic and untethered from reality that it would normally have their loved ones calling the doctor......
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    If there is a Conservative leadership election shortly, the Conservatives are going to be having an unusually pure discussion of Brexit strategies and end games from here. No one will be advocating Remain, but there will no doubt be some wanting to prioritise trade and some wanting to prioritise sovereignty. (Anyone seeking to set up a third way is going to be sunk by facts - a third way won't work.) While I suspect the traders are stronger in Parliament, I wonder whether that's true in the Conservative party membership.

    All roads lead to Remain.

    If the traders win, they will be sabotaged by the purists because it's not what people voted for. If the purists win, they will have a brutal collision with reality and have to abandon their project.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Mrs May's leadership is not just that she isn't a leader, though she isn't. It's not just that she has awful judgment about people. It's not just that her self-confidence has probably been shattered by the GE. It's not just that she probably would prefer to concentrate on the matters set out in her first speech rather than on chewing the wasp that is Brexit. It's not just that she doesn't have the majority to push through the Commons whatever she wants. And it's not just that she doesn't appear to know what sort of deal she wants.

    There are two further big problems:-

    1. She has now seen or been told the very real constraints on any British government in negotiating a departure from the EU which doesn't crash the economy or put it in breach of other obligations - from Toyota to the position of Northern Ireland. Her room for manoeuvre - or for any leader - is in reality really quite limited. All very well for BoJo to talk about "buccaneering" Brexit but this isn't the 16th century and we can't go round the world like pirates singing our allies' beards and seizing whatever we want.

    2. If she takes a definite position one way or the other she risks infuriating one party cabal or another. The Tory party does not want to be led - it is hostage to purist Brexiteers who are making it ungovernable. The realists within it (I hope there are some left. Or is it just Hammond?) realise that a clean break/crash out could be disastrous on so many levels but are unwilling to spell this out. And the rest realise that even if Brexit is resolved in some way the electorate are looking at the Tories and wondering when they will rejoin Planet Earth and talk about the stuff that matters to most voters.

    So she is a non-leader trying to lead a party that doesn't want to be led in circumstances when making any sort of decision will bring wrath down on her head.

    Solomon would find this a tough gig. Never mind Mrs May.

    Perhaps it's time to lance the boil once and for all. Give Boris the leadership with Gove, Rees-Mogg etc. in suitable positions of power. Then just let them get on with it. No fudge, no blaming others, no excuses - just their vision of Brexit implemented fully and without restraint. If it's a catastrophe then at least it will serve as a salutary lesson for future generations.

    That's a bit tough on the rest of us and our children and grandchildren.

    I think the opposite should be done. Tell the ultra-Brexiteers that their vision is away with the fairies and that no responsible Tory PM is going to - or should be expected to - implement a policy which will prove catastrophic for the country they claim to love.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    If there is a Conservative leadership election shortly, the Conservatives are going to be having an unusually pure discussion of Brexit strategies and end games from here. No one will be advocating Remain, but there will no doubt be some wanting to prioritise trade and some wanting to prioritise sovereignty. (Anyone seeking to set up a third way is going to be sunk by facts - a third way won't work.) While I suspect the traders are stronger in Parliament, I wonder whether that's true in the Conservative party membership.

    I have to wonder whether it's tenable for the membership to be consulted on the leadership over the sort of timetable that was proposed in 2016 (8 weeks). Not to mention that having c. 100k members select the country's Prime Minister (and quite possibly its policy) isn't a great look - even though it is quite proper that they should.

    Either the party needs to find a way to give the members both some measure of interrogation (TV specials etc.?) and a vote within e.g. 2 weeks, or there will be an understandable temptation to let the MPs decide again via withdrawal, as per Leadsom.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Charles said:

    @Charles - we greatly enjoyed the jazz exhibition.

    Thank you. So did the Guardian and the Times
    Details, please......
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Mrs May's leadership is not just that she isn't a leader, though she isn't. It's not just that she has awful judgment about people. It's not just that her self-confidence has probably been shattered by the GE. It's not just that she probably would prefer to concentrate on the matters set out in her first speech rather than on chewing the wasp that is Brexit. It's not just that she doesn't have the majority to push through the Commons whatever she wants. And it's not just that she doesn't appear to know what sort of deal she wants.

    There are two further big problems:-

    1. She has now seen or been told the very real constraints on any British government in negotiating a departure from the EU which doesn't crash the economy or put it in breach of other obligations - from Toyota to the position of Northern Ireland. Her room for manoeuvre - or for any leader - is in reality really quite limited. All very well for BoJo to talk about "buccaneering" Brexit but this isn't the 16th century and we can't go round the world like pirates singing our allies' beards and seizing whatever we want.

    2. If she takes a definite position one way or the other she risks infuriating one party cabal or another. The Tory party does not want to be led - it is hostage to purist Brexiteers who are making it ungovernable. The realists within it (I hope there are some left. Or is it just Hammond?) realise that a clean break/crash out could be disastrous on so many levels but are unwilling to spell this out. And the rest realise that even if Brexit is resolved in some way the electorate are looking at the Tories and wondering when they will rejoin Planet Earth and talk about the stuff that matters to most voters.

    So she is a non-leader trying to lead a party that doesn't want to be led in circumstances when making any sort of decision will bring wrath down on her head.

    Solomon would find this a tough gig. Never mind Mrs May.

    Perhaps it's time to lance the boil once and for all. Give Boris the leadership with Gove, Rees-Mogg etc. in suitable positions of power. Then just let them get on with it. No fudge, no blaming others, no excuses - just their vision of Brexit implemented fully and without restraint. If it's a catastrophe then at least it will serve as a salutary lesson for future generations.

    That's a bit tough on the rest of us and our children and grandchildren.

    I think the opposite should be done. Tell the ultra-Brexiteers that their vision is away with the fairies and that no responsible Tory PM is going to - or should be expected to - implement a policy which will prove catastrophic for the country they claim to love.
    We need a Tory leader who can deliver their version of this speech.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWLN7rIby9s
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited January 2018
    Scott_P said:

    If there is a Conservative leadership election shortly, the Conservatives are going to be having an unusually pure discussion of Brexit strategies and end games from here. No one will be advocating Remain, but there will no doubt be some wanting to prioritise trade and some wanting to prioritise sovereignty. (Anyone seeking to set up a third way is going to be sunk by facts - a third way won't work.) While I suspect the traders are stronger in Parliament, I wonder whether that's true in the Conservative party membership.

    That is probably the way forward.

    We had a referendum, and the issues were not discussed.

    We had an election, and the issues were not relevant.

    We need a National debate. It may be that it is confined to the Parliamentary Tory Party, but the outcomes will be visible to all
    The Conservative Party doesn't have an answer because the country doesn't have an answer.

    Notwithstanding @Cyclefree's well observed point upthread, there will have to be compromises. Within each party and by voters. Navigating that path would, as she notes, challenge Solomon, let alone Tezza or Jezza or any politician active today. Simply, we shouldn't have started from here, although that is not an argument for ignoring the result.

    A leader from either side would not be in a position to say: "I want ABC from Brexit" and not be howled down by 35-65% of their own party and 35-65% of the opposition. And 50% of the country (rounding up/down).

    So what to do?

    Frankly? I'm not sure there is an answer. Never before have I had to rely on the prospect of a famous EU fudge to come to our rescue. Reading the doc, there was not much fudged there.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Mrs May's leadership is not just that she isn't a leader, though she isn't. It's not just that really quite limited. All very well for BoJo to talk about "buccaneering" Brexit but this isn't the 16th century and we can't go round the world like pirates singing our allies' beards and seizing whatever we want.

    2. If she takes a definite position one way or the other she risks infuriating one party cabal or another. The Tory party does not want to be led - it is hostage to purist Brexiteers who are making it ungovernable. The realists within it (I hope there are some left. Or is it just Hammond?) realise that a clean break/crash out could be disastrous on so many levels but are unwilling to spell this out. And the rest realise that even if Brexit is resolved in some way the electorate are looking at the Tories and wondering when they will rejoin Planet Earth and talk about the stuff that matters to most voters.

    So she is a non-leader trying to lead a party that doesn't want to be led in circumstances when making any sort of decision will bring wrath down on her head.

    Solomon would find this a tough gig. Never mind Mrs May.

    Perhaps it's time to lance the boil once and for all. Give Boris the leadership with Gove, Rees-Mogg etc. in suitable positions of power. Then just let them get on with it. No fudge, no blaming others, no excuses - just their vision of Brexit implemented fully and without restraint. If it's a catastrophe then at least it will serve as a salutary lesson for future generations.
    The problem is that, as Cyclefree clearl outlines, we are running out of wiggle room.

    Changing to Boris does not alter that.

    As things stand, we are aiming for a bespoke FTA within a (not the) customs union with the EU, after a transition period no less than 20 months and probably more. We will pay into the EU to access certain institutions like Euratom. There is no NHS dividend, because the economy has already taken a hit that outweighs any “savings” on membership payments.

    I cannot see any alternative to a “vassal” transition except a deferral of A50 or a hard Brexit to WTO, and I don’t believe anyone is seriously advocating either of those any more.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    Germans shocked; Godwin throws in the towel...
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42858668
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Nigelb said:

    Germans shocked; Godwin throws in the towel...
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42858668

    A ballsy premier would ban German car imports on safety or ethical grounds.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    TOPPING said:

    A leader from either side would not be in a position to say: "I want ABC from Brexit" and not be howled down by 35-65% of their own party and 35-65% of the opposition. And 50% of the country (rounding up/down).

    So what to do?

    That's the point

    The Tory Party should have a fight, and a winner emerge. Doesn't matter if they are supported by the opposition or the Country.

    They try and implement their vision.

    When it crashes and burns, we can discount that vision from the options going forward...
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    I think Cyclefree underestimates the power of determined leadership. With the right person the situation could change quickly. You need someone with vision and the confidence to get off the fence.

    That's an interesting observation. However, people have to be willing to be led, and whoever is leader won't have a majority, which would make it hard to stare down the malcontents. Plus there isn't someone obvious who has charisma and is widely respected.
    Maggie would have handbagged you for that comment. She didn't wait for people being willing to be led, she led them and got on with it. That is what leaders do.

    Potential leaders aren't immediately obvious. But what we do know is that May is not working out as PM. It is time to change. That has been clear for months. With every delay more damage is done.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Scott_P said:

    TOPPING said:

    A leader from either side would not be in a position to say: "I want ABC from Brexit" and not be howled down by 35-65% of their own party and 35-65% of the opposition. And 50% of the country (rounding up/down).

    So what to do?

    That's the point

    The Tory Party should have a fight, and a winner emerge. Doesn't matter if they are supported by the opposition or the Country.

    They try and implement their vision.

    When it crashes and burns, we can discount that vision from the options going forward...
    Well obvs I would hope that the winner will be on the Hammond-ite wing rather than the JRM wing. But yes, I think more than anything they need to come down on one vision and pursue it.

    That would of course rely on a realistic understanding of what is and is not possible to get from the EU and, just like a government coming in and decreeing that all house prices should henceforth be 50% cheaper in order to rebalance the economy, that, for the Cons, would be political suicide.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The problem with Mrs May's leadership is not just that she isn't a leader, though she isn't. It's not just that she has awful judgment about people. It's not just that her self-confidence has probably been shattered by the GE. It's not just that she probably would prefer to concentrate on the matters set out in her first speech rather than on chewing the wasp that is Brexit. It's not just that she doesn't have the majority to push through the Commons whatever she wants. And it's not just that she doesn't appear to know what sort of deal she wants.

    There are two further big problems:-

    1. She has now seen or been told the very real constraints on any British government in negotiating a departure from the EU which doesn't crash the economy or put it in breach of other obligations - from Toyota to the position of Northern Ireland. Her room for manoeuvre - or for any leader - is in reality really quite limited. All very well for BoJo to talk about "buccaneering" Brexit but this isn't the 16th century and we can't go round the world like pirates singing our allies' beards and seizing whatever we want.

    2. If she takes a definite position one way or the other she risks infuriating one party cabal or another. The Tory party does not want to be led - it is hostage to purist Brexiteers who are making it ungovernable. The realists within it (I hope there are some left. Or is it just Hammond?) realise that a clean break/crash out could be disastrous on so many levels but are unwilling to spell this out. And the rest realise that even if Brexit is resolved in some way the electorate are looking at the Tories and wondering when they will rejoin Planet Earth and talk about the stuff that matters to most voters.

    So she is a non-leader trying to lead a party that doesn't want to be led in circumstances when making any sort of decision will bring wrath down on her head.

    Solomon would find this a tough gig. Never mind Mrs May.

    Perhaps it's time to lance the boil once and for all. Give Boris the leadership with Gove, Rees-Mogg etc. in suitable positions of power. Then just let them get on with it. No fudge, no b

    I think the opposite should be done. Tell the ultra-Brexiteers that their vision is away with the fairies and that no responsible Tory PM is going to - or should be expected to - implement a policy which will prove catastrophic for the country they claim to love.
    We need a Tory leader who can deliver their version of this speech.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWLN7rIby9s
    Is he an expert on winning elections?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547

    The problem is that, as Cyclefree clearl outlines, we are running out of wiggle room.

    Changing to Boris does not alter that.

    As things stand, we are aiming for a bespoke FTA within a (not the) customs union with the EU, after a transition period no less than 20 months and probably more. We will pay into the EU to access certain institutions like Euratom. There is no NHS dividend, because the economy has already taken a hit that outweighs any “savings” on membership payments.

    I cannot see any alternative to a “vassal” transition except a deferral of A50 or a hard Brexit to WTO, and I don’t believe anyone is seriously advocating either of those any more.

    Something has to give on Brexit: predictable governance and economic wellbeing (Canada/WTO); having a say on our own laws (Norway/Ukraine); respect for a democratic vote (EU membership). My expectation is that we will end up compromising on sovereignty and go for Norway, because that's easiest to swallow initially. I could see a diversion via Canada/WTO - the first includes the second if we don't negotiate it before the end of any transition period. And a reversion to EU membership has to be a possibility on the Churchill principle of doing the best thing once you have tried the worse things.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    FF43 said:

    The problem is that, as Cyclefree clearl outlines, we are running out of wiggle room.

    Changing to Boris does not alter that.

    As things stand, we are aiming for a bespoke FTA within a (not the) customs union with the EU, after a transition period no less than 20 months and probably more. We will pay into the EU to access certain institutions like Euratom. There is no NHS dividend, because the economy has already taken a hit that outweighs any “savings” on membership payments.

    I cannot see any alternative to a “vassal” transition except a deferral of A50 or a hard Brexit to WTO, and I don’t believe anyone is seriously advocating either of those any more.

    Something has to give on Brexit: predictable governance and economic wellbeing (Canada/WTO); having a say on our own laws (Norway/Ukraine); respect for a democratic vote (EU membership). My expectation is that we will end up compromising on sovereignty and go for Norway, because that's easiest to swallow initially. I could see a diversion via Canada/WTO - the first includes the second if we don't negotiate it before the end of any transition period. And a reversion to EU membership has to be a possibility on the Churchill principle of doing the best thing once you have tried the worse things.
    Has your view on the likelihood of the different outcomes shifted in the last few weeks or not?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    F1: from ESPN via BBC gossip:
    "Fernando Alonso says the switch to Renault engines has made McLaren "very confident" for the season ahead. McLaren has made the change with the aim of returning to the podium for the first time since 2014."

    The actual car last year was very good, it was just thoroughly buggered by the engine. Alonso could yet be a title contender, although I think numerous podium finishes more likely.
  • FF43 said:

    The problem is that, as Cyclefree clearl outlines, we are running out of wiggle room.

    Changing to Boris does not alter that.

    As things stand, we are aiming for a bespoke FTA within a (not the) customs union with the EU, after a transition period no less than 20 months and probably more. We will pay into the EU to access certain institutions like Euratom. There is no NHS dividend, because the economy has already taken a hit that outweighs any “savings” on membership payments.

    I cannot see any alternative to a “vassal” transition except a deferral of A50 or a hard Brexit to WTO, and I don’t believe anyone is seriously advocating either of those any more.

    Something has to give on Brexit: predictable governance and economic wellbeing (Canada/WTO); having a say on our own laws (Norway/Ukraine); respect for a democratic vote (EU membership). My expectation is that we will end up compromising on sovereignty and go for Norway, because that's easiest to swallow initially. I could see a diversion via Canada/WTO - the first includes the second if we don't negotiate it before the end of any transition period. And a reversion to EU membership has to be a possibility on the Churchill principle of doing the best thing once you have tried the worse things.
    Norway also pays large amounts of cash into the EU.
  • Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    JonathanD said:



    So how will that work? The less than 50% of the population who go to University will force the greater than 50% of the population who don't go to University to pay more tax to bail them out?

    The issue is the intergenerational difference:

    Marginal rate of deductions from income in 2018 of 35 year old university graduate with median UK income:
    Income tax 20%
    NI 12%
    Student loan 9%
    Contribution to pension 3% minimum (rising to 5% minimum in 2019) - and most will pay more
    Deduct rent and you're looking at 25% left to pay all the bills and everything else (young children?) if you're lucky. Zero assets.

    Marginal rate of deductions from income in 2018 of 70 year old with median UK income who also went to university:
    20% income tax
    NI - nothing
    Student loan - nothing - in fact they paid you to go to university
    Pension contribution - nothing
    Deduct nothing - a tiny mortgage was paid off years ago and you've a huge housing asset available for equity release if you need even more.
    Leaving 80%.
    Though the 70 year old would have made NI contributions throughout their working life
    Don't forget to add employers NI to the 35 yr old uni graduate...

    Does the employers NI apply to 70 year olds?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I think Cyclefree underestimates the power of determined leadership. With the right person the situation could change quickly. You need someone with vision and the confidence to get off the fence.

    That's an interesting observation. However, people have to be willing to be led, and whoever is leader won't have a majority, which would make it hard to stare down the malcontents. Plus there isn't someone obvious who has charisma and is widely respected.
    Maggie would have handbagged you for that comment. She didn't wait for people being willing to be led, she led them and got on with it. That is what leaders do.
    Not early Maggie....'everyone' knew she 'wasn't up to the job' - then General Galtieri and the Armed Forces helped her out.....
  • Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    JonathanD said:



    So how will that work? The less than 50% of the population who go to University will force the greater than 50% of the population who don't go to University to pay more tax to bail them out?

    The issue is the intergenerational difference:

    Marginal rate of deductions from income in 2018 of 35 year old university graduate with median UK income:
    Income tax 20%
    NI 12%
    Student loan 9%
    Contribution to pension 3% minimum (rising to 5% minimum in 2019) - and most will pay more
    Deduct rent and you're looking at 25% left to pay all the bills and everything else (young children?) if you're lucky. Zero assets.

    Marginal rate of deductions from income in 2018 of 70 year old with median UK income who also went to university:
    20% income tax
    NI - nothing
    Student loan - nothing - in fact they paid you to go to university
    Pension contribution - nothing
    Deduct nothing - a tiny mortgage was paid off years ago and you've a huge housing asset available for equity release if you need even more.
    Leaving 80%.
    Though the 70 year old would have made NI contributions throughout their working life
    Don't forget to add employers NI to the 35 yr old uni graduate...

    Does the employers NI apply to 70 year olds?
    Yes.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    There are two further big problems:-

    1. She has now seen or been told the very real constraints on any British government in negotiating a departure from the EU which doesn't crash the economy or put it in breach of other obligations - from Toyota to the position of Northern Ireland. Her room for manoeuvre - or for any leader - is in reality really quite limited. All very well for BoJo to talk about "buccaneering" Brexit but this isn't the 16th century and we can't go round the world like pirates singing our allies' beards and seizing whatever we want.

    2. If she takes a definite position one way or the other she risks infuriating one party cabal or another. The Tory party does not want to be led - it is hostage to purist Brexiteers who are making it ungovernable. The realists within it (I hope there are some left. Or is it just Hammond?) realise that a clean break/crash out could be disastrous on so many levels but are unwilling to spell this out. And the rest realise that even if Brexit is resolved in some way the electorate are looking at the Tories and wondering when they will rejoin Planet Earth and talk about the stuff that matters to most voters.

    So she is a non-leader trying to lead a party that doesn't want to be led in circumstances when making any sort of decision will bring wrath down on her head.

    Solomon would find this a tough gig. Never mind Mrs May.

    Perhaps it's time to lance the boil once and for all. Give Boris the leadership with Gove, Rees-Mogg etc. in suitable positions of power. Then just let them get on with it. No fudge, no b

    I think the opposite should be done. Tell the ultra-Brexiteers that their vision is away with the fairies and that no responsible Tory PM is going to - or should be expected to - implement a policy which will prove catastrophic for the country they claim to love.
    We need a Tory leader who can deliver their version of this speech.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWLN7rIby9s
    Is he an expert on winning elections?
    He made sure that you got a party which people voted to be in government three times in a row.

    Kinnock, for all his faults, was a leader and a great speaker. I may be biased but I saw him speak when I was a student and he was still a young backbencher and he was thrilling then.

    And he wasn't afraid to speak some hard truths to his party.

    May's trouble is that she has been unwilling to speak similar hard truths to her own party about what was realistically and sensibly achievable post the referendum result. Ironic really, given what she was famous for before she became PM.
  • The deal coming out of Brussels this afternoon is for a transitional arrangement from leaving the EU on the 29th March 2019 until 31st December 2020 when everything stays the same and we do not have representation and have to accept any further EU laws.

    I think that is a good deal for leavers as it confirms we become a third Country on the 30th March 2019 and that payments into the EU ceases on the 1st January 2021 other than those we chose to continue with.

    It is less than the two year deal most thought would be offered and is certainly not three years as the press suggested this weekend

    It is a deal TM should be able to sell to the electorate generally but of course it finishes those remainer's chances of us not leaving.

    To be fair those who want to remain need to recognise our departure and move on to a campaign in due course to re-join at some time in the future
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    edited January 2018

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I think Cyclefree underestimates the power of determined leadership. With the right person the situation could change quickly. You need someone with vision and the confidence to get off the fence.

    That's an interesting observation. However, people have to be willing to be led, and whoever is leader won't have a majority, which would make it hard to stare down the malcontents. Plus there isn't someone obvious who has charisma and is widely respected.
    Maggie would have handbagged you for that comment. She didn't wait for people being willing to be led, she led them and got on with it. That is what leaders do.
    Not early Maggie....'everyone' knew she 'wasn't up to the job' - then General Galtieri and the Armed Forces helped her out.....
    Revisionism inspired by Labourite tropes about the 1983 election... Did the 1981 'not for turning' speech look like someone who wasn't up to the job?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited January 2018
    Cyclefree said:



    I don't underestimate it. I just don't see anyone in the Tory party with that vision or confidence or competence, frankly.

    Or in any other party.

    And those with the vision - the BoJos and Goves and Davis's and Fox's - have the kind of vision which is so unrealistic and untethered from reality that it would normally have their loved ones calling the doctor......

    We know now that May is a dud. She tried, she didn't quite make the grade in no10. It's a sad tale.

    Just because the future isn't immediately clear or it's a sad tale, doesn't mean that we should stick with her. Good leaders are not immediately obvious.

    The Tory party needs to choose a direcion

    a) Old school conservative one-nation pragmatism healing the aftermath of the EU ref
    b) The more ideological right wing vision of the Brexiteers, quite frankly leaving the concerns of remainers behind.

    It can't do both and neither can the country.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Scott_P said:

    @faisalislam: From Team Barnier re Eu transition negotiation guidelines:
    Not bespoke.
    Ends Dec 2020.
    Agreed by EU27 foreign mins twitter.com/weyandsabine/s…

    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/957986564205940736
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited January 2018
    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    @Charles - we greatly enjoyed the jazz exhibition.

    Thank you. So did the Guardian and the Times
    Details, please......
    Www.Theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jan/24/racist-undertones-of-britains-jazz-age-explored-in-exhibition
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I think Cyclefree underestimates the power of determined leadership. With the right person the situation could change quickly. You need someone with vision and the confidence to get off the fence.

    That's an interesting observation. However, people have to be willing to be led, and whoever is leader won't have a majority, which would make it hard to stare down the malcontents. Plus there isn't someone obvious who has charisma and is widely respected.
    Maggie would have handbagged you for that comment. She didn't wait for people being willing to be led, she led them and got on with it. That is what leaders do.

    Potential leaders aren't immediately obvious. But what we do know is that May is not working out as PM. It is time to change. That has been clear for months. With every delay more damage is done.
    Maggie had courage and an idea in her head about what she was trying to do and where she wanted to take the country.

    May lacks the former and if she does have the latter (and she probably had some idea as her first speech indicated) she simply does not have the ability to articulate it, inspire others or work out how to achieve it. Plus doing that is probably inconsistent with implementing Brexit in the way she foolishly outlined at the start of her premiership.

    None of her potential successors seem to have the first clue as to what they want to do. Their only idea is that they want the top job. What they want it for seems utterly beyond them.
  • Scott_P said:

    @faisalislam: From Team Barnier re Eu transition negotiation guidelines:
    Not bespoke.
    Ends Dec 2020.
    Agreed by EU27 foreign mins twitter.com/weyandsabine/s…

    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/957986564205940736
    Why would we want to renege - we would be out on the 29th March 2019 with a short period during which trade deals can be discussed ( even if the EU says no)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,098

    If there is a Conservative leadership election shortly, the Conservatives are going to be having an unusually pure discussion of Brexit strategies and end games from here. No one will be advocating Remain, but there will no doubt be some wanting to prioritise trade and some wanting to prioritise sovereignty. (Anyone seeking to set up a third way is going to be sunk by facts - a third way won't work.) While I suspect the traders are stronger in Parliament, I wonder whether that's true in the Conservative party membership.

    I have to wonder whether it's tenable for the membership to be consulted on the leadership over the sort of timetable that was proposed in 2016 (8 weeks). Not to mention that having c. 100k members select the country's Prime Minister (and quite possibly its policy) isn't a great look - even though it is quite proper that they should.

    Either the party needs to find a way to give the members both some measure of interrogation (TV specials etc.?) and a vote within e.g. 2 weeks, or there will be an understandable temptation to let the MPs decide again via withdrawal, as per Leadsom.
    And the risk is that the sight of a tiny handful of utterly unrepresentative Tory members bickering over and then effectively deciding the direction of Brexit, following on from a knife edge Referendum and a knife edge General Election, will turn yet more people away from the Conservatives.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,545
    edited January 2018

    The deal coming out of Brussels this afternoon is for a transitional arrangement from leaving the EU on the 29th March 2019 until 31st December 2020 when everything stays the same and we do not have representation and have to accept any further EU laws.

    I think that is a good deal for leavers as it confirms we become a third Country on the 30th March 2019 and that payments into the EU ceases on the 1st January 2021 other than those we chose to continue with.

    It is less than the two year deal most thought would be offered and is certainly not three years as the press suggested this weekend

    It is a deal TM should be able to sell to the electorate generally but of course it finishes those remainer's chances of us not leaving.

    To be fair those who want to remain need to recognise our departure and move on to a campaign in due course to re-join at some time in the future

    I admire your optimism but the hard deadline of end Dec 2020, clearly less than the UK wanted, means that the fudge is running out of road. All the decisions that have to be ducked because there's no option commanding a majority will now have to be taken this year to allow any end state to be ready by then.

    Was it Goldmann Sachs who took flak for predicting the Government to fall over this in 2018? Looks like a very plausible forecast right now.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    edited January 2018

    FF43 said:

    The problem is that, as Cyclefree clearl outlines, we are running out of wiggle room.

    Changing to Boris does not alter that.

    As things stand, we are aiming for a bespoke FTA within a (not the) customs union with the EU, after a transition period no less than 20 months and probably more. We will pay into the EU to access certain institutions like Euratom. There is no NHS dividend, because the economy has already taken a hit that outweighs any “savings” on membership payments.

    I cannot see any alternative to a “vassal” transition except a deferral of A50 or a hard Brexit to WTO, and I don’t believe anyone is seriously advocating either of those any more.

    Something has to give on Brexit: predictable governance and economic wellbeing (Canada/WTO); having a say on our own laws (Norway/Ukraine); respect for a democratic vote (EU membership). My expectation is that we will end up compromising on sovereignty and go for Norway, because that's easiest to swallow initially. I could see a diversion via Canada/WTO - the first includes the second if we don't negotiate it before the end of any transition period. And a reversion to EU membership has to be a possibility on the Churchill principle of doing the best thing once you have tried the worse things.
    Has your view on the likelihood of the different outcomes shifted in the last few weeks or not?
    The government has committed to a preferential trade agreement (Canada) for reasons of party acceptability - "No SM, rule-taking, FoM, big payments, with the most access possible" is a form of words that plays to the Leave majority while not unduly alarming Remainers and business supporters. But with four negatives and a vague statement, it isn't a robust and clear negotiating stance. The EU won't push us to a better outcome. If we don't want the SIngle Market, they will live with that. It gives them opportunities to push economic activity to themselves, will show up the undesirability of leaving the EU (good lesson to take from their PoV) and it saves them forcing rules on people who don't want to take them. Like the UK, the EU also loses out from the looser arrangement, but the EU has compensations.

    So the starting point will be Canada but as things drag on, the transition period deadline looms, within a few months actually, and haggling down doesn't benefit the weaker party, there will be moves I believe to "put this thing to bed". The only ways to do that is to cancel the Brexit or go Norway. Personally, I am extremely doubtful rule-taking Norway style will work for us, but the crisis of us taking a law that we absolutely object to and had no say in drafting will come later.
  • Scott_P said:
    That thing sounds like a party within a party. Theresa needs to stamp on it immediately. Say that any Tory MP belonging to it will have the whip removed and get it closed down.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    SLAB's latest scandal

    "Scottish Labour is investigating after MSP Anas Sarwar said an elected member told him that Scotland wouldn't vote for a brown Muslim Paki "

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-42862375
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    The deal coming out of Brussels this afternoon is for a transitional arrangement from leaving the EU on the 29th March 2019 until 31st December 2020 when everything stays the same and we do not have representation and have to accept any further EU laws.

    Hardline Brexiteers have already condemned that

    Meanwhile...

    https://twitter.com/lindayueh/status/957990157260656641
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Talking about Rees-Mogg I note that he is now at 5.2/1 odds on Betfair exchange....

    For someone with zero ministerial experience that's just stupid
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I don't underestimate it. I just don't see anyone in the Tory party with that vision or confidence or competence, frankly.

    Or in any other party.

    And those with the vision - the BoJos and Goves and Davis's and Fox's - have the kind of vision which is so unrealistic and untethered from reality that it would normally have their loved ones calling the doctor......

    We know now that May is a dud. She tried, she didn't quite make the grade in no10. It's a sad tale.

    Just because the future isn't immediately clear or it's a sad tale, doesn't mean that we should stick with her. Good leaders are not immediately obvious.

    The Tory party needs to choose a direcion

    a) Old school conservative one-nation pragmatism healing the aftermath of the EU ref
    b) The more ideological right wing vision of the Brexiteers, quite frankly leaving the concerns of remainers behind.

    It can't do both and neither can the country.
    I agree that she is not up to the job. I thought she should go after the GE. I would much prefer (a) to (b).

    I'm not at all sure any of her possible replacements, whether in the Tories or, if we get a GE, in Labour, are up to the job because the job seems to me to be an impossible one, given the self-imposed constraints which both main parties have placed on themselves.

    But even if we stick to the Tories, none of the possibles on offer would offer (a). And I don't want (b).

    What a mess.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I think Cyclefree underestimates the power of determined leadership. With the right person the situation could change quickly. You need someone with vision and the confidence to get off the fence.

    That's an interesting observation. However, people have to be willing to be led, and whoever is leader won't have a majority, which would make it hard to stare down the malcontents. Plus there isn't someone obvious who has charisma and is widely respected.
    Maggie would have handbagged you for that comment. She didn't wait for people being willing to be led, she led them and got on with it. That is what leaders do.

    Potential leaders aren't immediately obvious. But what we do know is that May is not working out as PM. It is time to change. That has been clear for months. With every delay more damage is done.
    Maggie had courage and an idea in her head about what she was trying to do and where she wanted to take the country.

    May lacks the former and if she does have the latter (and she probably had some idea as her first speech indicated) she simply does not have the ability to articulate it, inspire others or work out how to achieve it. Plus doing that is probably inconsistent with implementing Brexit in the way she foolishly outlined at the start of her premiership.

    None of her potential successors seem to have the first clue as to what they want to do. Their only idea is that they want the top job. What they want it for seems utterly beyond them.
    History suggests that a new leader can make a big, big difference and they aren't always obvious.
  • tpfkar said:

    The deal coming out of Brussels this afternoon is for a transitional arrangement from leaving the EU on the 29th March 2019 until 31st December 2020 when everything stays the same and we do not have representation and have to accept any further EU laws.

    I think that is a good deal for leavers as it confirms we become a third Country on the 30th March 2019 and that payments into the EU ceases on the 1st January 2021 other than those we chose to continue with.

    It is less than the two year deal most thought would be offered and is certainly not three years as the press suggested this weekend

    It is a deal TM should be able to sell to the electorate generally but of course it finishes those remainer's chances of us not leaving.

    To be fair those who want to remain need to recognise our departure and move on to a campaign in due course to re-join at some time in the future

    I admire your optimism but the hard deadline of end Dec 2020, clearly less than the UK wanted, means that the fudge is running out of road. All the decisions that have to be ducked because there's no option commanding a majority will now have to be taken this year to allow any end state to be ready by then.

    Was it Goldmann Sachs who took flak for predicting the Government to fall over this in 2018? Looks like a very plausible forecast right now.
    Far from it - this is a saleable deal - even Sky of all people thought it is and the pound euro rate has risen since the news
  • Scott_P said:

    The deal coming out of Brussels this afternoon is for a transitional arrangement from leaving the EU on the 29th March 2019 until 31st December 2020 when everything stays the same and we do not have representation and have to accept any further EU laws.

    Hardline Brexiteers have already condemned that

    Meanwhile...

    https://twitter.com/lindayueh/status/957990157260656641
    As it is only a couple of hours ago evidence on hard liners condemnation please
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    Scott_P said:

    The deal coming out of Brussels this afternoon is for a transitional arrangement from leaving the EU on the 29th March 2019 until 31st December 2020 when everything stays the same and we do not have representation and have to accept any further EU laws.

    Hardline Brexiteers have already condemned that

    Meanwhile...

    https://twitter.com/lindayueh/status/957990157260656641
    Any extension to the transition period is a "mixed agreement" and requires ratification from each of the 27 national governments - unlike the Article 50 withdrawal agreement. A sensible UK government would have asked for a long transition period on a just in case basis.
  • Scott_P said:
    That thing sounds like a party within a party. Theresa needs to stamp on it immediately. Say that any Tory MP belonging to it will have the whip removed and get it closed down.
    Is that like Corbyn on Momentum !!!!!!!
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400

    tpfkar said:

    The deal coming out of Brussels this afternoon is for a transitional arrangement from leaving the EU on the 29th March 2019 until 31st December 2020 when everything stays the same and we do not have representation and have to accept any further EU laws.

    I think that is a good deal for leavers as it confirms we become a third Country on the 30th March 2019 and that payments into the EU ceases on the 1st January 2021 other than those we chose to continue with.

    It is less than the two year deal most thought would be offered and is certainly not three years as the press suggested this weekend

    It is a deal TM should be able to sell to the electorate generally but of course it finishes those remainer's chances of us not leaving.

    To be fair those who want to remain need to recognise our departure and move on to a campaign in due course to re-join at some time in the future

    I admire your optimism but the hard deadline of end Dec 2020, clearly less than the UK wanted, means that the fudge is running out of road. All the decisions that have to be ducked because there's no option commanding a majority will now have to be taken this year to allow any end state to be ready by then.

    Was it Goldmann Sachs who took flak for predicting the Government to fall over this in 2018? Looks like a very plausible forecast right now.
    Far from it - this is a saleable deal - even Sky of all people thought it is and the pound euro rate has risen since the news
    Have a look at the exchange rate on the night of the EU referendum to see that the first reaction isn't always the correct one.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Scott_P said:
    That thing sounds like a party within a party. Theresa needs to stamp on it immediately. Say that any Tory MP belonging to it will have the whip removed and get it closed down.
    Plus the name eerily reminiscent of the Force Research Unit.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I think Cyclefree underestimates the power of determined leadership. With the right person the situation could change quickly. You need someone with vision and the confidence to get off the fence.

    That's an interesting observation. However, people have to be willing to be led, and whoever is leader won't have a majority, which would make it hard to stare down the malcontents. Plus there isn't someone obvious who has charisma and is widely respected.
    Maggie would have handbagged you for that comment. She didn't wait for people being willing to be led, she led them and got on with it. That is what leaders do.

    Potential leaders aren't immediately obvious. But what we do know is that May is not working out as PM. It is time to change. That has been clear for months. With every delay more damage is done.
    Maggie had courage and an idea in her head about what she was trying to do and where she wanted to take the country.

    May lacks the former and if she does have the latter (and she probably had some idea as her first speech indicated) she simply does not have the ability to articulate it, inspire others or work out how to achieve it. Plus doing that is probably inconsistent with implementing Brexit in the way she foolishly outlined at the start of her premiership.

    None of her potential successors seem to have the first clue as to what they want to do. Their only idea is that they want the top job. What they want it for seems utterly beyond them.
    History suggests that a new leader can make a big, big difference and they aren't always obvious.
    I hope you're right.

    Whom do you see as a non-obvious potential leader who could make a "big big difference"?

    My view is that any new Tory party leader would need to tear up the red lines May has imposed, which would give the government much more freedom to manoeuvre. But that creates a whole heap of other problems......
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    tpfkar said:

    The deal coming out of Brussels this afternoon is for a transitional arrangement from leaving the EU on the 29th March 2019 until 31st December 2020 when everything stays the same and we do not have representation and have to accept any further EU laws.

    I think that is a good deal for leavers as it confirms we become a third Country on the 30th March 2019 and that payments into the EU ceases on the 1st January 2021 other than those we chose to continue with.

    It is less than the two year deal most thought would be offered and is certainly not three years as the press suggested this weekend

    It is a deal TM should be able to sell to the electorate generally but of course it finishes those remainer's chances of us not leaving.

    To be fair those who want to remain need to recognise our departure and move on to a campaign in due course to re-join at some time in the future

    I admire your optimism but the hard deadline of end Dec 2020, clearly less than the UK wanted, means that the fudge is running out of road. All the decisions that have to be ducked because there's no option commanding a majority will now have to be taken this year to allow any end state to be ready by then.

    Was it Goldmann Sachs who took flak for predicting the Government to fall over this in 2018? Looks like a very plausible forecast right now.
    Far from it - this is a saleable deal - even Sky of all people thought it is and the pound euro rate has risen since the news
    The problem is, that for at least 20 months (and it seems likely, a lot longer), we must operate under a series of trade rules over which we have absolutely no say.

    Hence Jacob Rees Mogg calling it “vassal” status.

    Perhaps it can be sold as short term pain for long term gain, but doesn’t it stick in the craw slightly for a country like the UK?

    The question will be whether the swivel eyes in the ERG can be bought off with some film-flam wording that avoids an outright rebellion.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    New thread.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I don't underestimate it. I just don't see anyone in the Tory party with that vision or confidence or competence, frankly.

    Or in any other party.

    And those with the vision - the BoJos and Goves and Davis's and Fox's - have the kind of vision which is so unrealistic and untethered from reality that it would normally have their loved ones calling the doctor......

    We know now that May is a dud. She tried, she didn't quite make the grade in no10. It's a sad tale.

    Just because the future isn't immediately clear or it's a sad tale, doesn't mean that we should stick with her. Good leaders are not immediately obvious.

    The Tory party needs to choose a direcion

    a) Old school conservative one-nation pragmatism healing the aftermath of the EU ref
    b) The more ideological right wing vision of the Brexiteers, quite frankly leaving the concerns of remainers behind.

    It can't do both and neither can the country.
    I agree that she is not up to the job. I thought she should go after the GE. I would much prefer (a) to (b).

    I'm not at all sure any of her possible replacements, whether in the Tories or, if we get a GE, in Labour, are up to the job because the job seems to me to be an impossible one, given the self-imposed constraints which both main parties have placed on themselves.

    But even if we stick to the Tories, none of the possibles on offer would offer (a). And I don't want (b).

    What a mess.
    FWIW I think a) is possible with skill, most likely a unquestionable Brexiteer tacking to the centre and building bridges. Gove.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I think Cyclefree underestimates the power of determined leadership. With the right person the situation could change quickly. You need someone with vision and the confidence to get off the fence.

    That's an interesting observation. However, people have to be willing to be led, and whoever is leader won't have a majority, which would make it hard to stare down the malcontents. Plus there isn't someone obvious who has charisma and is widely respected.
    Maggie would have handbagged you for that comment. She didn't wait for people being willing to be led, she led them and got on with it. That is what leaders do.

    Potential leaders aren't immediately obvious. But what we do know is that May is not working out as PM. It is time to change. That has been clear for months. With every delay more damage is done.
    Maggie had courage and an idea in her head about what she was trying to do and where she wanted to take the country.

    May lacks the former and if she does have the latter (and she probably had some idea as her first speech indicated) she simply does not have the ability to articulate it, inspire others or work out how to achieve it. Plus doing that is probably inconsistent with implementing Brexit in the way she foolishly outlined at the start of her premiership.

    None of her potential successors seem to have the first clue as to what they want to do. Their only idea is that they want the top job. What they want it for seems utterly beyond them.
    History suggests that a new leader can make a big, big difference and they aren't always obvious.
    I hope you're right.

    Whom do you see as a non-obvious potential leader who could make a "big big difference"?

    My view is that any new Tory party leader would need to tear up the red lines May has imposed, which would give the government much more freedom to manoeuvre. But that creates a whole heap of other problems......
    It would require a Brexiteer to say, Brexit is in the too difficult basket. I think Boris Johnson is the only conceivable person who could do that, and it is very unlikely. Otherwise muddle through as Theresa May is doing. Is there another candidate that can muddle better than May?

    Basically it's the inevitable consequence of making a decision on a completely false set of premises. Iraq 2.0.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    What a missed opportunity. Cameron made a lot of progress on detoxifying the Conservatives. May has just the right character and profile to carry that on the kinds of places that wouldn't be inclined to listen to a toff. And she has some good one nation instincts that would help even more.

    But Brexit.

    It ruins everything.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842


    Perhaps it can be sold as short term pain for long term gain, but doesn’t it stick in the craw slightly for a country like the UK?

    ? I don't get this. What is so particular about us ?
  • Nigelb said:

    This puts into perspective discussions of a few billion here and there and free trade agreements:

    ' •the largest UK-US asymmetries exist in trade in services (not goods) for which both countries are reporting a trade surplus with the other. In 2016 the UK reported a trade in services surplus with the US of £22.5 billion, while the US reported a trade in services surplus of £10.4 billion with the UK

    ....

    Isn't that excellent news, as it makes it slightly less likely Trump will direct his obsession with not being screwed on trade in our direction ?
    Hopefully.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,968
    edited January 2018
    JonathanD said:

    tlg86 said:

    Here's an interview with Robin Ellison from last March:

    https://tinyurl.com/jk9ycvr

    It sounds like the situation with the pension fund had been a lot worse in previous years.

    Interesting

    "As an example of the downside of increased transparency, Ellison cites skyrocketing executive salaries. The fact that CEOs get paid 400 or 500 times the median salary does not feel right, he says, when in the past the ratio was about twenty to one. “Why did that happen? There are several reasons, but one was the requirement to disclose salaries in company accounts. That meant that everyone was looking at everybody else, and if you were getting more money, I wanted more money. "
    Its the job of the remuneration committee to set the money.

    And they should be able to look at comparable companies and REDUCE pay where the directors are being overpaid.

    But how often does that ever happen ?

    Perhaps because the people on the remuneration committees themselves have a vested interested in pay rises all round.
This discussion has been closed.