Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It wasn’t just young people voting that cost TMay her majority

245

Comments

  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    felix said:

    fitalass said:

    Pong said:

    The tory party are in one hell of a fix.

    If The Times is right, they're going to be easing austerity to keep providing wealthy elderly voters with ever more state-funded jam.

    The not-yet-retired ain't stupid. They realise the jam won't be around when they retire.

    They're the ones paying for the final act of baby boomer self-indulgence.

    Bring on the next election. The rationale for austerity has evaporated.

    Advantage: Labour.

    And yet the rationale behind a decade of austerity remains the very real economic mess this Conservative Government inherited from the last Labour one, advantage the Conservatives. There is no way the UK electorate are going to vote in another Labour Government until they can prove they have returned to the centre ground and embraced fiscal Prudence.. Whisper it quietly, but there was once a time when Gordon Brown used to talk about fiscal Prudence all the time back in the late 90s/early 2000s until he was forced to kiss it goodbye around 2008!
    "There is no way the UK electorate are going to vote in another Labour Government until they can prove they have returned to the centre ground and embraced fiscal Prudence.. "

    Surely last week the UK electorate very nearly did vote in another Labour government, and therefore your post is wishful thinking?
    Err. - except they didn't and that really is wishful thinking.
    What figures are you basing that on?

    There were many constituencies that were very tight either way. If the Conservatives had had a little more 'luck' then May might even have increased her majority a little; a little luck the other way and we'd have a Labour minority government.

    A few votes in a few key seats are what mattered. Someone posted some figures for this a few days back.

    (And BTW, it's not wishful thinking for me as I didn't want a Labour government).
    We have the system we have - a lot of close results but conservatives well ahead of Labour in seats and votes was the result. Whatifery is just a waste of time - I prefer to deal with what comes next.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    Barnesian said:

    DavidL said:

    As someone who is a Tory voter, albeit deeply unenthused by May, the theme that we have had 7 years of austerity and it somehow had failed as a policy frustrated me more than any other.

    Firstly, the policy has succeeded in reducing a completely unsustainable deficit by 2/3. Secondly, the idea that deficits don't matter is just plain wrong. It is theft from the next generation who will be spending their tax income on interest payments. Thirdly, the policy of "austerity" was applied with a very light touch with spending increasing in real terms every year, albeit at a much slower rate than we had been used to. Fourthly, most of the heavy lifting in terms of deficit reduction has been done by increased taxes on the higher earners whilst the tax burden on the lower paid has been reduced, the exact opposite of what was said thousands of times during the campaign and left unchallenged.

    Some of this is because the campaign was fought so badly. The Chancellor needs to be front and central in such debates as his office gives him authority and he is on top of the numbers. For as yet unexplained reasons May hid Hammond away throughout the campaign. It is pretty difficult to make economic management the issue of the day when your Chancellor is in hiding.

    The widely held perception now is that "austerity" is some sort of lifestyle choice as opposed to a grinding necessity. The Tories undermined their own messages on this by an unfunded Manifesto with no real attempt at pricing the cost of policies in it. This is catastrophic for the Tories, not just in this election but going forward. It puts them on the back foot when the next election comes.

    I pretty much agree with that.

    We have several choices to cover increased spending in the economy as a whole:
    1) Borrow
    2) Tax more
    3) Cut (austerity)
    4) Do things more efficiently

    The first is dishonest at a large scale; the fourth can only generate so much income.

    The real, honest choices are 2) and 3), or a combination thereof. If someone goes for number 2 in a large way, then the opposition (in this case the Conservatives) need to make it clear that everyone will end up paying, not just the rich.

    It'd be great if every man, woman and child got a yearly summary of how much they'd paid to the state, and how much they'd received back. I think it'd be an eyeopener for many. But impossible to do in practice.
    5) Print money (quantitative easing) and cause inflation. The savers pay in reduced value of their savings, and the government gains in reduced value of their debts.

    Incidentally borrowing is not dishonest unless you think taking out a mortgage to buy a house is dishonest.
    No its not dishonest but it can be irresponsible, it depends what you're borrowing for.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    Express reporting Sinn Fein are going to take their seats in the HOC but not on the news. !!
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    JenS said:

    The DUP will be pleased with the new Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, anyway.

    Against gay marriage. Against civil partnerships. Against a UN LGBT envoy. Against the equalisation of the age of consent. Against the repeal of section 28.

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/06/12/theresa-may-appoints-anti-lgbt-justice-secretary-in-the-middle-of-dup-negotiations/

    So what, he isn't going to change anything.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    We need more houses, who is going to building them?
    We need more nurses and care workers, where are they coming
    We want higher publico sector pay, better schools and por goles fixed.
    We need more national weather to pay for the above, where is the económic growth coming from.
    None of the above is solvable in the short term and our decisión to leave the EU only makes things worse,
    reducing our ability to recruit, destroying business confidence and making things more expensive due to the
    week pound. Leaving was never going to be easy but the way our government is going about it makes it
    far worse.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,973

    fitalass said:

    Pong said:

    The tory party are in one hell of a fix.

    If The Times is right, they're going to be easing austerity to keep providing wealthy elderly voters with ever more state-funded jam.

    The not-yet-retired ain't stupid. They realise the jam won't be around when they retire.

    They're the ones paying for the final act of baby boomer self-indulgence.

    Bring on the next election. The rationale for austerity has evaporated.

    Advantage: Labour.

    And yet the rationale behind a decade of austerity remains the very real economic mess this Conservative Government inherited from the last Labour one, advantage the Conservatives. There is no way the UK electorate are going to vote in another Labour Government until they can prove they have returned to the centre ground and embraced fiscal Prudence.. Whisper it quietly, but there was once a time when Gordon Brown used to talk about fiscal Prudence all the time back in the late 90s/early 2000s until he was forced to kiss it goodbye around 2008!
    "There is no way the UK electorate are going to vote in another Labour Government until they can prove they have returned to the centre ground and embraced fiscal Prudence.. "

    Surely last week the UK electorate very nearly did vote in another Labour government, and therefore your post is wishful thinking?
    Quite. What this election showed is that people aren't necessarily now thinking about the economy when they vote.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Barnesian said:

    DavidL said:

    As someone who is a Tory voter, albeit deeply unenthused by May, the theme that we have had 7 years of austerity and it somehow had failed as a policy frustrated me more than any other.

    Firstly, the policy has succeeded in reducing a completely unsustainable deficit by 2/3. Secondly, the idea that deficits don't matter is just plain wrong. It is theft from the next generation who will be spending their tax income on interest payments. Thirdly, the policy of "austerity" was applied with a very light touch with spending increasing in real terms every year, albeit at a much slower rate than we had been used to. Fourthly, most of the heavy lifting in terms of deficit reduction has been done by increased taxes on the higher earners whilst the tax burden on the lower paid has been reduced, the exact opposite of what was said thousands of times during the campaign and left unchallenged.



    The widely held perception now is that "austerity" is some sort of lifestyle choice as opposed to a grinding necessity. The Tories undermined their own messages on this by an unfunded Manifesto with no real attempt at pricing the cost of policies in it. This is catastrophic for the Tories, not just in this election but going forward. It puts them on the back foot when the next election comes.

    I pretty much agree with that.

    We have several choices to cover increased spending in the economy as a whole:
    1) Borrow
    2) Tax more
    3) Cut (austerity)
    4) Do things more efficiently

    The first is dishonest at a large scale; the fourth can only generate so much income.

    The real, honest choices are 2) and 3), or a combination thereof. If someone goes for number 2 in a large way, then the opposition (in this case the Conservatives) need to make it clear that everyone will end up paying, not just the rich.

    It'd be great if every man, woman and child got a yearly summary of how much they'd paid to the state, and how much they'd received back. I think it'd be an eyeopener for many. But impossible to do in practice.
    5) Print money (quantitative easing) and cause inflation. The savers pay in reduced value of their savings, and the government gains in reduced value of their debts.

    Incidentally borrowing is not dishonest unless you think taking out a mortgage to buy a house is dishonest.
    It's not dishonest but the more excessive it is the greater the burden on the future payers of interest not to mention that the lenders can pull the plug at any time. Hello Greece.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    edited June 2017

    It is not relevant. Ending FOM is about letting in people that we want and excluding people we do not. If we want nurses to enter the UK we simply make it an occupation for which visas are available. Just like every other country in the World, pretty much.

    If there is a backtrack on FOM to the extent required to join the EEA, the Tory party will be destroyed for a generation. A large number of Tory voters would never vote for them again. They are going to have to press ahead with ending it; they question is what they concede to the EU in its place and whether this passes the public test of a stitch up or genuine change.

    Can anyone explain what 'Soft' Brexit means any more? Is it:

    (a) SM membership, probably as a result of membership of the EEA?
    (b) Non SM membership but assuming we get what we want and we have to have a deal as we don't really want to deal with reality so lets pretend we are negotiating with ourselves?

    I respect people who say (a), although in my view this is never going to happen as the UK will never accept FOM.

    I suspect the people who really say (b) are going to find their position increasingly untenable as the EU pile on utterly unreasonable demands.

    The tectonic plates may be about to shift on FOM. That story about NHS nurses from the EU dropping 95% didn't appear in the newspapers at random
    You overlook the point that a pre-condition of being able to choose who comes here is our being attractive enough that a lot of people want to come. The nurse applications have collapsed not because of lost freedoms, but because we are trashing both our currency and our international reputation, making EU workers feel unwelcome and uncertain about their future.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    King Cole, perhaps it should be.

    What matters is the tax take the treasury gets. Tax is about generating revenue for the state to spend on vital services, not financially harming people in a spirit of greed-induced vindictiveness.

    Mr. Barnesian, the people taking out and repaying a mortgage tend to be one and the same.

    Government borrowing tends to be taking out by one generation and repaid quite some time later.

    Not only that, right now we have an enormous deficit due, mostly now, to interest payments on debt. We're spending around £50bn a year on that. If we hadn't racked up such debt (sadly necessary due to the financial crisis and ensuing recession) that money could be saved [ha!], spent on infrastructure or otherwise to provide services.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,576
    edited June 2017
    DavidL said:

    fitalass said:

    Pong said:

    The economy barely featured in the campaign - in a close election, there will be forenisic scrutiny of both parties' economic plans, Corbyn's would suffer sustained assault in a way it wasn't last week.

    ...
    As someone who is a Tory voter, albeit deeply unenthused by May, the theme that we have had 7 years of austerity and it somehow had failed as a policy frustrated me more than any other.

    Firstly, the policy has succeeded in reducing a completely unsustainable deficit by 2/3. Secondly, the idea that deficits don't matter is just plain wrong. It is theft from the next generation who will be spending their tax income on interest payments. Thirdly, the policy of "austerity" was applied with a very light touch with spending increasing in real terms every year, albeit at a much slower rate than we had been used to. Fourthly, most of the heavy lifting in terms of deficit reduction has been done by increased taxes on the higher earners whilst the tax burden on the lower paid has been reduced, the exact opposite of what was said thousands of times during the campaign and left unchallenged.

    Some of this is because the campaign was fought so badly. The Chancellor needs to be front and central in such debates as his office gives him authority and he is on top of the numbers. For as yet unexplained reasons May hid Hammond away throughout the campaign....

    I thought the reasons were pretty clear - she's a control freak who doesn't like him very much.

    The slightly amusing thing about all this is that the control freak is now a prisoner of her party.
    U-turns are being prepared on just about everything. The one with the biggest consequences is the abandonment of immigration as a priority, thank heavens.

    Of course this will leave what remains of the May electoral strategy in ruins. Whether the Tories can reclaim the centre ground after they decide that it's convenient to ditch her is an interesting question.
    (She'll possibly be kept as a figurehead to take the blame for whatever Brexit compromise is stitched up, and then dumped.)
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Barnesian said:


    I pretty much agree with that.

    We have several choices to cover increased spending in the economy as a whole:
    1) Borrow
    2) Tax more
    3) Cut (austerity)
    4) Do things more efficiently

    The first is dishonest at a large scale; the fourth can only generate so much income.

    The real, honest choices are 2) and 3), or a combination thereof. If someone goes for number 2 in a large way, then the opposition (in this case the Conservatives) need to make it clear that everyone will end up paying, not just the rich.

    It'd be great if every man, woman and child got a yearly summary of how much they'd paid to the state, and how much they'd received back. I think it'd be an eyeopener for many. But impossible to do in practice.

    5) Print money (quantitative easing) and cause inflation. The savers pay in reduced value of their savings, and the government gains in reduced value of their debts.

    Incidentally borrowing is not dishonest unless you think taking out a mortgage to buy a house is dishonest.
    QE / inflation has major downsides as well.

    There are different reasons to borrow. Borrowing to pay for one-offs, e.g. in infrastructure - new school buildings, a new road, a new hospital - is generally reasonable.

    Borrowing to pay for what will be ongoing expenses - and especially freebies to the public - is dishonest.
    Spot on.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    JenS said:

    The DUP will be pleased with the new Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, anyway.

    Against gay marriage. Against civil partnerships. Against a UN LGBT envoy. Against the equalisation of the age of consent. Against the repeal of section 28.

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/06/12/theresa-may-appoints-anti-lgbt-justice-secretary-in-the-middle-of-dup-negotiations/

    None of which will be changing anytime soon. As you well know.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr Barnesian,

    "Incidentally borrowing is not dishonest unless you think taking out a mortgage to buy a house is dishonest."

    However, if you don't even pay off the interest, and have no intention of ever paying it off, you'll find no one will lend to you.

    On the whole, I'm happy to bash the rich, but I'd rather it was to help everyone, not just because of class consciousness..
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,576

    Barnesian said:


    I pretty much agree with that.

    We have several choices to cover increased spending in the economy as a whole:
    1) Borrow
    2) Tax more
    3) Cut (austerity)
    4) Do things more efficiently

    The first is dishonest at a large scale; the fourth can only generate so much income.

    The real, honest choices are 2) and 3), or a combination thereof. If someone goes for number 2 in a large way, then the opposition (in this case the Conservatives) need to make it clear that everyone will end up paying, not just the rich.

    It'd be great if every man, woman and child got a yearly summary of how much they'd paid to the state, and how much they'd received back. I think it'd be an eyeopener for many. But impossible to do in practice.

    5) Print money (quantitative easing) and cause inflation. The savers pay in reduced value of their savings, and the government gains in reduced value of their debts.

    Incidentally borrowing is not dishonest unless you think taking out a mortgage to buy a house is dishonest.
    QE / inflation has major downsides as well.

    There are different reasons to borrow. Borrowing to pay for one-offs, e.g. in infrastructure - new school buildings, a new road, a new hospital - is generally reasonable.

    Borrowing to pay for what will be ongoing expenses - and especially freebies to the public - is dishonest.
    Yes, but that was the modus operandi of Labour in the 1970s - an era which we seem to be determined to revisit. I don't think that troubles them.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088

    Express reporting Sinn Fein are going to take their seats in the HOC but not on the news. !!

    This story pops up every time one of them "refuses to rule it out" - which I think is the fact beneath this latest story? The same story has appeared before; The late Mr McGuinness created one such when he didn't rule it out for ever.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340

    Express reporting Sinn Fein are going to take their seats in the HOC but not on the news. !!

    That's because, like most Express stories, it's bollocks. Sinn Fein are coming to sign up for their allowances etc. They do this after every GE.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Barnesian said:


    I pretty much agree with that.

    We have several choices to cover increased spending in the economy as a whole:
    1) Borrow
    2) Tax more
    3) Cut (austerity)
    4) Do things more efficiently

    The first is dishonest at a large scale; the fourth can only generate so much income.

    The real, honest choices are 2) and 3), or a combination thereof. If someone goes for number 2 in a large way, then the opposition (in this case the Conservatives) need to make it clear that everyone will end up paying, not just the rich.

    It'd be great if every man, woman and child got a yearly summary of how much they'd paid to the state, and how much they'd received back. I think it'd be an eyeopener for many. But impossible to do in practice.

    Incidentally borrowing is not dishonest unless you think taking out a mortgage to buy a house is dishonest.
    It would be if you also intended to debase the currency to shrink the real size of your mortgage - an option not open to individual borrowers......
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    DavidL said:


    The widely held perception now is that "austerity" is some sort of lifestyle choice as opposed to a grinding necessity. The Tories undermined their own messages on this by an unfunded Manifesto with no real attempt at pricing the cost of policies in it. This is catastrophic for the Tories, not just in this election but going forward. It puts them on the back foot when the next election comes.

    Connected to this perception are the casual comments on the lines "why doesn't the government create an economic boom".

    There is now massive ignorance, with no wish to learn, of the interconnection of wealth creation and wealth consumption or the concept of living within your means.

    But a widespread assumption that a large and ever increasing level of consumption is both necessary and deserved and that it is merely a matter of government choice on whether to provide it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088

    Barnesian said:


    I pretty much agree with that.

    We have several choices to cover increased spending in the economy as a whole:
    1) Borrow
    2) Tax more
    3) Cut (austerity)
    4) Do things more efficiently

    The first is dishonest at a large scale; the fourth can only generate so much income.

    The real, honest choices are 2) and 3), or a combination thereof. If someone goes for number 2 in a large way, then the opposition (in this case the Conservatives) need to make it clear that everyone will end up paying, not just the rich.

    It'd be great if every man, woman and child got a yearly summary of how much they'd paid to the state, and how much they'd received back. I think it'd be an eyeopener for many. But impossible to do in practice.

    5) Print money (quantitative easing) and cause inflation. The savers pay in reduced value of their savings, and the government gains in reduced value of their debts.

    Incidentally borrowing is not dishonest unless you think taking out a mortgage to buy a house is dishonest.
    QE / inflation has major downsides as well.

    There are different reasons to borrow. Borrowing to pay for one-offs, e.g. in infrastructure - new school buildings, a new road, a new hospital - is generally reasonable.

    Borrowing to pay for what will be ongoing expenses - and especially freebies to the public - is dishonest.
    It is staggering that a majority of UK Government Bonds are now "owned" by the Bank of England. I don't think anyone actually understands fully how QE is affecting the economy, nor what the end game can possibly be. It's a drug that policy makers cannot detox from; we see the distorted economy all around us, and it is amazing that - because no-one can link cause and effect - the most significant and potentially toxic policy of our time goes completely unchallenged.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited June 2017
    It looks like the Labour manifesto got going people out to vote for it with its giveaways on free tuition fees etc while the Tory manifesto turned off older voters with the ending of the triple lock and the 'dementia tax' etc
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,225
    IanB2 said:

    It is not relevant. Ending FOM is about letting in people that we want and excluding people we do not. If we want nurses to enter the UK we simply make it an occupation for which visas are available. Just like every other country in the World, pretty much.

    If there is a backtrack on FOM to the extent required to join the EEA, the Tory party will be destroyed for a generation. A large number of Tory voters would never vote for them again. They are going to have to press ahead with ending it; they question is what they concede to the EU in its place and whether this passes the public test of a stitch up or genuine change.

    Can anyone explain what 'Soft' Brexit means any more? Is it:

    (a) SM membership, probably as a result of membership of the EEA?
    (b) Non SM membership but assuming we get what we want and we have to have a deal as we don't really want to deal with reality so lets pretend we are negotiating with ourselves?

    I respect people who say (a), although in my view this is never going to happen as the UK will never accept FOM.

    I suspect the people who really say (b) are going to find their position increasingly untenable as the EU pile on utterly unreasonable demands.

    The tectonic plates may be about to shift on FOM. That story about NHS nurses from the EU dropping 95% didn't appear in the newspapers at random
    You overlook the point that a pre-condition of being able to choose who comes here is our being attractive enough that a lot of people want to come. The nurse applications have collapsed not because of lost freedoms, but because we are trashing both our currency and our international reputation, making EU workers feel unwelcome and uncertain about their future.
    Currency is a huge factor. Potential foreign workers thinking of coming to the UK have now to contemplate an exchange rate that is substantially down and likely to fall further.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Conservative Crackpot Coalition of Chaos Update -

    CCCC - Day 5 - 0830am

    Arlene has demanded that the term "Billy Goat" be struck from the English language. The DUP consider any reference to William of Orange in relation to a smelly anti-social animal is deeply to be depricated. The Prime Minister has said she will give the matter significant consideration when she brings before the House of Commons the "Internet Restriction of Government Defamation Bill."
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    DavidL said:

    As someone who is a Tory voter, albeit deeply unenthused by May, the theme that we have had 7 years of austerity and it somehow had failed as a policy frustrated me more than any other.

    Firstly, the policy has succeeded in reducing a completely unsustainable deficit by 2/3. Secondly, the idea that deficits don't matter is just plain wrong. It is theft from the next generation who will be spending their tax income on interest payments. Thirdly, the policy of "austerity" was applied with a very light touch with spending increasing in real terms every year, albeit at a much slower rate than we had been used to. Fourthly, most of the heavy lifting in terms of deficit reduction has been done by increased taxes on the higher earners whilst the tax burden on the lower paid has been reduced, the exact opposite of what was said thousands of times during the campaign and left unchallenged.

    Some of this is because the campaign was fought so badly. The Chancellor needs to be front and central in such debates as his office gives him authority and he is on top of the numbers. For as yet unexplained reasons May hid Hammond away throughout the campaign. It is pretty difficult to make economic management the issue of the day when your Chancellor is in hiding.

    The widely held perception now is that "austerity" is some sort of lifestyle choice as opposed to a grinding necessity. The Tories undermined their own messages on this by an unfunded Manifesto with no real attempt at pricing the cost of policies in it. This is catastrophic for the Tories, not just in this election but going forward. It puts them on the back foot when the next election comes.

    I pretty much agree with that.

    We have several choices to cover increased spending in the economy as a whole:
    1) Borrow
    2) Tax more
    3) Cut (austerity)
    4) Do things more efficiently

    The first is dishonest at a large scale; the fourth can only generate so much income.

    The real, honest choices are 2) and 3), or a combination thereof. If someone goes for number 2 in a large way, then the opposition (in this case the Conservatives) need to make it clear that everyone will end up paying, not just the rich.

    It'd be great if every man, woman and child got a yearly summary of how much they'd paid to the state, and how much they'd received back. I think it'd be an eyeopener for many. But impossible to do in practice.
    How many ways are there of doing 4 that don't need you to do 1 or 2 first?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    IanB2 said:

    It is not relevant. Ending FOM is about letting in people that we want and excluding people we do not. If we want nurses to enter the UK we simply make it an occupation for which visas are available. Just like every other country in the World, pretty much.

    If there is a backtrack on FOM to the extent required to join the EEA, the Tory party will be destroyed for a generation. A large number of Tory voters would never vote for them again. They are going to have to press ahead with ending it; they question is what they concede to the EU in its place and whether this passes the public test of a stitch up or genuine change.

    Can anyone explain what 'Soft' Brexit means any more? Is it:

    (a) SM membership, probably as a result of membership of the EEA?
    (b) Non SM membership but assuming we get what we want and we have to have a deal as we don't really want to deal with reality so lets pretend we are negotiating with ourselves?

    I respect people who say (a), although in my view this is never going to happen as the UK will never accept FOM.

    I suspect the people who really say (b) are going to find their position increasingly untenable as the EU pile on utterly unreasonable demands.

    The tectonic plates may be about to shift on FOM. That story about NHS nurses from the EU dropping 95% didn't appear in the newspapers at random
    You overlook the point that a pre-condition of being able to choose who comes here is our being attractive enough that a lot of people want to come. The nurse applications have collapsed not because of lost freedoms, but because we are trashing both our currency and our international reputation, making EU workers feel unwelcome and uncertain about their future.
    EU nurses make up 5% of nurses overall and a tougher language requirement may also have been a factor, applications from outside the EU for nursing are actually up there is no reason we cannot prioritise skills we need like nursing etc
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088

    IanB2 said:

    saddo said:

    Just shows how bad the Tories campaign was given Labour's IHT reductions would have adversely impacted millions more than any so called demensia tax & cost their estates a whole lot more.

    I don't really understand the figures, and I don't think many pensioners or prospective heirs do either - but to me, dying with a large estate of which the state takes a sliver in tax doesn't feel nearly as bad as the prospect of having a big chunk taken away to pay for the costs of care whilst still alive?
    "sliver".>???


    pfffft

    the feckers take 40% in estates over 325know 500k after 2021. I don't call that a sliver, its highway robbery
    Even my mental arithmetic can see that these leave you with a lot more than £100k.
  • trawltrawl Posts: 142
    BigG - Sinn Fein - heard a SF spokesman reaffirm party committment to not take seats on R4 yesterday. Paraphrasing; their MPs were elected on a mandate to not take up the seats and will honour that mandate.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Express reporting Sinn Fein are going to take their seats in the HOC but not on the news. !!

    If they do that would be to vote for Corbyn so they can have no further complaints about the DUP
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    It is not relevant. Ending FOM is about letting in people that we want and excluding people we do not. If we want nurses to enter the UK we simply make it an occupation for which visas are available. Just like every other country in the World, pretty much.

    If there is a backtrack on FOM to the extent required to join the EEA, the Tory party will be destroyed for a generation. A large number of Tory voters would never vote for them again. They are going to have to press ahead with ending it; they question is what they concede to the EU in its place and whether this passes the public test of a stitch up or genuine change.

    Can anyone explain what 'Soft' Brexit means any more? Is it:

    (a) SM membership, probably as a result of membership of the EEA?
    (b) Non SM membership but assuming we get what we want and we have to have a deal as we don't really want to deal with reality so lets pretend we are negotiating with ourselves?

    I respect people who say (a), although in my view this is never going to happen as the UK will never accept FOM.

    I suspect the people who really say (b) are going to find their position increasingly untenable as the EU pile on utterly unreasonable demands.

    The tectonic plates may be about to shift on FOM. That story about NHS nurses from the EU dropping 95% didn't appear in the newspapers at random
    You overlook the point that a pre-condition of being able to choose who comes here is our being attractive enough that a lot of people want to come. The nurse applications have collapsed not because of lost freedoms, but because we are trashing both our currency and our international reputation, making EU workers feel unwelcome and uncertain about their future.
    EU nurses make up 5% of nurses overall and a tougher language requirement may also have been a factor, applications from outside the EU for nursing are actually up there is no reason we cannot prioritise skills we need like nursing etc
    During the last two years I have been an impatient twice, and both times most of the nurses came from the EU - Bulgaria, Spain, Portugal, you name it. The 5% figure seems incredible to me. Maybe it's just a London/South East thing, but the hospitals I visit appear to run on EU staff.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    King Cole, we could always say those massive salaries contribute vast amounts in tax.

    If we reversed the salaries of nurses (who are not poorly paid) and City high flyers [even assuming the latter didn't all sod off to Singapore], the tax take would tumble and expenditure would soar. Borrow would balloon, the deficit, already more than Defence spending and about half annual NHS spending, would get even bigger.

    Mr. Punter, alas, to think of it now when weeks have passed since the lunacy was first uttered. A nice line, but much too late.

    They could restore the bursary for student nurses though
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    DavidL said:

    As someone who is a Tory voter, albeit deeply unenthused by May, the theme that we have had 7 years of austerity and it somehow had failed as a policy frustrated me more than any other.

    Firstly, the policy has succeeded in reducing a completely unsustainable deficit by 2/3. Secondly, the idea that deficits don't matter is just plain wrong. It is theft from the next generation who will be spending their tax income on interest payments. Thirdly, the policy of "austerity" was applied with a very light touch with spending increasing in real terms every year, albeit at a much slower rate than we had been used to. Fourthly, most of the heavy lifting in terms of deficit reduction has been done by increased taxes on the higher earners whilst the tax burden on the lower paid has been reduced, the exact opposite of what was said thousands of times during the campaign and left unchallenged.

    Some of this is because the campaign was fought so badly. The Chancellor needs to be front and central in such debates as his office gives him authority and he is on top of the numbers. For as yet unexplained reasons May hid Hammond away throughout the campaign. It is pretty difficult to make economic management the issue of the day when your Chancellor is in hiding.

    The widely held perception now is that "austerity" is some sort of lifestyle choice as opposed to a grinding necessity. The Tories undermined their own messages on this by an unfunded Manifesto with no real attempt at pricing the cost of policies in it. This is catastrophic for the Tories, not just in this election but going forward. It puts them on the back foot when the next election comes.

    I pretty much agree with that.

    We have several choices to cover increased spending in the economy as a whole:
    1) Borrow
    2) Tax more
    3) Cut (austerity)
    4) Do things more efficiently

    The first is dishonest at a large scale; the fourth can only generate so much income.

    The real, honest choices are 2) and 3), or a combination thereof. If someone goes for number 2 in a large way, then the opposition (in this case the Conservatives) need to make it clear that everyone will end up paying, not just the rich.

    It'd be great if every man, woman and child got a yearly summary of how much they'd paid to the state, and how much they'd received back. I think it'd be an eyeopener for many. But impossible to do in practice.
    How many ways are there of doing 4 that don't need you to do 1 or 2 first?
    That's why I added 'can only generate so much income'.

    There is some room for increasing efficiency: however that room is generally limited, and 'efficiency savings' soon, if not immediately, becomes 'cut'.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited June 2017
    It certainly had parallels with Gillard 2010 or Turnbull 2016 in that a governing party with a clear majority almost went down to defeat
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    HYUFD said:

    Express reporting Sinn Fein are going to take their seats in the HOC but not on the news. !!

    If they do that would be to vote for Corbyn so they can have no further complaints about the DUP
    Eh? The argument is that the government must not pick sides in NI. Whatever the NI parties vote for is up to them.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    felix said:

    felix said:

    fitalass said:

    Pong said:

    The tory party are in one hell of a fix.

    If The Times is right, they're going to be easing austerity to keep providing wealthy elderly voters with ever more state-funded jam.

    The not-yet-retired ain't stupid. They realise the jam won't be around when they retire.

    They're the ones paying for the final act of baby boomer self-indulgence.

    Bring on the next election. The rationale for austerity has evaporated.

    Advantage: Labour.

    And yet the rationale behind a decade of austerity remains the very real economic mess this Conservative Government inherited from the last Labour one, advantage the Conservatives. There is no way the UK electorate are going to vote in another Labour Government until they can prove they have returned to the centre ground and embraced fiscal Prudence.. Whisper it quietly, but there was once a time when Gordon Brown used to talk about fiscal Prudence all the time back in the late 90s/early 2000s until he was forced to kiss it goodbye around 2008!
    "There is no way the UK electorate are going to vote in another Labour Government until they can prove they have returned to the centre ground and embraced fiscal Prudence.. "

    Surely last week the UK electorate very nearly did vote in another Labour government, and therefore your post is wishful thinking?
    Err. - except they didn't and that really is wishful thinking.
    What figures are you basing that on?

    There were many constituencies that were very tight either way. If the Conservatives had had a little more 'luck' then May might even have increased her majority a little; a little luck the other way and we'd have a Labour minority government.

    A few votes in a few key seats are what mattered. Someone posted some figures for this a few days back.

    (And BTW, it's not wishful thinking for me as I didn't want a Labour government).
    We have the system we have - a lot of close results but conservatives well ahead of Labour in seats and votes was the result. Whatifery is just a waste of time - I prefer to deal with what comes next.
    'what comes next' might well, given the chaos in government, be another election. Those close seats are up for play for an ascendant Labour.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,819
    What would have happened if we had exactly the same election result except Corbyn wasn't labour leader, miliband or someone mainstream was? Would the DUP in that situation have had even more leverage, openly playing both sides off against each other? Would they have put Labour in power? I do think in that situation we wouldn't be hearing the same criticisms of the DUP.

    My view, the tories have the right to try this, I don't think it's unconstitutional to try and negotiate with the DUP. but it is not going to end well for them. fair or unfair, the DUP association is going to become toxic for them, but more importantly they will be perceived as a weak and tired minority government at the end of their life expectancy. The earlier the election the better for them.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Express reporting Sinn Fein are going to take their seats in the HOC but not on the news. !!

    A mistake by Sin Fein I think. They've just rendered Stormont pointless.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited June 2017
    fitalass said:

    Pong said:

    The tory party are in one hell of a fix.

    If The Times is right, they're going to be easing austerity to keep providing wealthy elderly voters with ever more state-funded jam.

    The not-yet-retired ain't stupid. They realise the jam won't be around when they retire.

    They're the ones paying for the final act of baby boomer self-indulgence.

    Bring on the next election. The rationale for austerity has evaporated.

    Advantage: Labour.

    And yet the rationale behind a decade of austerity remains the very real economic mess this Conservative Government inherited from the last Labour one, advantage the Conservatives. There is no way the UK electorate are going to vote in another Labour Government until they can prove they have returned to the centre ground and embraced fiscal Prudence.. Whisper it quietly, but there was once a time when Gordon Brown used to talk about fiscal Prudence all the time back in the late 90s/early 2000s until he was forced to kiss it goodbye around 2008!
    I disagree, the populist left is on the rise, though ironically after Tsipras 2015 in Greece it may be the UK and US next to fall not Spain or France as we thought. Not only does Corbyn have a 6 point lead over May in the latest UK poll but Sanders has a 10 point lead over Trump in the latest US poll. However it may take socialism to make conservativism fashionable again, none of the under 40s voting for the left have any memory of the 1970s and the Wilson/Callaghan government and Carter administration
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    trawl said:

    BigG - Sinn Fein - heard a SF spokesman reaffirm party committment to not take seats on R4 yesterday. Paraphrasing; their MPs were elected on a mandate to not take up the seats and will honour that mandate.

    Only in NI could a party that literally promised to do f*ck all in Parliament increase its MPs...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    What would have happened if we had exactly the same election result except Corbyn wasn't labour leader, miliband or someone mainstream was? Would the DUP in that situation have had even more leverage, openly playing both sides off against each other? Would they have put Labour in power? I do think in that situation we wouldn't be hearing the same criticisms of the DUP.

    My view, the tories have the right to try this, I don't think it's unconstitutional to try and negotiate with the DUP. but it is not going to end well for them. fair or unfair, the DUP association is going to become toxic for them, but more importantly they will be perceived as a weak and tired minority government at the end of their life expectancy. The earlier the election the better for them.

    Best thing for the Conservatives in the medium and long term would be another election: the longer May delays, the worse things are going to be.

    Get all the wise heads together and develop a *good* manifesto, along with the relevant marketing. Develop strong attack lines against Labour's policies. Prepare (and don' just call a GE with little communication with her team like May did).

    If Labour win, it'll probably be a minority government or a small majority. Rebuild and attack, attack, attack.

    If Conservatives win, all is good.

    The major downside to this is that there's a chance we'll get the same result ... ;)
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    After the PM's meeting with the 1922 Committee last night we now have confirmed from the horses mouth that in the year since she took over from Dave, we've gone from :

    Eton Mess to Theresa Mess.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    The Country needs a government of national unity more than ever, but I do not see where it is coming from.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited June 2017

    The Country needs a government of national unity more than ever, but I do not see where it is coming from.

    You cannot get Corbyn and May to agree on much at all however Parliament will have more say over Brexit
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088

    The Country needs a government of national unity more than ever, but I do not see where it is coming from.

    Telegraph claims Tory Cabinet ministers are talking to Labour about a soft Brexit, and cross-party co-operation. This is unsanctioned by May is the implication, which shows how her authority has completely drained away.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Alistair said:

    Express reporting Sinn Fein are going to take their seats in the HOC but not on the news. !!

    A mistake by Sin Fein I think. They've just rendered Stormont pointless.
    They are pointless in Stormont too now having refused to powershare with the DUP
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669

    What would have happened if we had exactly the same election result except Corbyn wasn't labour leader, miliband or someone mainstream was? Would the DUP in that situation have had even more leverage, openly playing both sides off against each other? Would they have put Labour in power? I do think in that situation we wouldn't be hearing the same criticisms of the DUP.

    My view, the tories have the right to try this, I don't think it's unconstitutional to try and negotiate with the DUP. but it is not going to end well for them. fair or unfair, the DUP association is going to become toxic for them, but more importantly they will be perceived as a weak and tired minority government at the end of their life expectancy. The earlier the election the better for them.

    Best thing for the Conservatives in the medium and long term would be another election: the longer May delays, the worse things are going to be.

    Get all the wise heads together and develop a *good* manifesto, along with the relevant marketing. Develop strong attack lines against Labour's policies. Prepare (and don' just call a GE with little communication with her team like May did).

    If Labour win, it'll probably be a minority government or a small majority. Rebuild and attack, attack, attack.

    If Conservatives win, all is good.

    The major downside to this is that there's a chance we'll get the same result ... ;)
    Another election now would see Labour doing better.

    Britain Elects‏ @britainelects

    On who would make best Prime Minister:

    T. May: 39% (-4)
    J. Corbyn: 39% (+7)


    Britain Elects‏ @britainelects Jun 10
    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 45% (+5)
    CON: 39% (-3)
    LDEM: 7% (-)
    UKIP: 3% (+1)

    (via @Survation / 10 Jun)
    Chgs. w/ GE2017
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967

    DavidL said:

    As someone who is a Tory voter, albeit deeply unenthused by May, the theme that we have had 7 years of austerity and it somehow had failed as a policy frustrated me more than any other.

    Firstly, the policy has succeeded in reducing a completely unsustainable deficit by 2/3. Secondly, the idea that deficits don't matter is just plain wrong. It is theft from the next generation who will be spending their tax income on interest payments. Thirdly, the policy of "austerity" was applied with a very light touch with spending increasing in real terms every year, albeit at a much slower rate than we had been used to. Fourthly, most of the heavy lifting in terms of deficit reduction has been done by increased taxes on the higher earners whilst the tax burden on the lower paid has been reduced, the exact opposite of what was said thousands of times during the campaign and left unchallenged.

    Some of this is because the campaign was fought so badly. The Chancellor needs to be front and central in such debates as his office gives him authority and he is on top of the numbers. For as yet unexplained reasons May hid Hammond away throughout the campaign. It is pretty difficult to make economic management the issue of the day when your Chancellor is in hiding.

    The widely held perception now is that "austerity" is some sort of lifestyle choice as opposed to a grinding necessity. The Tories undermined their own messages on this by an unfunded Manifesto with no real attempt at pricing the cost of policies in it. This is catastrophic for the Tories, not just in this election but going forward. It puts them on the back foot when the next election comes.

    I pretty much agree with that.

    We have several choices to cover increased spending in the economy as a whole:
    1) Borrow
    2) Tax more
    3) Cut (austerity)
    4) Do things more efficiently

    The first is dishonest at a large scale; the fourth can only generate so much income.

    The real, honest choices are 2) and 3), or a combination thereof. If someone goes for number 2 in a large way, then the opposition (in this case the Conservatives) need to make it clear that everyone will end up paying, not just the rich.

    It'd be great if every man, woman and child got a yearly summary of how much they'd paid to the state, and how much they'd received back. I think it'd be an eyeopener for many. But impossible to do in practice.
    How many ways are there of doing 4 that don't need you to do 1 or 2 first?
    We heard that during the Gordon Brown 'investment' period.

    Lots of 1 and 2 but very little 4, often 4 was negative ie things became less efficient.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    HYUFD said:

    It looks like the Labour manifesto got going people out to vote for it with its giveaways on free tuition fees etc while the Tory manifesto turned off older voters with the ending of the triple lock and the 'dementia tax' etc

    Don't forget cutting WFA but allowing Scotland to keep it.

    Absolutely guaranteed to annoy voters in Northern England.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026
    HYUFD said:

    fitalass said:

    Pong said:

    The tory party are in one hell of a fix.

    If The Times is right, they're going to be easing austerity to keep providing wealthy elderly voters with ever more state-funded jam.

    The not-yet-retired ain't stupid. They realise the jam won't be around when they retire.

    They're the ones paying for the final act of baby boomer self-indulgence.

    Bring on the next election. The rationale for austerity has evaporated.

    Advantage: Labour.

    And yet the rationale behind a decade of austerity remains the very real economic mess this Conservative Government inherited from the last Labour one, advantage the Conservatives. There is no way the UK electorate are going to vote in another Labour Government until they can prove they have returned to the centre ground and embraced fiscal Prudence.. Whisper it quietly, but there was once a time when Gordon Brown used to talk about fiscal Prudence all the time back in the late 90s/early 2000s until he was forced to kiss it goodbye around 2008!
    I disagree, the populist left is on the rise, though ironically after Tsipras 2015 in Greece it may be the UK and US next to fall not Spain or France as we thought. Not only does Corbyn have a 6 point lead over May in the latest UK poll but Sanders has a 10 point lead over Trump in the latest US poll. However it may take socialism to make conservativism fashionable again, none of the under 40s voting for the left have any memory of the 1970s and the Wilson/Callaghan government and Carter administration
    And I am planning my family finances accordingly.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004

    What would have happened if we had exactly the same election result except Corbyn wasn't labour leader, miliband or someone mainstream was? Would the DUP in that situation have had even more leverage, openly playing both sides off against each other? Would they have put Labour in power? I do think in that situation we wouldn't be hearing the same criticisms of the DUP.

    My view, the tories have the right to try this, I don't think it's unconstitutional to try and negotiate with the DUP. but it is not going to end well for them. fair or unfair, the DUP association is going to become toxic for them, but more importantly they will be perceived as a weak and tired minority government at the end of their life expectancy. The earlier the election the better for them.

    Best thing for the Conservatives in the medium and long term would be another election: the longer May delays, the worse things are going to be.

    Get all the wise heads together and develop a *good* manifesto, along with the relevant marketing. Develop strong attack lines against Labour's policies. Prepare (and don' just call a GE with little communication with her team like May did).

    If Labour win, it'll probably be a minority government or a small majority. Rebuild and attack, attack, attack.

    If Conservatives win, all is good.

    The major downside to this is that there's a chance we'll get the same result ... ;)
    It does look like Theresa May will dump the dementia tax and fox hunting, reinstate the triple lock and WFA, and look to raising public sector pay.

    If the Queens Speech is generally seen as fair it could change the narrative and make it more difficult for labour to bring it down.

    The new Parliament will see McDonnell's economics coming under attack and much more scrutiny and their splits on Europe will be magnified as Corbyn needs out for his nationalisation programme but the vast majority of his MP's want in the single market.

    All in all we are in a dreadful state, both politically and economically
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026

    IanB2 said:

    It is not relevant. Ending FOM is about letting in people that we want and excluding people we do not. If we want nurses to enter the UK we simply make it an occupation for which visas are available. Just like every other country in the World, pretty much.

    If there is a backtrack on FOM to the extent required to join the EEA, the Tory party will be destroyed for a generation. A large number of Tory voters would never vote for them again. They are going to have to press ahead with ending it; they question is what they concede to the EU in its place and whether this passes the public test of a stitch up or genuine change.

    Can anyone explain what 'Soft' Brexit means any more? Is it:

    (a) SM membership, probably as a result of membership of the EEA?
    (b) Non SM membership but assuming we get what we want and we have to have a deal as we don't really want to deal with reality so lets pretend we are negotiating with ourselves?

    I respect people who say (a), although in my view this is never going to happen as the UK will never accept FOM.

    I suspect the people who really say (b) are going to find their position increasingly untenable as the EU pile on utterly unreasonable demands.

    The tectonic plates may be about to shift on FOM. That story about NHS nurses from the EU dropping 95% didn't appear in the newspapers at random
    You overlook the point that a pre-condition of being able to choose who comes here is our being attractive enough that a lot of people want to come. The nurse applications have collapsed not because of lost freedoms, but because we are trashing both our currency and our international reputation, making EU workers feel unwelcome and uncertain about their future.
    Currency is a huge factor. Potential foreign workers thinking of coming to the UK have now to contemplate an exchange rate that is substantially down and likely to fall further.
    So, it is all about economic migration then?

    That's nice to know.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    What would have happened if we had exactly the same election result except Corbyn wasn't labour leader, miliband or someone mainstream was? Would the DUP in that situation have had even more leverage, openly playing both sides off against each other? Would they have put Labour in power? I do think in that situation we wouldn't be hearing the same criticisms of the DUP.

    My view, the tories have the right to try this, I don't think it's unconstitutional to try and negotiate with the DUP. but it is not going to end well for them. fair or unfair, the DUP association is going to become toxic for them, but more importantly they will be perceived as a weak and tired minority government at the end of their life expectancy. The earlier the election the better for them.

    Best thing for the Conservatives in the medium and long term would be another election: the longer May delays, the worse things are going to be.

    Get all the wise heads together and develop a *good* manifesto, along with the relevant marketing. Develop strong attack lines against Labour's policies. Prepare (and don' just call a GE with little communication with her team like May did).

    If Labour win, it'll probably be a minority government or a small majority. Rebuild and attack, attack, attack.

    If Conservatives win, all is good.

    The major downside to this is that there's a chance we'll get the same result ... ;)
    Labour would win. Handily
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    Pulpstar said:

    What would have happened if we had exactly the same election result except Corbyn wasn't labour leader, miliband or someone mainstream was? Would the DUP in that situation have had even more leverage, openly playing both sides off against each other? Would they have put Labour in power? I do think in that situation we wouldn't be hearing the same criticisms of the DUP.

    My view, the tories have the right to try this, I don't think it's unconstitutional to try and negotiate with the DUP. but it is not going to end well for them. fair or unfair, the DUP association is going to become toxic for them, but more importantly they will be perceived as a weak and tired minority government at the end of their life expectancy. The earlier the election the better for them.

    Best thing for the Conservatives in the medium and long term would be another election: the longer May delays, the worse things are going to be.

    Get all the wise heads together and develop a *good* manifesto, along with the relevant marketing. Develop strong attack lines against Labour's policies. Prepare (and don' just call a GE with little communication with her team like May did).

    If Labour win, it'll probably be a minority government or a small majority. Rebuild and attack, attack, attack.

    If Conservatives win, all is good.

    The major downside to this is that there's a chance we'll get the same result ... ;)
    Labour would win. Handily
    Fair enough. Not a result I want, but if the people do, then so be it.

    That would still be a better result for the Conservatives, and possibly the country, than maintaining the current Zombie arrangement for five years. Think Major and '92.

    Worse, Corbyn will water down Brexit and the so-called 'conservative' bastards will come out of the woodwork again.
  • LadyBucketLadyBucket Posts: 590
    The last thing the conservatives need now is another election. They are not ready in any shape or form. They just need some breathing space and get through the next couple of weeks. Labour will be starting their reshuffle towards the end of the week and that should get some of the media off their backs.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026
    IanB2 said:

    I find this depressing, but not because one age group or another is changing tack. Its because from now on the party that dangles most carrots and promises to spend most money will win, its irresponsible and the road to ruin. People used to get respect for talking about tough decisions and priorities, now both parties are spunking money like sailors on a run ashore.

    This will end very badly and the irrelevance of Brexit will be a convenient if dishonest excuse.

    Agreed.
    Yes. The EU issue used just to poison internal Conservative politics, but now out of its cage the poison of Brexit is damaging the whole political environment.

    When did its advocates ever explain that if it were to be agreed, we would need to junk our entire approach to the economy this past six years?
    This election is not an opportunity to re-open the referendum debate.

    Both Labour and Conservative MPs were elected on a platform that accepted and respected the referendum outcome. They are both committed to making it happen.

    If Labour had stood on an explicitly anti-Brexit platform, you might have a point, but they didn't and if they had done so the Tories would in all likelihood have retained a clear majority.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited June 2017
    It seems that two significnt events happened In the last two weeks of the campaign.

    The first was irritation with the Tory manifesto. The second was an increasing depression by Remainers as Mrs May became more strident towards the EU.

    Neither of these made Corbyn any more electable or attractive to voters. At best it might lead to Tory abstentions (which subsequent polling showed didn't really happen).

    I was watching from France so missed a lot of the specifics but could see more clearly the overview and I've no doubt something changed in the final week that made a bumbling old lefty peacenik who wasn't even competent enought to see that Diane Abbott was a ridiculous Home Secretary into a person worth voting for.......

    .....I believe it was the Manchester concert. Days of hopeless gloom stretching into the horizon was momentarily lifted.......

    .....What was so disagreeable about an aging peacenik who wanted to make things better? Old Trafford showed what could happen when people came together .

    .......and it was at that point I decided that if I wasn't in France with an unsent postal vote i'd have voted for Jeremy.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    The last thing the country needs is another election. PM Corbyn would be a bad bad idea.
    The current situation is as good as it can get, and I was heartened to hear talks across the chamber on Brexit.
    Gove was encouraging too as environment on the radio and sounds like a vast improvement over Patterson/Leads.
    Will look at the science for the badger cull.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    edited June 2017

    HYUFD said:

    It looks like the Labour manifesto got going people out to vote for it with its giveaways on free tuition fees etc while the Tory manifesto turned off older voters with the ending of the triple lock and the 'dementia tax' etc

    Don't forget cutting WFA but allowing Scotland to keep it.

    Absolutely guaranteed to annoy voters in Northern England.
    It was the manifesto wot lost it.

    In a way a rather refreshing outcome. In an age where the pundits say no voters cares too tupence for the policies and never pays any attention to them, but focuses instead on leadership and general mood music of the parties, two sets of policies have determined the election.

    Edit: I suspect rather more attention will be paid next time
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    edited June 2017
    JenS said:

    The DUP will be pleased with the new Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, anyway.

    Against gay marriage. Against civil partnerships. Against a UN LGBT envoy. Against the equalisation of the age of consent. Against the repeal of section 28.

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/06/12/theresa-may-appoints-anti-lgbt-justice-secretary-in-the-middle-of-dup-negotiations/

    I'm sure they're also hoping that the Maybot will reboot to 'don't let the gayers frighten the horses' version 1.0.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026
    Pulpstar said:

    The last thing the country needs is another election. PM Corbyn would be a bad bad idea.
    The current situation is as good as it can get, and I was heartened to hear talks across the chamber on Brexit.
    Gove was encouraging too as environment on the radio and sounds like a vast improvement over Patterson/Leads.
    Will look at the science for the badger cull.

    Gove will impress.

    A cross-party consensus on Brexit is probably a good thing.

    Tories should govern in the best interests of the UK as a whole as far as is possible, and hope their defeat in GE2022 is as limited as possible, or a huge white swan turns up post Brexit to save them.

    It might. You never know.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited June 2017

    Both Labour and Conservative MPs were elected on a platform that accepted and respected the referendum outcome.

    And neither party has a mandate to deliver it.

    Isn't democracy great?

    Will the whining of the Brexiteers ever end...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,774

    The last thing the conservatives need now is another election. They are not ready in any shape or form. They just need some breathing space and get through the next couple of weeks. Labour will be starting their reshuffle towards the end of the week and that should get some of the media off their backs.

    Even if a fresh election could be engineered, the voters would probably look unkindly at the Conservatives for calling it.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    Pulpstar said:

    The last thing the country needs is another election. PM Corbyn would be a bad bad idea.
    The current situation is as good as it can get, and I was heartened to hear talks across the chamber on Brexit.
    Gove was encouraging too as environment on the radio and sounds like a vast improvement over Patterson/Leads.
    Will look at the science for the badger cull.

    I disagree. The proposed arrangement will be unsustainable in the medium term and will harm the country.

    And the results of "talks across the chamber on Brexit" will just enrage the Conservative 'bastards', making May's life even more difficult.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    The last thing the conservatives need now is another election. They are not ready in any shape or form. They just need some breathing space and get through the next couple of weeks. Labour will be starting their reshuffle towards the end of the week and that should get some of the media off their backs.

    Wishful thinking.

    The media are rarely, if at all, interested in the deckchairs being moved around the Opposition ship. The only story in town is the continuing Conservative Crackpot Coalition of Chaos. It's set to run and run.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    And the results of "talks across the chamber on Brexit" will just enrage the Conservative 'bastards', making May's life even more difficult.

    May doesn't need to keep the bastards onside if she can get Labour to outvote them
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026

    What would have happened if we had exactly the same election result except Corbyn wasn't labour leader, miliband or someone mainstream was? Would the DUP in that situation have had even more leverage, openly playing both sides off against each other? Would they have put Labour in power? I do think in that situation we wouldn't be hearing the same criticisms of the DUP.

    My view, the tories have the right to try this, I don't think it's unconstitutional to try and negotiate with the DUP. but it is not going to end well for them. fair or unfair, the DUP association is going to become toxic for them, but more importantly they will be perceived as a weak and tired minority government at the end of their life expectancy. The earlier the election the better for them.

    Best thing for the Conservatives in the medium and long term would be another election: the longer May delays, the worse things are going to be.

    Get all the wise heads together and develop a *good* manifesto, along with the relevant marketing. Develop strong attack lines against Labour's policies. Prepare (and don' just call a GE with little communication with her team like May did).

    If Labour win, it'll probably be a minority government or a small majority. Rebuild and attack, attack, attack.

    If Conservatives win, all is good.

    The major downside to this is that there's a chance we'll get the same result ... ;)
    Another election now would see Labour doing better.

    Britain Elects‏ @britainelects

    On who would make best Prime Minister:

    T. May: 39% (-4)
    J. Corbyn: 39% (+7)


    Britain Elects‏ @britainelects Jun 10
    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 45% (+5)
    CON: 39% (-3)
    LDEM: 7% (-)
    UKIP: 3% (+1)

    (via @Survation / 10 Jun)
    Chgs. w/ GE2017
    Corbyn would be a left-wing Trump and his administration would have a half-life of about 12 months. None of the fundamental issues he has (and were revealed to Labour MPs and the media on multiple occasions over the preceding 21 months) with basic administrative competence, staff management, parliamentary whipping, fiscal probity or any sense of flexibility over his ideological dogma have gone away.

    The Tories will move heaven and earth to avoid another election.

    It. Is. Not. Happening.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004

    IanB2 said:

    I find this depressing, but not because one age group or another is changing tack. Its because from now on the party that dangles most carrots and promises to spend most money will win, its irresponsible and the road to ruin. People used to get respect for talking about tough decisions and priorities, now both parties are spunking money like sailors on a run ashore.

    This will end very badly and the irrelevance of Brexit will be a convenient if dishonest excuse.

    Agreed.
    Yes. The EU issue used just to poison internal Conservative politics, but now out of its cage the poison of Brexit is damaging the whole political environment.

    When did its advocates ever explain that if it were to be agreed, we would need to junk our entire approach to the economy this past six years?
    This election is not an opportunity to re-open the referendum debate.

    Both Labour and Conservative MPs were elected on a platform that accepted and respected the referendum outcome. They are both committed to making it happen.

    If Labour had stood on an explicitly anti-Brexit platform, you might have a point, but they didn't and if they had done so the Tories would in all likelihood have retained a clear majority.
    The realityis that all the indications are that the only Brexit that has any chance of success now is a soft Brexit.

    TM sacked David Jones last night. I have known David for over 40 years, campaigned with him and exchange regular text messages, and he was a dedicated Brexit Minister who led the Brexit campaign in Wales.

    For David to be replaced by a remainer tells you all you need to know about the direction of travel
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Scott_P said:

    Both Labour and Conservative MPs were elected on a platform that accepted and respected the referendum outcome.

    And neither party has a mandate to deliver it.

    Isn't democracy great?

    Will the whining of the Brexiteers ever end...
    No, as they are watching their precious slip away from them.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    Currency is a huge factor. Potential foreign workers thinking of coming to the UK have now to contemplate an exchange rate that is substantially down and likely to fall further.

    So, it is all about economic migration then?
    That's nice to know.
    I thought that was the idea, as far as the EU is concerned.

    And conversely, of course. Our people would now find it made economic sense to go and work in Poland etc. Except that the Leavers, having sunk the pound, don`t want them to be able to. All very strange.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088

    IanB2 said:

    I find this depressing, but not because one age group or another is changing tack. Its because from now on the party that dangles most carrots and promises to spend most money will win, its irresponsible and the road to ruin. People used to get respect for talking about tough decisions and priorities, now both parties are spunking money like sailors on a run ashore.

    This will end very badly and the irrelevance of Brexit will be a convenient if dishonest excuse.

    Agreed.
    Yes. The EU issue used just to poison internal Conservative politics, but now out of its cage the poison of Brexit is damaging the whole political environment.

    When did its advocates ever explain that if it were to be agreed, we would need to junk our entire approach to the economy this past six years?
    This election is not an opportunity to re-open the referendum debate.

    Both Labour and Conservative MPs were elected on a platform that accepted and respected the referendum outcome. They are both committed to making it happen.

    If Labour had stood on an explicitly anti-Brexit platform, you might have a point, but they didn't and if they had done so the Tories would in all likelihood have retained a clear majority.
    That doesn't negate my point that it is obsession with Brexit that has led the Tories to junk their own economic policy. Lack of a coherent story on the economy weakened the Tory position last week, making it difficult to counter Labour's superficially more optimistic prospectus.

    And it is also clear that the election is a rejection of May's approach to Brexit, which was the specific reason for calling the election. See today's Telegraph lead story.

    As it happens, I do see a scenario opened up now where Brexit may never happen, which is a change from last week. It is undeniable that the mandate from 2016, whilst very much still in play, is now tarnished by last week's vote. Every time there is a national vote, it puts a different perspective on things. But that wasn't the reason for my comment.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    Scott_P said:

    And the results of "talks across the chamber on Brexit" will just enrage the Conservative 'bastards', making May's life even more difficult.

    May doesn't need to keep the bastards onside if she can get Labour to outvote them
    This not about votes in the Commons; it's about internal Conservative machinations. Remember all the chaos of the 1992-1997 Conservative government? Yes, it was tired. Yes, Labour had a great spin operation going. But another major factor in the chaos was the internal problems within the party, and the 'bastards'.

    They were the ones who forced Major to have a leadership contest, and even losing that did not shut them up.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Sean_F said:

    The last thing the conservatives need now is another election. They are not ready in any shape or form. They just need some breathing space and get through the next couple of weeks. Labour will be starting their reshuffle towards the end of the week and that should get some of the media off their backs.

    Even if a fresh election could be engineered, the voters would probably look unkindly at the Conservatives for calling it.
    Quite so Sean.

    The Tories require a period of calm and er .... strong and stable government. The biggest danger for them is that they give the appearance of incompetence.

    Under Cameron, voters on balance, felt that austerity was a necessary evil being managed competently. Now the punters smell blood, they want an end to austerity and appear to be coming to a settled view that the PM might be a dud and the Tories have the smell of decay about them.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669

    What would have happened if we had exactly the same election result except Corbyn wasn't labour leader, miliband or someone mainstream was? Would the DUP in that situation have had even more leverage, openly playing both sides off against each other? Would they have put Labour in power? I do think in that situation we wouldn't be hearing the same criticisms of the DUP.

    My view, the tories have the right to try this, I don't think it's unconstitutional to try and negotiate with the DUP. but it is not going to end well for them. fair or unfair, the DUP association is going to become toxic for them, but more importantly they will be perceived as a weak and tired minority government at the end of their life expectancy. The earlier the election the better for them.

    Best thing for the Conservatives in the medium and long term would be another election: the longer May delays, the worse things are going to be.

    Get all the wise heads together and develop a *good* manifesto, along with the relevant marketing. Develop strong attack lines against Labour's policies. Prepare (and don' just call a GE with little communication with her team like May did).

    If Labour win, it'll probably be a minority government or a small majority. Rebuild and attack, attack, attack.

    If Conservatives win, all is good.

    The major downside to this is that there's a chance we'll get the same result ... ;)
    Another election now would see Labour doing better.

    Britain Elects‏ @britainelects

    On who would make best Prime Minister:

    T. May: 39% (-4)
    J. Corbyn: 39% (+7)


    Britain Elects‏ @britainelects Jun 10
    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 45% (+5)
    CON: 39% (-3)
    LDEM: 7% (-)
    UKIP: 3% (+1)

    (via @Survation / 10 Jun)
    Chgs. w/ GE2017
    Corbyn would be a left-wing Trump and his administration would have a half-life of about 12 months. None of the fundamental issues he has (and were revealed to Labour MPs and the media on multiple occasions over the preceding 21 months) with basic administrative competence, staff management, parliamentary whipping, fiscal probity or any sense of flexibility over his ideological dogma have gone away.

    The Tories will move heaven and earth to avoid another election.

    It. Is. Not. Happening.
    Agreed. The reason it's not happening is that it would not go any better and may go worse for the Tories.
    They HAVE to deliver a reasonable Brexit, pleasing as near 100% of the electorate as possible (and that now includes the young who have seen that their votes matter) rather than the 52%.
  • Gadfly said:

    DavidL is spot on with assessment about those seeking to inherit being a factor.

    I also suspect that plenty of grandparents will of voted in favour of their grandchildren not being burdened with student debt.

    Having looked into this for myself over the last few days, it may well be that you are right and that they misled themselves into thinking this.

    The so-called debt is just a tax, it applies only above £21k of earnings, and even inclusive of it, a graduate has proportionately less stopped from their pay than I did 30 years ago when the marginal tax plus NI rate on earnings above £2,205 was 39%.

    Grandparents must think therefore that as well as everyone having a degree everyone who has one should be taxed less than in the past.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Express reporting Sinn Fein are going to take their seats in the HOC but not on the news. !!

    If they do that would be to vote for Corbyn so they can have no further complaints about the DUP
    Eh? The argument is that the government must not pick sides in NI. Whatever the NI parties vote for is up to them.
    Given Corbyn's history of support for Sinn Fein that argument is now dead and it is Sinn Fein who have refused to powershare with the DUP
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    edited June 2017

    What would have happened if we had exactly the same election result except Corbyn wasn't labour leader, miliband or someone mainstream was? Would the DUP in that situation have had even more leverage, openly playing both sides off against each other? Would they have put Labour in power? I do think in that situation we wouldn't be hearing the same criticisms of the DUP.

    My view, the tories have the right to try this, I don't think it's unconstitutional to try and negotiate with the DUP. but it is not going to end well for them. fair or unfair, the DUP association is going to become toxic for them, but more importantly they will be perceived as a weak and tired minority government at the end of their life expectancy. The earlier the election the better for them.

    Best thing for the Conservatives in the medium and long term would be another election: the longer May delays, the worse things are going to be.

    Get all the wise heads together and develop a *good* manifesto, along with the relevant marketing. Develop strong attack lines against Labour's policies. Prepare (and don' just call a GE with little communication with her team like May did).

    If Labour win, it'll probably be a minority government or a small majority. Rebuild and attack, attack, attack.

    If Conservatives win, all is good.

    The major downside to this is that there's a chance we'll get the same result ... ;)
    Another election now would see Labour doing better.

    Britain Elects‏ @britainelects

    On who would make best Prime Minister:

    T. May: 39% (-4)
    J. Corbyn: 39% (+7)


    Britain Elects‏ @britainelects Jun 10
    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 45% (+5)
    CON: 39% (-3)
    LDEM: 7% (-)
    UKIP: 3% (+1)

    (via @Survation / 10 Jun)
    Chgs. w/ GE2017
    Corbyn would be a left-wing Trump and his administration would have a half-life of about 12 months. None of the fundamental issues he has (and were revealed to Labour MPs and the media on multiple occasions over the preceding 21 months) with basic administrative competence, staff management, parliamentary whipping, fiscal probity or any sense of flexibility over his ideological dogma have gone away.

    The Tories will move heaven and earth to avoid another election.

    It. Is. Not. Happening.
    Because politicians' default reaction when in a hole is to play for time and hope that a ladder turns up.

    The rational assessment for the Tories is:

    Likely election outcome now v Likely result when Con/DUP collapses + what gvt can deliver meantime
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669

    Scott_P said:

    And the results of "talks across the chamber on Brexit" will just enrage the Conservative 'bastards', making May's life even more difficult.

    May doesn't need to keep the bastards onside if she can get Labour to outvote them
    This not about votes in the Commons; it's about internal Conservative machinations. Remember all the chaos of the 1992-1997 Conservative government? Yes, it was tired. Yes, Labour had a great spin operation going. But another major factor in the chaos was the internal problems within the party, and the 'bastards'.

    They were the ones who forced Major to have a leadership contest, and even losing that did not shut them up.
    There's a certain amount of schadenfreude in seeing IDS on on side and Corbyn on the other calling for loyalty.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    It is not relevant. Ending FOM is about letting in people that we want and excluding people we do not. If we want nurses to enter the UK we simply make it an occupation for which visas are available. Just like every other country in the World, pretty much.

    If there is a backtrack on FOM to the extent required to join the EEA, the Tory party will be destroyed for a generation. A large number of Tory voters would never vote for them again. They are going to have to press ahead with ending it; they question is what they concede to the EU in its place and whether this passes the public test of a stitch up or genuine change.

    Can anyone explain what 'Soft' Brexit means any more? Is it:

    (a) SM membership, probably as a result of membership of the EEA?
    (b) Non SM membership but assuming we get what we want and we have to have a deal as we don't really want to deal with reality so lets pretend we are negotiating with ourselves?

    I respect people who say (a), although in my view this is never going to happen as the UK will never accept FOM.

    I suspect the people who really say (b) are going to find their position increasingly untenable as the EU pile on utterly unreasonable demands.

    The tectonic plates may be about to shift on FOM. That story about NHS nurses from the EU dropping 95% didn't appear in the newspapers at random
    You overlook the point that a pre-condition of being able to choose who comes here is our being attractive enough that a lot of people want to come. The nurse applications have collapsed not because of lost freedoms, but because we are trashing both our currency and our international reputation, making EU workers feel unwelcome and uncertain about their future.
    EU nurses make up 5% of nurses overall and a tougher language requirement may also have been a factor, applications from outside the EU for nursing are actually up there is no reason we cannot prioritise skills we need like nursing etc
    During the last two years I have been an impatient twice, and both times most of the nurses came from the EU - Bulgaria, Spain, Portugal, you name it. The 5% figure seems incredible to me. Maybe it's just a London/South East thing, but the hospitals I visit appear to run on EU staff.
    The 5% figure is correct
    https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/workforce/significant-drop-in-eu-nurse-numbers-for-first-time-in-years/7015097.article
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    IanB2 said:

    What would have happened if we had exactly the same election result except Corbyn wasn't labour leader, miliband or someone mainstream was? Would the DUP in that situation have had even more leverage, openly playing both sides off against each other? Would they have put Labour in power? I do think in that situation we wouldn't be hearing the same criticisms of the DUP.

    My view, the tories have the right to try this, I don't think it's unconstitutional to try and negotiate with the DUP. but it is not going to end well for them. fair or unfair, the DUP association is going to become toxic for them, but more importantly they will be perceived as a weak and tired minority government at the end of their life expectancy. The earlier the election the better for them.

    Best thing for the Conservatives in the medium and long term would be another election: the longer May delays, the worse things are going to be.

    Get all the wise heads together and develop a *good* manifesto, along with the relevant marketing. Develop strong attack lines against Labour's policies. Prepare (and don' just call a GE with little communication with her team like May did).

    If Labour win, it'll probably be a minority government or a small majority. Rebuild and attack, attack, attack.

    If Conservatives win, all is good.

    The major downside to this is that there's a chance we'll get the same result ... ;)
    Another election now would see Labour doing better.

    Britain Elects‏ @britainelects

    On who would make best Prime Minister:

    T. May: 39% (-4)
    J. Corbyn: 39% (+7)


    Britain Elects‏ @britainelects Jun 10
    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 45% (+5)
    CON: 39% (-3)
    LDEM: 7% (-)
    UKIP: 3% (+1)

    (via @Survation / 10 Jun)
    Chgs. w/ GE2017
    Corbyn would be a left-wing Trump and his administration would have a half-life of about 12 months. None of the fundamental issues he has (and were revealed to Labour MPs and the media on multiple occasions over the preceding 21 months) with basic administrative competence, staff management, parliamentary whipping, fiscal probity or any sense of flexibility over his ideological dogma have gone away.

    The Tories will move heaven and earth to avoid another election.

    It. Is. Not. Happening.
    Because politicians' default reaction when in a hole is to play for time and hope that a ladder turns up.

    The rational assessment for the Tories is:

    Likely election outcome now v Likely result when Con/DUP collapses + what gvt can deliver meantime
    Labour wins whenever the election is held - so utter loyalty and unity is in the Tories (An countries) best interest. I still don't think Corbyn would be a good PM.
  • DeafblokeDeafbloke Posts: 69

    What would have happened if we had exactly the same election result except Corbyn wasn't labour leader, miliband or someone mainstream was? Would the DUP in that situation have had even more leverage, openly playing both sides off against each other? Would they have put Labour in power? I do think in that situation we wouldn't be hearing the same criticisms of the DUP.

    My view, the tories have the right to try this, I don't think it's unconstitutional to try and negotiate with the DUP. but it is not going to end well for them. fair or unfair, the DUP association is going to become toxic for them, but more importantly they will be perceived as a weak and tired minority government at the end of their life expectancy. The earlier the election the better for them.

    Best thing for the Conservatives in the medium and long term would be another election: the longer May delays, the worse things are going to be.

    Get all the wise heads together and develop a *good* manifesto, along with the relevant marketing. Develop strong attack lines against Labour's policies. Prepare (and don' just call a GE with little communication with her team like May did).

    If Labour win, it'll probably be a minority government or a small majority. Rebuild and attack, attack, attack.

    If Conservatives win, all is good.

    The major downside to this is that there's a chance we'll get the same result ... ;)
    It does look like Theresa May will dump the dementia tax and fox hunting, reinstate the triple lock and WFA, and look to raising public sector pay.

    If the Queens Speech is generally seen as fair it could change the narrative and make it more difficult for labour to bring it down.

    The new Parliament will see McDonnell's economics coming under attack and much more scrutiny and their splits on Europe will be magnified as Corbyn needs out for his nationalisation programme but the vast majority of his MP's want in the single market.

    All in all we are in a dreadful state, both politically and economically
    The question you have to ask yourself is, why, after 7 years of tory led government, are we in such a dreadful economic mess?

    That explains the political mess. Thankfully, the tories have reacted calmly, rather than forming the circular firing squad to date. That needs to carry on.

    They then need to completely reform economic policy, rather than continue to be run by the Treasury . civil service orthodoxy that brought both the multiple omnishambles budgets of Osborne, and that manifesto.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    How can anyone call them backward looking bigots lacking in self awareness?

    https://twitter.com/gibbygibbo1/status/874414759357100033
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    fitalass said:

    Pong said:

    The tory party are in one hell of a fix.

    If The Times is right, they're going to be easing austerity to keep providing wealthy elderly voters with ever more state-funded jam.

    The not-yet-retired ain't stupid. They realise the jam won't be around when they retire.

    They're the ones paying for the final act of baby boomer self-indulgence.

    Bring on the next election. The rationale for austerity has evaporated.

    Advantage: Labour.

    And yet the rationale behind a decade of austerity remains the very real economic mess this Conservative Government inherited from the last Labour one, advantage the Conservatives. There is no way the UK electorate are going to vote in another Labour Government until they can prove they have returned to the centre ground and embraced fiscal Prudence.. Whisper it quietly, but there was once a time when Gordon Brown used to talk about fiscal Prudence all the time back in the late 90s/early 2000s until he was forced to kiss it goodbye around 2008!
    I disagree, the populist left is on the rise, though ironically after Tsipras 2015 in Greece it may be the UK and US next to fall not Spain or France as we thought. Not only does Corbyn have a 6 point lead over May in the latest UK poll but Sanders has a 10 point lead over Trump in the latest US poll. However it may take socialism to make conservativism fashionable again, none of the under 40s voting for the left have any memory of the 1970s and the Wilson/Callaghan government and Carter administration
    And I am planning my family finances accordingly.
    So am I
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Scott_P said:

    Both Labour and Conservative MPs were elected on a platform that accepted and respected the referendum outcome.

    And neither party has a mandate to deliver it.

    Isn't democracy great?

    Will the whining of the Brexiteers ever end...
    Self awareness tumbleweed
  • IanB2 said:

    I find this depressing, but not because one age group or another is changing tack. Its because from now on the party that dangles most carrots and promises to spend most money will win, its irresponsible and the road to ruin. People used to get respect for talking about tough decisions and priorities, now both parties are spunking money like sailors on a run ashore.

    This will end very badly and the irrelevance of Brexit will be a convenient if dishonest excuse.

    Agreed.
    Yes. The EU issue used just to poison internal Conservative politics, but now out of its cage the poison of Brexit is damaging the whole political environment.

    When did its advocates ever explain that if it were to be agreed, we would need to junk our entire approach to the economy this past six years?
    This election is not an opportunity to re-open the referendum debate.

    Both Labour and Conservative MPs were elected on a platform that accepted and respected the referendum outcome. They are both committed to making it happen.

    If Labour had stood on an explicitly anti-Brexit platform, you might have a point, but they didn't and if they had done so the Tories would in all likelihood have retained a clear majority.
    The realityis that all the indications are that the only Brexit that has any chance of success now is a soft Brexit.

    TM sacked David Jones last night. I have known David for over 40 years, campaigned with him and exchange regular text messages, and he was a dedicated Brexit Minister who led the Brexit campaign in Wales.

    For David to be replaced by a remainer tells you all you need to know about the direction of travel
    But to what extent is a soft Brexit even on the table? The members of EFTA, for example, are still required to implement the four freedoms. It's all very well us talking about a soft Brexit, but it's hard to imagine the EU and the other EFTA countries agreeing to anything other than either Brexit in name only, or complete.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,774

    Scott_P said:

    And the results of "talks across the chamber on Brexit" will just enrage the Conservative 'bastards', making May's life even more difficult.

    May doesn't need to keep the bastards onside if she can get Labour to outvote them
    This not about votes in the Commons; it's about internal Conservative machinations. Remember all the chaos of the 1992-1997 Conservative government? Yes, it was tired. Yes, Labour had a great spin operation going. But another major factor in the chaos was the internal problems within the party, and the 'bastards'.

    They were the ones who forced Major to have a leadership contest, and even losing that did not shut them up.
    I would hope the Conservatives have had a big enough fright not to repeat their behaviour during those years.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited June 2017

    HYUFD said:

    It looks like the Labour manifesto got going people out to vote for it with its giveaways on free tuition fees etc while the Tory manifesto turned off older voters with the ending of the triple lock and the 'dementia tax' etc

    Don't forget cutting WFA but allowing Scotland to keep it.

    Absolutely guaranteed to annoy voters in Northern England.
    It helped win seats in Scotland though, May put it in the English and Welsh manifesto but Davidson shrewdly kept it out in Scotland
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited June 2017

    How can anyone call them backward looking bigots lacking in self awareness?

    https://twitter.com/gibbygibbo1/status/874414759357100033

    ''isn't it ironic, don't you think.'' :lol:
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    IanB2 said:

    I find this depressing, but not because one age group or another is changing tack. Its because from now on the party that dangles most carrots and promises to spend most money will win, its irresponsible and the road to ruin. People used to get respect for talking about tough decisions and priorities, now both parties are spunking money like sailors on a run ashore.

    This will end very badly and the irrelevance of Brexit will be a convenient if dishonest excuse.

    Agreed.
    Yes. The EU issue used just to poison internal Conservative politics, but now out of its cage the poison of Brexit is damaging the whole political environment.

    When did its advocates ever explain that if it were to be agreed, we would need to junk our entire approach to the economy this past six years?
    This election is not an opportunity to re-open the referendum debate.

    Both Labour and Conservative MPs were elected on a platform that accepted and respected the referendum outcome. They are both committed to making it happen.

    If Labour had stood on an explicitly anti-Brexit platform, you might have a point, but they didn't and if they had done so the Tories would in all likelihood have retained a clear majority.
    The realityis that all the indications are that the only Brexit that has any chance of success now is a soft Brexit.

    TM sacked David Jones last night. I have known David for over 40 years, campaigned with him and exchange regular text messages, and he was a dedicated Brexit Minister who led the Brexit campaign in Wales.

    For David to be replaced by a remainer tells you all you need to know about the direction of travel
    But to what extent is a soft Brexit even on the table? The members of EFTA, for example, are still required to implement the four freedoms. It's all very well us talking about a soft Brexit, but it's hard to imagine the EU and the other EFTA countries agreeing to anything other than either Brexit in name only, or complete.
    It's a question of cutting back expectations to the point that there is a consensus that Brexit itself is a pointless misdirection of energy. Once we start talking about staying in the customs union and keeping free movement, many ardent Leavers will think that staying in the EU is preferable to being an appendage of it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    It is not relevant. Ending FOM is about letting in people that we want and excluding people we do not. If we want nurses to enter the UK we simply make it an occupation for which visas are available. Just like every other country in the World, pretty much.

    If there is a backtrack on FOM to the extent required to join the EEA, the Tory party will be destroyed for a generation. A large number of Tory voters would never vote for them again. They are going to have to press ahead with ending it; they question is what they concede to the EU in its place and whether this passes the public test of a stitch up or genuine change.

    Can anyone explain what 'Soft' Brexit means any more? Is it:

    (a) SM membership, probably as a result of membership of the EEA?
    (b) Non SM membership but assuming we get what we want and we have to have a deal as we don't really want to deal with reality so lets pretend we are negotiating with ourselves?

    I respect people who say (a), although in my view this is never going to happen as the UK will never accept FOM.

    I suspect the people who really say (b) are going to find their position increasingly untenable as the EU pile on utterly unreasonable demands.

    The tectonic plates may be about to shift on FOM. That story about NHS nurses from the EU dropping 95% didn't appear in the newspapers at random
    You overlook the point that a pre-condition of being able to choose who comes here is our being attractive enough that a lot of people want to come. The nurse applications have collapsed not because of lost freedoms, but because we are trashing both our currency and our international reputation, making EU workers feel unwelcome and uncertain about their future.
    EU nurses make up 5% of nurses overall and a tougher language requirement may also have been a factor, applications from outside the EU for nursing are actually up there is no reason we cannot prioritise skills we need like nursing etc
    During the last two years I have been an impatient twice, and both times most of the nurses came from the EU - Bulgaria, Spain, Portugal, you name it. The 5% figure seems incredible to me. Maybe it's just a London/South East thing, but the hospitals I visit appear to run on EU staff.
    The 5% figure is correct
    https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/workforce/significant-drop-in-eu-nurse-numbers-for-first-time-in-years/7015097.article
    I am guessing they are not evenly distributed across the UK
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:

    And the results of "talks across the chamber on Brexit" will just enrage the Conservative 'bastards', making May's life even more difficult.

    May doesn't need to keep the bastards onside if she can get Labour to outvote them
    This not about votes in the Commons; it's about internal Conservative machinations. Remember all the chaos of the 1992-1997 Conservative government? Yes, it was tired. Yes, Labour had a great spin operation going. But another major factor in the chaos was the internal problems within the party, and the 'bastards'.

    They were the ones who forced Major to have a leadership contest, and even losing that did not shut them up.
    I would hope the Conservatives have had a big enough fright not to repeat their behaviour during those years.
    Why? They've just repeated it with Brexit. They got rid of a good, electable leader and replaced him with an over-promoted chancer who also swept out many good people.

    And they'll do it again, and again, and again, until they get what they want. Which is fair enough, as they place what they want over everything else.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    edited June 2017

    IanB2 said:

    I find this depressing, but not because one age group or another is changing tack. Its because from now on the party that dangles most carrots and promises to spend most money will win, its irresponsible and the road to ruin. People used to get respect for talking about tough decisions and priorities, now both parties are spunking money like sailors on a run ashore.

    This will end very badly and the irrelevance of Brexit will be a convenient if dishonest excuse.

    Agreed.
    Yes. The EU issue used just to poison internal Conservative politics, but now out of its cage the poison of Brexit is damaging the whole political environment.

    When did its advocates ever explain that if it were to be agreed, we would need to junk our entire approach to the economy this past six years?
    This election is not an opportunity to re-open the referendum debate.

    Both Labour and Conservative MPs were elected on a platform that accepted and respected the referendum outcome. They are both committed to making it happen.

    If Labour had stood on an explicitly anti-Brexit platform, you might have a point, but they didn't and if they had done so the Tories would in all likelihood have retained a clear majority.
    The realityis that all the indications are that the only Brexit that has any chance of success now is a soft Brexit.

    TM sacked David Jones last night. I have known David for over 40 years, campaigned with him and exchange regular text messages, and he was a dedicated Brexit Minister who led the Brexit campaign in Wales.

    For David to be replaced by a remainer tells you all you need to know about the direction of travel
    But to what extent is a soft Brexit even on the table? The members of EFTA, for example, are still required to implement the four freedoms. It's all very well us talking about a soft Brexit, but it's hard to imagine the EU and the other EFTA countries agreeing to anything other than either Brexit in name only, or complete.
    To be honest I do not think anyone has a clue. The frightening think is that business confidence and the pound are tanking and our reputation abroad is frankly embarrassing, and sadly I do not see stability anytime soon. It is a requirement that all politicians realise the danger we are in and work together.

    Inflation up to 2.9% (just announced)
  • trawltrawl Posts: 142
    "May doesn't need to keep the bastards onside"

    Hmm, MPs you mean. What about voters? The thread is about a drop in the Tory old vote. What will be the effect there of a Brexit betrayal on the Tories' watch. May has previously promised no FOM therefore no SM, no ECJ and gained plenty of votes (losing seats of course).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited June 2017

    Inflation up to 2.9% (just announced)

    That will focus Tory minds.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @BBCNormanS: Don't reopen debate over Brexit - IDS warning to ministers and "minority" of Tory MPs

    PMSL
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    How can anyone call them backward looking bigots lacking in self awareness?

    https://twitter.com/gibbygibbo1/status/874414759357100033

    Salmond "a born again Jacobite". :smiley:
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    edited June 2017

    IanB2 said:

    I find this depressing, but not because one age group or another is changing tack. Its because from now on the party that dangles most carrots and promises to spend most money will win, its irresponsible and the road to ruin. People used to get respect for talking about tough decisions and priorities, now both parties are spunking money like sailors on a run ashore.

    This will end very badly and the irrelevance of Brexit will be a convenient if dishonest excuse.

    Agreed.
    Yes. The EU issue used just to poison internal Conservative politics, but now out of its cage the poison of Brexit is damaging the whole political environment.

    When did its advocates ever explain that if it were to be agreed, we would need to junk our entire approach to the economy this past six years?
    This election is not an opportunity to re-open the referendum debate.

    Both Labour and Conservative MPs were elected on a platform that accepted and respected the referendum outcome. They are both committed to making it happen.

    If Labour had stood on an explicitly anti-Brexit platform, you might have a point, but they didn't and if they had done so the Tories would in all likelihood have retained a clear majority.
    The realityis that all the indications are that the only Brexit that has any chance of success now is a soft Brexit.

    TM sacked David Jones last night. I have known David for over 40 years, campaigned with him and exchange regular text messages, and he was a dedicated Brexit Minister who led the Brexit campaign in Wales.

    For David to be replaced by a remainer tells you all you need to know about the direction of travel
    But to what extent is a soft Brexit even on the table? The members of EFTA, for example, are still required to implement the four freedoms. It's all very well us talking about a soft Brexit, but it's hard to imagine the EU and the other EFTA countries agreeing to anything other than either Brexit in name only, or complete.
    We can put it on the table. The EU look set on the process. Exit fees, citizens and Ireland first, final destination agreed in principle second, transition extensions third, then exit in March 2019.EEA could be the final destination, which would make the transition easier.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Pulpstar said:

    Inflation up to 2.9% (just announced)

    That will focus Tory minds.
    It makes debate about the triple lock somewhat academic for now.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,013
    Deafbloke said:

    The question you have to ask yourself is, why, after 7 years of tory led government, are we in such a dreadful economic mess?

    That explains the political mess. Thankfully, the tories have reacted calmly, rather than forming the circular firing squad to date. That needs to carry on.

    They then need to completely reform economic policy, rather than continue to be run by the Treasury . civil service orthodoxy that brought both the multiple omnishambles budgets of Osborne, and that manifesto.

    We need to relaunch basic economic principles. One is called "Capitalism". It states that in order to sell your product / service you need customers who want to buy and have the means to do so. For a decade we covered their inability to buy with a homeowner loan from Ocean Finance, but thats long gone. We've had a decade of grinding austerity where we cut everything as unaffordable, then wonder why we're in such a mess that we've run up another £700bn in debt at the same time.

    Capitalism 101. Invest in capacity, infrastructure, people. Generate a return on that investment. The Tories burned £700bn for day to day bills and got no return, having persuaded people that investment = subsidy = communism. We need to return to investment. And yes, that will mean more borrowing. But if the ROI is 4:1 or 6:1 then so what? Right now interest rates for governments are close to zero AND there are sovereign wealth funds crying out for big projects to safely stick their cash in.

    This government wants to get out of this pit its dug? Show people it "gives a toss about stuff" as the fabulous Julie Hesmondhalgh said at the Labour manifesto launch. Invest in skills and public transport and fibre broadband and clean power generation and new roads and rails and Heathrow. Give people a job. They have cash to spend on things, which gives other people a job. Their business then expands and invests, creating more jobs. And more disposable income to spend. Capitalism. Proper capitalism, not the sell it for a profit this quarter and fuck the future bankism that replaced it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited June 2017
    trawl said:

    "May doesn't need to keep the bastards onside"

    Hmm, MPs you mean. What about voters? The thread is about a drop in the Tory old vote. What will be the effect there of a Brexit betrayal on the Tories' watch. May has previously promised no FOM therefore no SM, no ECJ and gained plenty of votes (losing seats of course).

    It would be a Parliamentary vote for soft Brexit or fudged Brexit because of the hung Parliament, hard Brexiteer MPs would still all vote against a soft Brexit deal but there are more soft Brexiteer MPs in Parliament and May cannot overrule Parliament
  • The cost of Brexit is however a different thing altogether. Did nobody on the Government side ever say that desirable or not, we simply cannot afford it?

    This is an interesting point. The idea that something may be genuinely unaffordable seems to be a heresy. We can't afford space navies but there is an assumption that the state can pay for anything else we want by milking "the rich".

    The current definition of "the rich", if we use McDonnell's, is the 900,000 people - 3% - on more than £80k a year. The average they are on is £122k a year. The £42k above £80k that they earn grosses up to about £38 billion, of which they already pay £20 billion in tax. Any of them on £100 to £120k with a student loan pays a marginal rate of 71%.

    It seems clear that if you try to tax this group more it rapidly becomes counterproductive. If you took 100% or nearly so of what someone earns over £80k they will clearly stop earning over £80k, so you'll lose whatever you were collecting. But even at some point short of that you are just taking off them in tax what they'd have handed over anyway in VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duty, etc.

    The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
This discussion has been closed.