Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For decades the standard Tory election PlayBook has been to de

SystemSystem Posts: 8,258
edited May 13 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For decades the standard Tory election PlayBook has been to demonise whoever the LAB leader is. How will they do that with Starmer?

In just about every general election in recent times a key Tory approach has been to demonise the the Labour leader in order to frighten voters not to vote for the party. That big broad approach more than anything was why Johnson won a clear majority last December.

Read the full story here


«1345678

Comments

  • ClippPClippP Posts: 222
    edited May 13
    First. And the Tory demonisation strategy is enthusistically taken up by Tory supporters on PB.

    And that strategy is also applied to the Lib Dem leadership.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 476
    And Blair's Labour Party, in their customary high-mindedness, demonised Michael Howard as Shylock. "Personal attacks like this have to have an element of truth in them that chimes with public perceptions for them to succeed."

    Paradoxically, the shorter Starmer's odds the less likely he will be "next PM" because the Tories will ditch Boris for a shiny new face.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    FPT

    I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.

    You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.

    Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!

    The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.

    To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.

    The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,197
    Demonisation and "the puppet of" insert other party here (not the DUP, obvs).
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,097
    "Dreary Keiry" would be my general moodboard.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,197
    Re PMQs -- it will be interesting to count SKS's questions to see if he tries the "stop at 5" gambit to frustrate the PM's customary rant in the sixth answer.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,097
    Vaguely FPT I've now found where I can get excellent real ale by a suitable sized keg. Pubs have lost one more reason for me to visit.

    I doubt I'm alone.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,537
    Starmer is decent and talented. They will go after him ferociously. He’s a threat.

    The great advantage they have is that they’ll do it at arms length. The heavy lifting will all be done through outriders in blogs and in the press, so that the leadership can retain a facade of reasonableness. Utterly disingenuous, but it works.

    With a bit of luck Labour will find a way to counter it this time.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,197
    edited May 13

    "Dreary Keiry" would be my general moodboard.

    Possible but I'm not sure this is the way to go. That will chime with the public's view of SKS but, and this is the mistake the Conservatives made with Blair, there is a danger it will blunt their warnings about extremism.

    With Blair, Tories flip-flopped between Bambi and Demon-eyes; with SKS, they need to choose whether he is dangerous or dull.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,144
    Reading the headlines in the newspapers today, I would be surprised if Johnson lasted the year.

    The economic numbers beggar belief. Many tory MPs must be absolutely stunned.

    It turns out that there are reasons why no British government ever has shut down the country's economy, whatever misfortune has befallen its citizens. We learn today that one in three firms say they may never re-open.

    Lockdown. The biggest policy mistake by any British government ever.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    Jonathan said:

    Starmer is decent and talented. They will go after him ferociously. He’s a threat.

    The great advantage they have is that they’ll do it at arms length. The heavy lifting will all be done through outriders in blogs and in the press, so that the leadership can retain a facade of reasonableness. Utterly disingenuous, but it works.

    With a bit of luck Labour will find a way to counter it this time.

    Labour not choosing a racist xenophobe who had spent decades ranting against his own nation has made Labour's job much easier this time.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 19,091
    I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.

    More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 7,480

    FPT

    I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.

    You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.

    Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!

    The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.

    To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.

    The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
    Unfortunately the law is shit. Read this thread...

  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 684
    edited May 13
    A couple of possible attacks (which may or may not work):

    1. Decent but weak leader trapped by extremist party into backing disastrous manifesto pledges. Dangerous elements in LP and Unions will be empowered if SKS becomes PM.

    2. Out of touch member of PC obsessed elite.

    I think he needs to very publicly purge the party, get the loony left to walk in disgust or something similar. If he does that then he can defeat attack #1
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 19,091
    It will be his record as DPP. Failed prosecutions of people who then went on to rape/murder again, declined prosecutions who did the same, falsely accused who were wrongly imprisoned etc...
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,537
    edited May 13

    Jonathan said:

    Starmer is decent and talented. They will go after him ferociously. He’s a threat.

    The great advantage they have is that they’ll do it at arms length. The heavy lifting will all be done through outriders in blogs and in the press, so that the leadership can retain a facade of reasonableness. Utterly disingenuous, but it works.

    With a bit of luck Labour will find a way to counter it this time.

    Labour not choosing a racist xenophobe who had spent decades ranting against his own nation has made Labour's job much easier
    this time.
    Doesn’t matter, you go after him regardless. Every Labour leader is demonised.

    No that long ago Milliband was the latest neo communist peril. They got at him through his dead dad.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 32,968

    Reading the headlines in the newspapers today, I would be surprised if Johnson lasted the year.

    The economic numbers beggar belief. Many tory MPs must be absolutely stunned.

    It turns out that there are reasons why no British government ever has shut down the country's economy, whatever misfortune has befallen its citizens. We learn today that one in three firms say they may never re-open.

    Lockdown. The biggest policy mistake by any British government ever.

    Check out the country comparisions on my post
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 53,424
    FPT:
    Mr. kjh, thanks very much for that recommendation. Found the segment, about 9 minutes long, here:

    https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/more-or-less-behind-the-stats/id267300884?i=1000471187873

    Very interesting, whilst at the same time not providing the clear-cut wear it/don't answer I was hoping for, but that seems to be down to disputes over efficacy.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 10,383
    Strip away the artifice of moderation from this slippery London lawyer and one sees what lies beneath. A foaming Trot who will tax ordinary decent people within an inch of their lives and enjoy every second of it.

    Thought rather than discussing it I'd make a start.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,537

    Reading the headlines in the newspapers today, I would be surprised if Johnson lasted the year.

    The economic numbers beggar belief. Many tory MPs must be absolutely stunned.

    It turns out that there are reasons why no British government ever has shut down the country's economy, whatever misfortune has befallen its citizens. We learn today that one in three firms say they may never re-open.

    Lockdown. The biggest policy mistake by any British government ever.

    Check out the country comparisions on my post
    It seems to make the point that the date lockdown started is the key point. Are you arguing much worse is to come?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 7,480
    kinabalu said:

    Strip away the artifice of moderation from this slippery London lawyer and one sees what lies beneath. A foaming Trot who will tax ordinary decent people within an inch of their lives and enjoy every second of it.

    Thought rather than discussing it I'd make a start.

    That wont work because Boris will already be taxing ordinary decent people within an inch of their lives. ;)
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,144
    MaxPB said:

    I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.

    More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.

    I just don't see how we avoid an IMF situation now.

    even if Sunak imposes huge tax increases the economy will simply be too small and weak to give him much of a yield.

    We simply cannot finance the debts and the deficits he is racking up. The economy is too small.

    People thought I was mad when I suggested a sterling crisis might be on the cards.

    Maybe I don't look so mad now.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Starmer is decent and talented. They will go after him ferociously. He’s a threat.

    The great advantage they have is that they’ll do it at arms length. The heavy lifting will all be done through outriders in blogs and in the press, so that the leadership can retain a facade of reasonableness. Utterly disingenuous, but it works.

    With a bit of luck Labour will find a way to counter it this time.

    Labour not choosing a racist xenophobe who had spent decades ranting against his own nation has made Labour's job much easier
    this time.
    Doesn’t matter, you go after him regardless. Every Labour leader is demonised.

    No that long ago Milliband was the latest neo communist peril. They got at him through his dead dad.

    And you guys don't do the exact same thing too?

    Milliband was a lot to the left of the government and he wanted to take the country far to the left compared to where we were and overspend dramatically. The fact he didn't accept Labour overspent just showed that and was why he was literally laughed at during the election campaign.

    That Corbyn was far, far, far to the left of even Milliband doesn't put Milliband in the centre.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,144
    I notice the numbers for Sweden are not in this graph LOL
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,537
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.

    More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.

    I just don't see how we avoid an IMF situation now.

    even if Sunak imposes huge tax increases the economy will simply be too small and weak to give him much of a yield.

    We simply cannot finance the debts and the deficits he is racking up. The economy is too small.

    People thought I was mad when I suggested a sterling crisis might be on the cards.

    Maybe I don't look so mad now.
    You look stark, raving bonkers and like you don't understand international finance whatsoever.

    If you think we need the IMF perhaps you can explain what interest rate the UK bonds we're issuing are going for on the free market. If the free market thought we couldn't pay for them our bond yields would be going up as they were when Gordon Brown got us into a hole . . . so what are they now?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 23,232

    FPT

    I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.

    You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.

    Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!

    The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.

    To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.

    The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
    My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.

    He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.

    And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.

    Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,144
    edited May 13
    kinabalu said:

    Strip away the artifice of moderation from this slippery London lawyer and one sees what lies beneath. A foaming Trot who will tax ordinary decent people within an inch of their lives and enjoy every second of it.

    Thought rather than discussing it I'd make a start.

    Unfortunately for Starmer, Johnson will have got there before him.

    We will have tory ministers writing 'there is no money left' notes to labour ones!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 19,091

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.

    More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.

    I just don't see how we avoid an IMF situation now.

    even if Sunak imposes huge tax increases the economy will simply be too small and weak to give him much of a yield.

    We simply cannot finance the debts and the deficits he is racking up. The economy is too small.

    People thought I was mad when I suggested a sterling crisis might be on the cards.

    Maybe I don't look so mad now.
    You look stark, raving bonkers and like you don't understand international finance whatsoever.

    If you think we need the IMF perhaps you can explain what interest rate the UK bonds we're issuing are going for on the free market. If the free market thought we couldn't pay for them our bond yields would be going up as they were when Gordon Brown got us into a hole . . . so what are they now?
    That's because the Bank is pushing prices up in the secondary markets.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,197

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Starmer is decent and talented. They will go after him ferociously. He’s a threat.

    The great advantage they have is that they’ll do it at arms length. The heavy lifting will all be done through outriders in blogs and in the press, so that the leadership can retain a facade of reasonableness. Utterly disingenuous, but it works.

    With a bit of luck Labour will find a way to counter it this time.

    Labour not choosing a racist xenophobe who had spent decades ranting against his own nation has made Labour's job much easier
    this time.
    Doesn’t matter, you go after him regardless. Every Labour leader is demonised.

    No that long ago Milliband was the latest neo communist peril. They got at him through his dead dad.

    And you guys don't do the exact same thing too?

    Milliband was a lot to the left of the government and he wanted to take the country far to the left compared to where we were and overspend dramatically. The fact he didn't accept Labour overspent just showed that and was why he was literally laughed at during the election campaign.

    That Corbyn was far, far, far to the left of even Milliband doesn't put Milliband in the centre.
    And Boris won in 2019 on Corbyn's 2017 platform. #WinningArguments #LosingElections

    That may be a good thing for the country but risky for Boris personally if the blue team panics over the economic numbers.
  • MundoMundo Posts: 12
    MaxPB said:

    It will be his record as DPP. Failed prosecutions of people who then went on to rape/murder again, declined prosecutions who did the same, falsely accused who were wrongly imprisoned etc...

    I should imagine the word "Rochdale" features heavily in the searches Cummings, Guido etc. are completing. Interestingly, no smoking gun revealed thus far.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    edited May 13
    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.

    You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.

    Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!

    The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.

    To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.

    The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
    My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.

    He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.

    And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.

    Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
    No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.

    I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.

    I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.

    I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.

    The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
  • isamisam Posts: 32,009
    Give him airtime I'd say. If my charisma vs Nerd theory is correct, he is too dull to beat Boris or Rishi
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 23,232
    I am interested to see whether the "It's ok the UK prints its own currency so a Conservative Government can't borrow too much whereas the Labour Party under Brown overspent" Conservatives on here are on the cusp of a Damascene conversion?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 11,026

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Starmer is decent and talented. They will go after him ferociously. He’s a threat.

    The great advantage they have is that they’ll do it at arms length. The heavy lifting will all be done through outriders in blogs and in the press, so that the leadership can retain a facade of reasonableness. Utterly disingenuous, but it works.

    With a bit of luck Labour will find a way to counter it this time.

    Labour not choosing a racist xenophobe who had spent decades ranting against his own nation has made Labour's job much easier
    this time.
    Doesn’t matter, you go after him regardless. Every Labour leader is demonised.

    No that long ago Milliband was the latest neo communist peril. They got at him through his dead dad.

    And you guys don't do the exact same thing too?

    Milliband was a lot to the left of the government and he wanted to take the country far to the left compared to where we were and overspend dramatically. The fact he didn't accept Labour overspent just showed that and was why he was literally laughed at during the election campaign.

    That Corbyn was far, far, far to the left of even Milliband doesn't put Milliband in the centre.
    Actually it does. Demonstrating the meaningless idiocy of wanting to be on the 'centre ground'.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 23,232

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.

    You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.

    Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!

    The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.

    To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.

    The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
    My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.

    He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.

    And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.

    Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
    No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.

    I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.

    I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.

    I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.

    The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
    Says someone who doesn't follow the advice himself when it comes to drink driving.

    The point being, to coin a phrase, nothing has changed (advice, schmadvice) but many are saying the government is fantastic in the way they are bringing us out of lockdown.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 32,968
    Jonathan said:

    Reading the headlines in the newspapers today, I would be surprised if Johnson lasted the year.

    The economic numbers beggar belief. Many tory MPs must be absolutely stunned.

    It turns out that there are reasons why no British government ever has shut down the country's economy, whatever misfortune has befallen its citizens. We learn today that one in three firms say they may never re-open.

    Lockdown. The biggest policy mistake by any British government ever.

    Check out the country comparisions on my post
    It seems to make the point that the date lockdown started is the key point. Are you arguing much worse is to come?
    I am sure there is but so to for the others and we are, at present, in a better place

    Also we are likely to see a boost in later months in staycations, as holidays in Europe seem unlikely this year for many reasons and that will be a big hit to some european economies
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 19,091
    TOPPING said:

    I am interested to see whether the "It's ok the UK prints its own currency so a Conservative Government can't borrow too much whereas the Labour Party under Brown overspent" Conservatives on here are on the cusp of a Damascene conversion?

    I think we're now approaching the end of our debt monetisation capacity. We need to seriously look at tax rises and spending cuts to balance the budget and hope that the vaccine trials are successful and we have the majority of people immunised by the end of the year.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    edited May 13
    TOPPING said:

    I am interested to see whether the "It's ok the UK prints its own currency so a Conservative Government can't borrow too much whereas the Labour Party under Brown overspent" Conservatives on here are on the cusp of a Damascene conversion?

    I for one never criticised Quantitative Easing when it happened under Brown. So no conversion necessary.

    I did criticise Brown's overspending because he did overspend. For the stage of the economic cycle we were in it was unsustainable economic vandalism to be running a virtually 3% deficit just prior to the crash. Unprecedented madness.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,069

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.

    More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.

    I just don't see how we avoid an IMF situation now.

    even if Sunak imposes huge tax increases the economy will simply be too small and weak to give him much of a yield.

    We simply cannot finance the debts and the deficits he is racking up. The economy is too small.

    People thought I was mad when I suggested a sterling crisis might be on the cards.

    Maybe I don't look so mad now.
    You look stark, raving bonkers and like you don't understand international finance whatsoever.

    If you think we need the IMF perhaps you can explain what interest rate the UK bonds we're issuing are going for on the free market. If the free market thought we couldn't pay for them our bond yields would be going up as they were when Gordon Brown got us into a hole . . . so what are they now?
    Is the IMF still a thing for big economies?

    Over the last decade it has lent $540 bn across 90 countries, currently it is lending $200bn to 35 countries.

    If and when we needed the IMF surely the amount we would need would be way too big in relation to what they lend? If its a few billion there are loads of ways of raising that, if we wanted $300bn it seems unlikely we could get it.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,144
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.

    More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.

    I just don't see how we avoid an IMF situation now.

    even if Sunak imposes huge tax increases the economy will simply be too small and weak to give him much of a yield.

    We simply cannot finance the debts and the deficits he is racking up. The economy is too small.

    People thought I was mad when I suggested a sterling crisis might be on the cards.

    Maybe I don't look so mad now.
    You look stark, raving bonkers and like you don't understand international finance whatsoever.

    If you think we need the IMF perhaps you can explain what interest rate the UK bonds we're issuing are going for on the free market. If the free market thought we couldn't pay for them our bond yields would be going up as they were when Gordon Brown got us into a hole . . . so what are they now?
    That's because the Bank is pushing prices up in the secondary markets.
    And presumably flooding the markets with sterling at the same time?

    Yikes

    It won;t happen immediately because there is zero value in the global government bond markets and many economies are in bad shape.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 11,026
    I think Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. Its nice that the anti-Tory commentariat are having a moment of rejoicing that they appear to have a leader who doesn't actively repulse the voting public, but the next election will be based on Boris's record. Starmer is neither here nor there.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    edited May 13
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.

    You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.

    Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!

    The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.

    To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.

    The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
    My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.

    He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.

    And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.

    Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
    No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.

    I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.

    I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.

    I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.

    The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
    Says someone who doesn't follow the advice himself when it comes to drink driving.

    The point being, to coin a phrase, nothing has changed (advice, schmadvice) but many are saying the government is fantastic in the way they are bringing us out of lockdown.
    Advice is advice, not law. Its meaningful, take it on board, then make your own decisions with the advice you have.

    As I said I try to never drink when I'm driving. I'll drink soft drinks or alcohol free drinks when I'm driving.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 2,327

    the next election will be based on Boris's record. Starmer is neither here nor there.

    Coronavirus changes that. Every government is playing the same game. Thus far the rules are simple and inflexible: how many have died from Covid-19? Downing Street cannot escape being judged against other governments in real-time, a far more threatening prospect than abstract broadsides fired by the opposition. Cummings is, as someone who until recently worked closely with him told me, “a branding specialist”. But he cannot redefine the terms of this debate, as in most crises. Cummings cannot simplify the complexity of coronavirus: a single statistic – deaths – is more absolute than any other story he or Johnson can tell.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/05/covid-19-boris-johnson-and-dominic-cummings-are-trapped-few-stories-left-sell
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,197
    Mundo said:

    MaxPB said:

    It will be his record as DPP. Failed prosecutions of people who then went on to rape/murder again, declined prosecutions who did the same, falsely accused who were wrongly imprisoned etc...

    I should imagine the word "Rochdale" features heavily in the searches Cummings, Guido etc. are completing. Interestingly, no smoking gun revealed thus far.
    It will be whatever works. CCHQ's under-the-radar social media campaigning will mean specific voter groups being targeted with whatever works *for that group* and Labour (or the SNP or whoever) will never even know what is being said, so they cannot counter it or even know they need to.

    That, I think, may explain why Corbyn was toxic in 2019 but not 2017.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 2,589
    The electoral landscape is a bit different to how it was (to say the least). In the North, Starmer can be portrayed as one of the London-centric liberal metropolitan elite, utterly out of touch with ordinary working class voters. In rural areas of the South, as yet another lefty proponent of tax and spend, and in hock to the lunatic left wing activist base of his party that wants to nationalise everything up to and including broadband (and to rejoin the EU, where appropriate). London is probably lost to the Tories for the foreseeable.

    It's bizarre that in a theoretical Johnson vs Starmer campaign, it might be easier for the former to portray the latter as part of the elite, than the reverse, but there you go.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Starmer is decent and talented. They will go after him ferociously. He’s a threat.

    The great advantage they have is that they’ll do it at arms length. The heavy lifting will all be done through outriders in blogs and in the press, so that the leadership can retain a facade of reasonableness. Utterly disingenuous, but it works.

    With a bit of luck Labour will find a way to counter it this time.

    Labour not choosing a racist xenophobe who had spent decades ranting against his own nation has made Labour's job much easier
    this time.
    Doesn’t matter, you go after him regardless. Every Labour leader is demonised.

    No that long ago Milliband was the latest neo communist peril. They got at him through his dead dad.

    And you guys don't do the exact same thing too?

    Milliband was a lot to the left of the government and he wanted to take the country far to the left compared to where we were and overspend dramatically. The fact he didn't accept Labour overspent just showed that and was why he was literally laughed at during the election campaign.

    That Corbyn was far, far, far to the left of even Milliband doesn't put Milliband in the centre.
    And Boris won in 2019 on Corbyn's 2017 platform. #WinningArguments #LosingElections

    That may be a good thing for the country but risky for Boris personally if the blue team panics over the economic numbers.
    No he did not. That's just madness to suggest that.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,069
    edited May 13

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.

    You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.

    Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!

    The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.

    To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.

    The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
    My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.

    He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.

    And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.

    Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
    No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.

    I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.

    I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.

    I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.

    The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
    When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    Mundo said:

    MaxPB said:

    It will be his record as DPP. Failed prosecutions of people who then went on to rape/murder again, declined prosecutions who did the same, falsely accused who were wrongly imprisoned etc...

    I should imagine the word "Rochdale" features heavily in the searches Cummings, Guido etc. are completing. Interestingly, no smoking gun revealed thus far.
    It will be whatever works. CCHQ's under-the-radar social media campaigning will mean specific voter groups being targeted with whatever works *for that group* and Labour (or the SNP or whoever) will never even know what is being said, so they cannot counter it or even know they need to.

    That, I think, may explain why Corbyn was toxic in 2019 but not 2017.
    Corbyn was more toxic in 2019 because the public knew him better. Corbyn was genuinely toxic, it wasn't a campaign that made him so. If you don't understand that yet you are beyond redemption it seems. A left wing HYUFD still claiming IDS was good and never lost an election.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,144

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.

    More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.

    I just don't see how we avoid an IMF situation now.

    even if Sunak imposes huge tax increases the economy will simply be too small and weak to give him much of a yield.

    We simply cannot finance the debts and the deficits he is racking up. The economy is too small.

    People thought I was mad when I suggested a sterling crisis might be on the cards.

    Maybe I don't look so mad now.
    You look stark, raving bonkers and like you don't understand international finance whatsoever.

    If you think we need the IMF perhaps you can explain what interest rate the UK bonds we're issuing are going for on the free market. If the free market thought we couldn't pay for them our bond yields would be going up as they were when Gordon Brown got us into a hole . . . so what are they now?
    Is the IMF still a thing for big economies?

    Over the last decade it has lent $540 bn across 90 countries, currently it is lending $200bn to 35 countries.

    If and when we needed the IMF surely the amount we would need would be way too big in relation to what they lend? If its a few billion there are loads of ways of raising that, if we wanted $300bn it seems unlikely we could get it.
    We won;t be that big a economy any more either now or for the foreseeable future.

    The base scenario is a 14% shrinkage this year. I think that's a very conservative estimate.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 898
    MaxPB said:

    I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.

    More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.

    Do you have a particular reason for this worry?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.

    You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.

    Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!

    The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.

    To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.

    The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
    My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.

    He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.

    And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.

    Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
    No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.

    I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.

    I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.

    I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.

    The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
    When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
    The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.

    The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,069

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.

    More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.

    I just don't see how we avoid an IMF situation now.

    even if Sunak imposes huge tax increases the economy will simply be too small and weak to give him much of a yield.

    We simply cannot finance the debts and the deficits he is racking up. The economy is too small.

    People thought I was mad when I suggested a sterling crisis might be on the cards.

    Maybe I don't look so mad now.
    You look stark, raving bonkers and like you don't understand international finance whatsoever.

    If you think we need the IMF perhaps you can explain what interest rate the UK bonds we're issuing are going for on the free market. If the free market thought we couldn't pay for them our bond yields would be going up as they were when Gordon Brown got us into a hole . . . so what are they now?
    Is the IMF still a thing for big economies?

    Over the last decade it has lent $540 bn across 90 countries, currently it is lending $200bn to 35 countries.

    If and when we needed the IMF surely the amount we would need would be way too big in relation to what they lend? If its a few billion there are loads of ways of raising that, if we wanted $300bn it seems unlikely we could get it.
    We won;t be that big a economy any more either now or for the foreseeable future.

    The base scenario is a 14% shrinkage this year. I think that's a very conservative estimate.
    Which is probably broadly in line with many other countries.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.

    More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.

    I just don't see how we avoid an IMF situation now.

    even if Sunak imposes huge tax increases the economy will simply be too small and weak to give him much of a yield.

    We simply cannot finance the debts and the deficits he is racking up. The economy is too small.

    People thought I was mad when I suggested a sterling crisis might be on the cards.

    Maybe I don't look so mad now.
    You look stark, raving bonkers and like you don't understand international finance whatsoever.

    If you think we need the IMF perhaps you can explain what interest rate the UK bonds we're issuing are going for on the free market. If the free market thought we couldn't pay for them our bond yields would be going up as they were when Gordon Brown got us into a hole . . . so what are they now?
    Is the IMF still a thing for big economies?

    Over the last decade it has lent $540 bn across 90 countries, currently it is lending $200bn to 35 countries.

    If and when we needed the IMF surely the amount we would need would be way too big in relation to what they lend? If its a few billion there are loads of ways of raising that, if we wanted $300bn it seems unlikely we could get it.
    We won;t be that big a economy any more either now or for the foreseeable future.

    The base scenario is a 14% shrinkage this year. I think that's a very conservative estimate.
    So what?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,758

    I think Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. Its nice that the anti-Tory commentariat are having a moment of rejoicing that they appear to have a leader who doesn't actively repulse the voting public, but the next election will be based on Boris's record. Starmer is neither here nor there.

    That's not quite right. A change of government tends to require two things: an unpopular government, and a credible opposition. With Starmer running Labour the second condition will probably be met, so in that sense you're right that everything depends on the public's view of Boris and the Conservatives as a whole. If they cop the blame for mishandling Covid-19, and compounding the error by a Brexit disaster, then Sir Keir will be moving into No 10.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 32,968
    Scott_xP said:
    Maybe TFL should put on more buses and of course outside of London 83% do not use public transport to go to work
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,256
    Scott_xP said:
    Whats the alternative? No body works for a year or two?

    Eventually people are going to have to go back to work and we are just going to have to live with the risk. It's a matter of managing the risk, and enduring the crisis, its not able to be solved.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,069

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.

    You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.

    Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!

    The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.

    To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.

    The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
    My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.

    He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.

    And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.

    Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
    No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.

    I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.

    I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.

    I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.

    The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
    When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
    The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.

    The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
    You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?

    The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    edited May 13

    I think Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. Its nice that the anti-Tory commentariat are having a moment of rejoicing that they appear to have a leader who doesn't actively repulse the voting public, but the next election will be based on Boris's record. Starmer is neither here nor there.

    That's not quite right. A change of government tends to require two things: an unpopular government, and a credible opposition. With Starmer running Labour the second condition will probably be met, so in that sense you're right that everything depends on the public's view of Boris and the Conservatives as a whole. If they cop the blame for mishandling Covid-19, and compounding the error by a Brexit disaster, then Sir Keir will be moving into No 10.
    The UK could have a clean break Brexit at the end of this year and if COVID 19 ends (perhaps due to a vaccine early next year) then the UK will almost certainly follow that clean break Brexit with growth next year following the baseline of the economic stats set this year I think. Do you think that's right?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,758
    Incidentally, if you want to read the full Telegraph article on the leak from the Treasury, you can do so without a paywall (and quite legally) here:

    https://www.hl.co.uk/news/2020/5/13/treasury-blueprint-to-raise-taxes-and-freeze-wages-to-pay-for-300bn-coronavirus-bill

    The paper seems sensible enough, laying out options.
  • isamisam Posts: 32,009
    Scott_xP said:
    Doesn't that the fact you posted misleading pictures of empty tube trains on Monday to prove the opposite give you any pause for thought?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 19,091

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.

    More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.

    Do you have a particular reason for this worry?
    Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,144

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.

    More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.

    I just don't see how we avoid an IMF situation now.

    even if Sunak imposes huge tax increases the economy will simply be too small and weak to give him much of a yield.

    We simply cannot finance the debts and the deficits he is racking up. The economy is too small.

    People thought I was mad when I suggested a sterling crisis might be on the cards.

    Maybe I don't look so mad now.
    You look stark, raving bonkers and like you don't understand international finance whatsoever.

    If you think we need the IMF perhaps you can explain what interest rate the UK bonds we're issuing are going for on the free market. If the free market thought we couldn't pay for them our bond yields would be going up as they were when Gordon Brown got us into a hole . . . so what are they now?
    Is the IMF still a thing for big economies?

    Over the last decade it has lent $540 bn across 90 countries, currently it is lending $200bn to 35 countries.

    If and when we needed the IMF surely the amount we would need would be way too big in relation to what they lend? If its a few billion there are loads of ways of raising that, if we wanted $300bn it seems unlikely we could get it.
    We won;t be that big a economy any more either now or for the foreseeable future.

    The base scenario is a 14% shrinkage this year. I think that's a very conservative estimate.
    Which is probably broadly in line with many other countries.
    True but much of the west is either the US or the EU. Under Trump the former has an immensely powerful economy, and the latter has the stability pact.

    We have neither. But lets see.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 5,035
    As we're still debating the advice I'll repost what went onto the end of the previous thread:

    Which advice do I stick to? Raab on his first Monday interview? Raab on his second? Raab on his third? It definitely isn't Raab on his 4th interview of Monday morning as they pulled him because every interview he gave that morning contradicted the previous one.

    Or how about listening to the PM. Do we listen to the advice of Sunday's broadcast? Of Monday's documents? Of Monday's press conference. He contradicted himself FFS.

    How can anyone insist that people obey the advice when the advice keeps changing? From one minister to the next? Or when they are really tired from one interview to the next. This is why we need simple clear and unambiguous policies.

    This is about two very simple things: stopping people from dying and maintaining the rule of law. The police say the new regulations are unenforceable. The ministers contradict each other openly. We have councils openly stating they will not allow floods of people to travel into their town whether they are allowed or not. And a transport secretary unwilling to use public transport state whilst his government forces people with no other options to use it if they do so then they will be stopped.

    Go to work / don't go to work. Go outside / don't go outside. See 1 / 2 / 0 parents outside / not in a garden
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,197

    Mundo said:

    MaxPB said:

    It will be his record as DPP. Failed prosecutions of people who then went on to rape/murder again, declined prosecutions who did the same, falsely accused who were wrongly imprisoned etc...

    I should imagine the word "Rochdale" features heavily in the searches Cummings, Guido etc. are completing. Interestingly, no smoking gun revealed thus far.
    It will be whatever works. CCHQ's under-the-radar social media campaigning will mean specific voter groups being targeted with whatever works *for that group* and Labour (or the SNP or whoever) will never even know what is being said, so they cannot counter it or even know they need to.

    That, I think, may explain why Corbyn was toxic in 2019 but not 2017.
    Corbyn was more toxic in 2019 because the public knew him better. Corbyn was genuinely toxic, it wasn't a campaign that made him so. If you don't understand that yet you are beyond redemption it seems. A left wing HYUFD still claiming IDS was good and never lost an election.
    IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box; it was MPs who lost faith and ousted him because he got flattened at PMQs every Wednesday.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,758

    I think Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. Its nice that the anti-Tory commentariat are having a moment of rejoicing that they appear to have a leader who doesn't actively repulse the voting public, but the next election will be based on Boris's record. Starmer is neither here nor there.

    That's not quite right. A change of government tends to require two things: an unpopular government, and a credible opposition. With Starmer running Labour the second condition will probably be met, so in that sense you're right that everything depends on the public's view of Boris and the Conservatives as a whole. If they cop the blame for mishandling Covid-19, and compounding the error by a Brexit disaster, then Sir Keir will be moving into No 10.
    The UK could have a clean break Brexit at the end of this year and if COVID 19 ends (perhaps due to a vaccine early next year) then the UK will almost certainly follow that clean break Brexit with growth next year following the baseline of the economic stats set this year I think. Do you think that's right?
    By 'clean break' you mean disastrously chaotic. Yes, I suppose that even that will be a recovery from near-total shutdown of much of the economy, but the international comparisons, and the news stories about the chaos, will still be dire.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 35,323

    Vaguely FPT I've now found where I can get excellent real ale by a suitable sized keg. Pubs have lost one more reason for me to visit.

    I doubt I'm alone.

    Pubs are about the social side, not the transaction.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 32,640
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.

    More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.

    Do you have a particular reason for this worry?
    Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
    It could end in the kind of currency crisis that will make our gloating about being outside the Euro look like hubris.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,069

    I think Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. Its nice that the anti-Tory commentariat are having a moment of rejoicing that they appear to have a leader who doesn't actively repulse the voting public, but the next election will be based on Boris's record. Starmer is neither here nor there.

    That's not quite right. A change of government tends to require two things: an unpopular government, and a credible opposition. With Starmer running Labour the second condition will probably be met, so in that sense you're right that everything depends on the public's view of Boris and the Conservatives as a whole. If they cop the blame for mishandling Covid-19, and compounding the error by a Brexit disaster, then Sir Keir will be moving into No 10.
    The UK could have a clean break Brexit at the end of this year and if COVID 19 ends (perhaps due to a vaccine early next year) then the UK will almost certainly follow that clean break Brexit with growth next year following the baseline of the economic stats set this year I think. Do you think that's right?
    Vaccine available to the masses far more likely 2021 than 2020 so yes your scenario leads to 2021 strong growth but is unlikely and about the lowest bar any govt would ever have set for an economy, to grow from a year when they ordered most of the private sector to shut down!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462
    isam said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Doesn't that the fact you posted misleading pictures of empty tube trains on Monday to prove the opposite give you any pause for thought?
    I think we all know the answer.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 30,655
    Corbyn was not so much demonised as treated with the contempt he deserved. Starmer may be better ignored. He is a bit bland, a bit boring, a bit north London but I think the best approach is for the government to focus on what it is doing and going to do and try to airbrush him out as much as possible. Members of the public are generally more interested in what a party plans to do than what is wrong with what the other party wants to do anyway.

    The Tories will find themselves without many of their conventional weapons. Accusing Labour of having unrealistic spending plans after this year and next is going to sound false. "Picking winners" is another that might need to be put to one side. In the medium term I suspect alleging hidden tax increases may well become more problematic too. But if Boris and Rishi steer us out of this with modest damage over the next 3 years they will do ok.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.

    More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.

    Do you have a particular reason for this worry?
    Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
    It could end in the kind of currency crisis that will make our gloating about being outside the Euro look like hubris.
    No. Because our being outside the Euro means we have our own Central Bank.

    That you still don't understand that is flabbergasting.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 7,480

    Vaguely FPT I've now found where I can get excellent real ale by a suitable sized keg. Pubs have lost one more reason for me to visit.

    I doubt I'm alone.

    Online? Please share your source! :D
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 35,323
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Starmer is decent and talented. They will go after him ferociously. He’s a threat.

    The great advantage they have is that they’ll do it at arms length. The heavy lifting will all be done through outriders in blogs and in the press, so that the leadership can retain a facade of reasonableness. Utterly disingenuous, but it works.

    With a bit of luck Labour will find a way to counter it this time.

    Labour not choosing a racist xenophobe who had spent decades ranting against his own nation has made Labour's job much easier
    this time.
    Doesn’t matter, you go after him regardless. Every Labour leader is demonised.

    No that long ago Milliband was the latest neo communist peril. They got at him through his dead dad.

    You think Tory leaders aren't?

    It's just of a different sort. Usually the eat baby/poor-bashing type.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,144
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say I'm getting more worried that the government is coming to the end of being able to easily monetise debt without consequences. We could very quickly end up with a sterling crisis and then have to to call in the IMF to stabilise the economy.

    More and more we need to look easing off QE, even if that means servicing costs rise a bit.

    Do you have a particular reason for this worry?
    Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.
    A journalist pointed out that Sunak has also set a precedent.

    every time there's a recession or a sector is under pressure, the left will be calling for furloughs.

    I
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 32,968

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.

    You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.

    Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!

    The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.

    To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.

    The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
    My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.

    He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.

    And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.

    Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
    No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.

    I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.

    I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.

    I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.

    The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
    When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
    The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.

    The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
    You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?

    The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
    This was discussed on 5 live this morning and being in the open air reduces the risk enormously and with social distancing it becomes low risk. Indeed this is also why advice is to open windows in buildings to improve the air quality

    However, we must all understand you cannot eliminate risk altogether, that is impossible and the country cannot stay behind closed doors indefinitely either

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 33,462

    Mundo said:

    MaxPB said:

    It will be his record as DPP. Failed prosecutions of people who then went on to rape/murder again, declined prosecutions who did the same, falsely accused who were wrongly imprisoned etc...

    I should imagine the word "Rochdale" features heavily in the searches Cummings, Guido etc. are completing. Interestingly, no smoking gun revealed thus far.
    It will be whatever works. CCHQ's under-the-radar social media campaigning will mean specific voter groups being targeted with whatever works *for that group* and Labour (or the SNP or whoever) will never even know what is being said, so they cannot counter it or even know they need to.

    That, I think, may explain why Corbyn was toxic in 2019 but not 2017.
    Corbyn was more toxic in 2019 because the public knew him better. Corbyn was genuinely toxic, it wasn't a campaign that made him so. If you don't understand that yet you are beyond redemption it seems. A left wing HYUFD still claiming IDS was good and never lost an election.
    IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box; it was MPs who lost faith and ousted him because he got flattened at PMQs every Wednesday.
    They did that for very good reason. And even he wasn't as extreme as Corbyn.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 35,323
    TOPPING said:

    I am interested to see whether the "It's ok the UK prints its own currency so a Conservative Government can't borrow too much whereas the Labour Party under Brown overspent" Conservatives on here are on the cusp of a Damascene conversion?

    I'm not. Sensibility with the public finances and realism is the Conservative Party's USP.

    If it isn't then it's not the Conservative Party anymore, and the only battle left is that over identity politics.

    Not one I'm too enamoured with.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 7,480

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.

    You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.

    Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!

    The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.

    To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.

    The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
    My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.

    He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.

    And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.

    Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
    No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.

    I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.

    I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.

    I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.

    The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
    When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
    The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.

    The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
    You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?

    The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
    This was discussed on 5 live this morning and being in the open air reduces the risk enormously and with social distancing it becomes low risk. Indeed this is also why advice is to open windows in buildings to improve the air quality

    However, we must all understand you cannot eliminate risk altogether, that is impossible and the country cannot stay behind closed doors indefinitely either

    A garden is not open air?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 35,323

    I think Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. Its nice that the anti-Tory commentariat are having a moment of rejoicing that they appear to have a leader who doesn't actively repulse the voting public, but the next election will be based on Boris's record. Starmer is neither here nor there.

    That's not quite right. A change of government tends to require two things: an unpopular government, and a credible opposition. With Starmer running Labour the second condition will probably be met, so in that sense you're right that everything depends on the public's view of Boris and the Conservatives as a whole. If they cop the blame for mishandling Covid-19, and compounding the error by a Brexit disaster, then Sir Keir will be moving into No 10.
    The UK could have a clean break Brexit at the end of this year and if COVID 19 ends (perhaps due to a vaccine early next year) then the UK will almost certainly follow that clean break Brexit with growth next year following the baseline of the economic stats set this year I think. Do you think that's right?
    I think so. People will point out the "clean break" Brexit doesn't help (and they'd be right: a WTO Brexit doesn't next to an FTA) but no-one will notice as the baseline is so poor.

    Covid-19 gives cover for the hardest of Brexits.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 187
    Not sure if this has been commented on but a very sobering commentary from Land Securities yesterday at their results

    https://landsec.com/sites/default/files/2020-05/Annual Results announcement - 12 05 2020.pdf

    Forecasting no recovery until 2022 at the earliest, inflation from next year (interesting take) and 75% slump in retail rents
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,758
    MaxPB said:

    Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.

    The risk to the UK and sterling will be mitigated by the fact that so many other major economies are in the same boat.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 32,968

    As we're still debating the advice I'll repost what went onto the end of the previous thread:

    Which advice do I stick to? Raab on his first Monday interview? Raab on his second? Raab on his third? It definitely isn't Raab on his 4th interview of Monday morning as they pulled him because every interview he gave that morning contradicted the previous one.

    Or how about listening to the PM. Do we listen to the advice of Sunday's broadcast? Of Monday's documents? Of Monday's press conference. He contradicted himself FFS.

    How can anyone insist that people obey the advice when the advice keeps changing? From one minister to the next? Or when they are really tired from one interview to the next. This is why we need simple clear and unambiguous policies.

    This is about two very simple things: stopping people from dying and maintaining the rule of law. The police say the new regulations are unenforceable. The ministers contradict each other openly. We have councils openly stating they will not allow floods of people to travel into their town whether they are allowed or not. And a transport secretary unwilling to use public transport state whilst his government forces people with no other options to use it if they do so then they will be stopped.

    Go to work / don't go to work. Go outside / don't go outside. See 1 / 2 / 0 parents outside / not in a garden

    How you seek out the advice, and there is plenty available on the government website, or you just do not like Boris and do not want to listen, is upto you but unless you want to live in China you need to take some responsibility yourself
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,758
    MrEd said:

    Not sure if this has been commented on but a very sobering commentary from Land Securities yesterday at their results

    https://landsec.com/sites/default/files/2020-05/Annual Results announcement - 12 05 2020.pdf

    Forecasting no recovery until 2022 at the earliest, inflation from next year (interesting take) and 75% slump in retail rents

    The Chief Exec: "I joined Landsec on 14 April 2020." Oops, what a baptism of fire!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 35,323

    MaxPB said:

    Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.

    The risk to the UK and sterling will be mitigated by the fact that so many other major economies are in the same boat.
    This is probably a fantasy but..

    Given the whole world is in the same boat couldn't there be a Bretton-Woods type conference (maybe with the IMF in attendance) next year where the whole world agrees at once to wipe out a chunk of the 2020 debts, and start afresh with a clean-ish slate again? Or at least agreed targeted debt relief and write-downs over the decade to 2030?

    I'm not sure what the economic consequences of this would be. It's probably a trick you could only pull once.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 2,589

    Mundo said:

    MaxPB said:

    It will be his record as DPP. Failed prosecutions of people who then went on to rape/murder again, declined prosecutions who did the same, falsely accused who were wrongly imprisoned etc...

    I should imagine the word "Rochdale" features heavily in the searches Cummings, Guido etc. are completing. Interestingly, no smoking gun revealed thus far.
    It will be whatever works. CCHQ's under-the-radar social media campaigning will mean specific voter groups being targeted with whatever works *for that group* and Labour (or the SNP or whoever) will never even know what is being said, so they cannot counter it or even know they need to.

    That, I think, may explain why Corbyn was toxic in 2019 but not 2017.
    Meanwhile, Labour's under-the-radar social media campaigning will continue to provide two messages: one for Jeremy Corbyn and his friends, and one for everyone else.

    It's a little disingenous to pretend like the Conservatives are the only ones playing the micro-targeting game, like there's something wrong with it. A bit like how Trump was evil in 2016 for perfecting a bunch of strategies Obama developed in 2008 and 2012.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 187
    On topic

    I do not see how Starmer shifts Labour's big structural problem, which is the loss of its WWC support in the North and Midlands, and the loss of Scotland and, increasingly, Wales. He is another North London middle class lawyer representing an inner London seat and several of his DPP decisions are not exactly the type to endear him to these lost voters. I can see him strengthening Labour's position in well heeled / mixed urban areas with socially conscious voters who were scared of Corbyn's tax policies and Labour will probably pick up seats in the commuter belt but the risk is he accelerates declines in some of the more WWC areas.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,069

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.

    You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.

    Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!

    The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.

    To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.

    The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
    My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.

    He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.

    And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.

    Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
    No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.

    I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.

    I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.

    I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.

    The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
    When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
    The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.

    The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
    You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?

    The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
    This was discussed on 5 live this morning and being in the open air reduces the risk enormously and with social distancing it becomes low risk. Indeed this is also why advice is to open windows in buildings to improve the air quality

    However, we must all understand you cannot eliminate risk altogether, that is impossible and the country cannot stay behind closed doors indefinitely either

    Do back gardens not have open air?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 187

    MrEd said:

    Not sure if this has been commented on but a very sobering commentary from Land Securities yesterday at their results

    https://landsec.com/sites/default/files/2020-05/Annual Results announcement - 12 05 2020.pdf

    Forecasting no recovery until 2022 at the earliest, inflation from next year (interesting take) and 75% slump in retail rents

    The Chief Exec: "I joined Landsec on 14 April 2020." Oops, what a baptism of fire!
    I hope he got a good sign on bonus!!
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,069

    I think Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. Its nice that the anti-Tory commentariat are having a moment of rejoicing that they appear to have a leader who doesn't actively repulse the voting public, but the next election will be based on Boris's record. Starmer is neither here nor there.

    That's not quite right. A change of government tends to require two things: an unpopular government, and a credible opposition. With Starmer running Labour the second condition will probably be met, so in that sense you're right that everything depends on the public's view of Boris and the Conservatives as a whole. If they cop the blame for mishandling Covid-19, and compounding the error by a Brexit disaster, then Sir Keir will be moving into No 10.
    The UK could have a clean break Brexit at the end of this year and if COVID 19 ends (perhaps due to a vaccine early next year) then the UK will almost certainly follow that clean break Brexit with growth next year following the baseline of the economic stats set this year I think. Do you think that's right?
    I think so. People will point out the "clean break" Brexit doesn't help (and they'd be right: a WTO Brexit doesn't next to an FTA) but no-one will notice as the baseline is so poor.

    Covid-19 gives cover for the hardest of Brexits.
    If we are going for hard Brexit then now is the best time to do it, so the judging by our terrible decision making on the issue the government will probably postpone it and hit us hard again in 2022 as the rest of the world recovers.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 32,968

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.

    You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.

    Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!

    The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.

    To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.

    The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
    My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.

    He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.

    And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.

    Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
    No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.

    I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.

    I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.

    I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.

    The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
    When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
    The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.

    The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
    You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?

    The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
    This was discussed on 5 live this morning and being in the open air reduces the risk enormously and with social distancing it becomes low risk. Indeed this is also why advice is to open windows in buildings to improve the air quality

    However, we must all understand you cannot eliminate risk altogether, that is impossible and the country cannot stay behind closed doors indefinitely either

    Do back gardens not have open air?
    Visiting those 70 plus is restricted for sound reasons

    However, I am sure even these restrictions will be eased at the end of the lockdown in June
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 3,542

    I think Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. Its nice that the anti-Tory commentariat are having a moment of rejoicing that they appear to have a leader who doesn't actively repulse the voting public, but the next election will be based on Boris's record. Starmer is neither here nor there.

    Largely true and the 2024 GE is going to be fought mainly on the economy of the country after 4 years of a pandemic and Brexit. Not the most promising territory I wouldn't have thought. It's going to take more than a few jolly platitudes from breezy Boris.

    Starmer is here or there to the extent that he is seen as an acceptable alternative PM. Boris had a get-out-of-jail-free card with Corbyn as a majority of the electorate wouldn't have had him at any price. Starmer is already on the way to being viewed as an acceptable PM.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,069

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    I get what Philip is trying to do - its COMMON SENSE. Problem is that a lot of people don't have the same common sense as each other. Hence the need for rules and for clarity. We need that clarity so that people know what to do. Otherwise we get as we have seen up here on Teesside the police making it up as they go along and the Middlesbrough Mayor doing the same.

    You CAN do this. You CANNOT do that. You should AVOID the other. CAN and CANNOT have to be the things you CAN and CANNOT do. Not just the confused utterance of a cabinet minster contradicting himself from an interview he gave 5 minutes earlier to someone else. With businesses and retailers and councils and the police all in step together because its clear. Like they managed in other countries. So that people know that what they are doing will keep people from dying. The Matt Lucas tweet both got so many zillion views and enraged the right because it absolutely skewered the incompetence of the mixed messaging. Same with Piers Moron and Philip Schofield. Its inexcusable. I don't get why some defend it and try to deflect the blame onto others.

    Its not the Police's job to enforce the advice and nor should it ever be!

    The Police's job is to enforce the LAW, no more and no less. The public should take account of the ADVICE and then operate within the law using their own common sense.

    To take @TOPPING 's repeated example of drinking and driving, the advice is crystal clear: don't do it! For good reason too. But if you get pulled over and blow a positive number so you have alcohol in your system but under the legal limit then the Police will not charge you. They may advise you that the advice is to not have any, but that is the end of the matter and quite right too.

    The law is set, the advice is set and people need to think for themselves.
    My point was you ridiculed @Rochdale because he was following the law and not the advice. But his broader point was a comment on the government.

    He was obeying the law (exercising more than once a day) which was what you were doing (shandy/glass of wine then driving). He was pointing out the inconsistency of the law and that in the current times the govt made a huge issue of easing exercise rules but actually not changing the law at all on it and then saying "look we've changed the rules". Which they hadn't.

    And then after they hadn't changed the rules, everyone saying: what a wonderful Conservative government and PM we have now that they've changed the rules.

    Is what he was saying. And I tend to agree with him.
    No you're wrong, I have no problem with people breaking the advice and following the law, because its what their own common sense dictates is appropriate for them in their own circumstances.

    I have a problem with people acting like the advice is meaningless, never to be followed and not something the government have done or should do.

    I have a problem with people pretending a change in the advice is meaningless.

    I have a problem with people implying others shouldn't be following the advice, or they'll only follow advice under any circumstances if its the law and the Police tell them to do so.

    The government had changed the rules in the advice. Not the rules in the law. Since people are trying to follow the rules in the advice that is a change. You follow the advice because its the right thing to do and because you can, not because its the law.
    When the advice is illogical then it is unlikely to be the right thing to do, nor a prompt for using common sense.
    The advice isn't illogical, its just some people aren't happy with it.

    The advice is to do as little as is necessary. That some people are unhappy with the idea that economics is more necessary than a social life doesn't change that.
    You can meet your relative in a park but not a back garden? Thats logical?

    The park is going to be more crowded, you will come within 5m of far more people, so if you either of you have it the virus spreads faster.
    This was discussed on 5 live this morning and being in the open air reduces the risk enormously and with social distancing it becomes low risk. Indeed this is also why advice is to open windows in buildings to improve the air quality

    However, we must all understand you cannot eliminate risk altogether, that is impossible and the country cannot stay behind closed doors indefinitely either

    Do back gardens not have open air?
    Visiting those 70 plus is restricted for sound reasons

    However, I am sure even these restrictions will be eased at the end of the lockdown in June
    So you agree back gardens are open air and the differentiation with a park is illogical?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,197
    Endillion said:

    Mundo said:

    MaxPB said:

    It will be his record as DPP. Failed prosecutions of people who then went on to rape/murder again, declined prosecutions who did the same, falsely accused who were wrongly imprisoned etc...

    I should imagine the word "Rochdale" features heavily in the searches Cummings, Guido etc. are completing. Interestingly, no smoking gun revealed thus far.
    It will be whatever works. CCHQ's under-the-radar social media campaigning will mean specific voter groups being targeted with whatever works *for that group* and Labour (or the SNP or whoever) will never even know what is being said, so they cannot counter it or even know they need to.

    That, I think, may explain why Corbyn was toxic in 2019 but not 2017.
    Meanwhile, Labour's under-the-radar social media campaigning will continue to provide two messages: one for Jeremy Corbyn and his friends, and one for everyone else.

    It's a little disingenous to pretend like the Conservatives are the only ones playing the micro-targeting game, like there's something wrong with it. A bit like how Trump was evil in 2016 for perfecting a bunch of strategies Obama developed in 2008 and 2012.
    Even if what you say is true, and we have yet to hear a full account of last year's election, it amounts to whataboutery. We know the Conservatives were doing this, although not the precise details, and we know it worked. That's why Boris is Prime Minister now.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 2,589

    MaxPB said:

    Not specifically, but I just get a sense our ability to self fund the deficit isn't going to last much longer. The reaction to the extended furlough scheme hasn't been received well among some of the bigger primary bond purchases I know. There is a sense that the government needs to get real about accepting job losses in sectors that aren't going to open up for a long time rather than push an unsustainable open ended wage subsidy.

    The risk to the UK and sterling will be mitigated by the fact that so many other major economies are in the same boat.
    This is probably a fantasy but..

    Given the whole world is in the same boat couldn't there be a Bretton-Woods type conference (maybe with the IMF in attendance) next year where the whole world agrees at once to wipe out a chunk of the 2020 debts, and start afresh with a clean-ish slate again? Or at least agreed targeted debt relief and write-downs over the decade to 2030?

    I'm not sure what the economic consequences of this would be. It's probably a trick you could only pull once.
    The knock on effects would be... interesting.

    Here's one: insurers would have to take an immediate write-down on the debt instruments they own to back the liabilities they hold. Coming straight after one of the worst years for the industry in memory, it could force a lot of them into insolvency (or at least sever difficulty, to the point where regulators would have to force them to stop trading).

    In addition, it might be impossible for the EU to agree. By EU law, insurers are allowed to assume that EU-area government debt denominated in the issuer's home currency is risk-free and so insurers (possibly banks as well?) don't have to hold capital against them defaulting.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 3,542

    Mundo said:

    MaxPB said:

    It will be his record as DPP. Failed prosecutions of people who then went on to rape/murder again, declined prosecutions who did the same, falsely accused who were wrongly imprisoned etc...

    I should imagine the word "Rochdale" features heavily in the searches Cummings, Guido etc. are completing. Interestingly, no smoking gun revealed thus far.
    It will be whatever works. CCHQ's under-the-radar social media campaigning will mean specific voter groups being targeted with whatever works *for that group* and Labour (or the SNP or whoever) will never even know what is being said, so they cannot counter it or even know they need to.

    That, I think, may explain why Corbyn was toxic in 2019 but not 2017.
    Corbyn was more toxic in 2019 because the public knew him better. Corbyn was genuinely toxic, it wasn't a campaign that made him so. If you don't understand that yet you are beyond redemption it seems. A left wing HYUFD still claiming IDS was good and never lost an election.
    Coming close on the heels of the referendum a lot of Remainers voted against May in 2017 without thinking too much about Corbyn. By 2019 his true awfulness was evident to far more people.
Sign In or Register to comment.