BTW It only becomes a mandate when you explain what the mandate is for. She was after a blank cheque.
This has been repeated so often that people believe it must be true, but it's utter tosh. Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation.
Can anyone confirm Hezza's assertion that Tory voters are dying out at the rate of 70% of 2% a year ie by 1.4% at the same time as new 18 year olds are registering boosting Labour's support by 1.4%,a total of the age demographic 2.8 % per year? This could mean the Tories are favoured by an early election because of the high mortality rates of their supporters and Labour would be better served in securing an overall majority in 3 years time when more Tory voters will have died off. Mortality rates could be another key factor in predicting election outcomes.
It overlooks the fact that there are voters who have switched over to the Tories, to replace those who are dying off.
In 1997, today's 45-54 year old age cohort were 25-34 years old. Back then, they voted 48% to 28% for Labour. This time, they voted 43% to 40% for the Conservatives.
However, you mustn't make the mistake of assuming that we in the UK can 'agree an outcome'. It's a negotiation, there's no guarantees of getting what we want.
That's true. I still think it'll be a crash out personally because I think the EU want to make sure nobody else dares to follow us out the door.
When is Theresa May next due in the European Parliament? A ritual haranguing from Guy Verhofstadt must be on the agenda.
VerTWATstadt.
He's the biggest dickhead in the European Parliament, by some way, and that's some achievement.
Farage has resigned?
Ha! Yes, in my view, he's a Europhile's Farage.
I can see the similarities. Both fanatics in their own ways.
As a first instance, they have to row back on the medical lottery element.
People don't like inheritance tax, of course they don't, but faced with a choice between (say) a 10% social care levy on all estates over £100k, or a 50% social care levy on the 1 in 5 estates unlucky enough to have a legator with long-term dementia or similar, how many people really believe the burden should fall solely on those who have already been through that?
Ok but then aren't you basically where Labour policy was before they got hit by 'death tax' claims?
Yes, but the people hitting them on "death tax" now have zero credibility, since their alternative turned out to be "no death tax if your parents live a healthy life and drop dead of a heart attack at 90, but quintuple-mega-death-tax if your parents struggle with dementia for years and die in a care home in their late 70s".
Are we leaving the single market and customs union? Are we leaving the single market and customs union but with transitional arrangements? Or are we staying in one or both?
I think it's time we was told exactly what our central aims are for Brexit because it seems various cabinet ministers have a different view.
We need one agreed position with one agreed outcome and then to just get the hell on with it.
From the Guardian:
Hammond asks [in his Mansion House speech] how Britain can achieve a Brexit that works for the people.
He identifies four priorities.
First, it must get a comprehensive agreement on trade and services.
Second, there must be mutually beneficial transitional arrangement, avoiding disruption and dangerous cliff edges.
Third, there must be frictionless customs arrangements.
This will involve an implementation period, when the UK will be outside the customs union, but customs rules will remain in place pending the new rules coming into force.
And, fourth, there must be arrangements in place to protect the City, he says.>
The third is inconsistent. You either have a formal, frictionless customs arrangement or you have neither. The first implies EEA, if you mean comprehensive in a similar way to what's in place today. The EU have made it clear they want certainty and to move on quickly from Brexit. They aren't currently at all interested in open-ended transitions. The predominance of London as the European financial centre is probably lost under any Brexit scenario.
The logic of Hammond's statements is that he thinks EEA+CU is the way to go, but he is not prepared to say so. Whether he will find a way to do so later remains to be seen.
BTW It only becomes a mandate when you explain what the mandate is for. She was after a blank cheque.
This has been repeated so often that people believe it must be true, but it's utter tosh. Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation.
The Lancaster House speech was just a long-winded way of saying that we want to have our cake and eat it. It was anything but clear.
"Areas considered safe for the Prime Minister to legislate on tomorrow are security and defence. Backbenchers have been pushing hard for an enhanced Investigatory Powers Bill in the wake of the recent terror attacks."
It must be Jeremy Corbyn's birthday or something.
A pile of new tools for state repression that he can use against the enemies of the left once he becomes PM.
The irony is that the policies she is now unable to do due to the arithmetic would probably have led to the ability to carry them out if she'd never pledged them in the first place.
That's why the first Corbyn honours list should include a knighthood to Nick Timothy
.
+1. Seems amazing to me that Tory MPs are buying the idea that it was all down to the SpADs.
The SpADs were obnoxious, as well as incompetent, so they make easy targets.
Of course, Theresa May deserves lots of criticism for keeping them in place and following their advice.
She lost because she was found out. The voters deemed her arrogant, discovered her leadership skills wanting, and worked out she wanted to play them for her political career.
To be honest, I can't say I blame them.
It still doesn't explain how 40% of the voters were seduced by the far left. On paper, Corbyn should be the most toxic leader of a party at a general election in British democratic history.
Let me put it this way - if a far left extremist can do that, then a far right one can too.
As I kept saying when you were banging away slating Corbyn in every other post during the election campaign , most voters did not believe you .
Well you've become quite the Corbynista, haven't you?
Not at all , I repeatedly pointed out to you that a negative campaign against Corbyn would backfire , you had to give positive reasons to vote Conservative and these were few if not actually none .
Hard Brexit, Dementia Tax, WFP, Triple Lock - was there anything else?
Just looking at the battleground for 2022, astonishing that now realistically UKIP and the Greens have zero realistic targets to focus on. Maybe just about IOW and Thurrock respectively. The LDs have maybe 10 realistic targets and the SNP maybe a dozen but could lose 18 on less than 3% swing. Really is back to 2 party politics.
IOW has a big hippy Green community, now, and will keep that as a block vote, the Kippers have largely gone, for now.
But there is a large Conservative vote right across the island - particularly outside Newport, Sandown and Ryde - that will keep IOW Tory for a long time to come.
BTW It only becomes a mandate when you explain what the mandate is for. She was after a blank cheque.
This has been repeated so often that people believe it must be true, but it's utter tosh. Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation.
The Lancaster House speech was just a long-winded way of saying that we want to have our cake and eat it. It was anything but clear.
Can anyone confirm Hezza's assertion that Tory voters are dying out at the rate of 70% of 2% a year ie by 1.4% at the same time as new 18 year olds are registering boosting Labour's support by 1.4%,a total of the age demographic 2.8 % per year? This could mean the Tories are favoured by an early election because of the high mortality rates of their supporters and Labour would be better served in securing an overall majority in 3 years time when more Tory voters will have died off. Mortality rates could be another key factor in predicting election outcomes.
It overlooks the fact that there are voters who have switched over to the Tories, to replace those who are dying off.
In 1997, today's 45-54 year old age cohort were 25-34 years old. Back then, they voted 48% to 28% for Labour. This time, they voted 43% to 40% for the Conservatives.
Plato being one of them, for example.
Plato voted for Paddy Ashdown.
My understanding is that she was a fan of Blair in his first term.
She said she voted for Ashdown in 97. She may have voted Labour once after that. The idea that Plato was ever representative of a Labour voter was a fiction that existed in her mind alone.
She was not representative of a traditional Labour voter, certainly. But, there were a lot of non-traditional Labour voters who were won over in 1993-2001.
And in my experience they are nothing like Plato. She was spinning in her usual way. Boy would she love us talking about her.
Just looking at the battleground for 2022, astonishing that now realistically UKIP and the Greens have zero realistic targets to focus on. Maybe just about IOW and Thurrock respectively. The LDs have maybe 10 realistic targets and the SNP maybe a dozen but could lose 18 on less than 3% swing. Really is back to 2 party politics.
One thing that we have seen is how the electorate are increasingly volatile. Massive swings are quite possible, even likely.
The logic of Hammond's statements is that he thinks EEA+CU is the way to go, but he is not prepared to say so. Whether he will find a way to do so later remains to be seen.
He just has to leave the floor clear for the loonies like IDS to go around saying that staying in either the single market or the customs union is not Brexit, and wait for the argument to shift towards having no Brexit at all.
Housing and the housing market is going to play a very big role over the next 5 years. It is getting to a crisis in so many different ways, all of which play into public policy.
We have a chronic overall shortage of housing caused by decades of NIMBYism and a planning system nowhere near fit for purpose. Can the changes made and to be made free the building of sufficient new houses? I doubt it which means we need to look at more public housing on that land to fill the gap.
We also have a serious dislocation of housing. In many areas there is plenty cheap housing but no jobs. In areas where there are jobs the cost of housing is a serious drag on growth.
We have an appalling backlog of defective housing in the public sector of which Grenfell Tower is just a horrible example. The cost of making this housing fit and safe to live in is truly frightening.
We have a horribly distorted housing market which is not just a bubble built on BTL and excessively generous Housing Benefit but also the backrock of security for hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Osborne sought to deflate this slowly by restrictions on HB, making BTL less commercially attractive through taxation, funding deposits and other measures but none of these have had the breakthrough that is required. What else can the government do?
The reduced profitability and incredible increase in regulation of the privately let market is going to cause the next phase of the problem when private tenancies are simply not maintained adequately. Hopefully some of these will come on the market for sale to first time buyers but many won't.
We also have a problem of constrained demand. Domestic borrowing remains at dangerously high levels and savings are non existent for most of the younger market. The regulations about deposits etc which were put in to stop excesses such as Northern Rock's 110% mortgages may be doing a lot more harm than good.
Sorting this all out would be a major task for any government, let alone one that has Brexit to deal with and no majority. But home ownership is a key aspiration and a winning Tory party is the party of aspiration. They need to remember that and get back on track.
You failed to mention Immigration.
Until HMG gets a handle on the number of people wishing to move here from elsewhere, the supply of housing can never, ever come close to satisfying demand.
BTW It only becomes a mandate when you explain what the mandate is for. She was after a blank cheque.
This has been repeated so often that people believe it must be true, but it's utter tosh. Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation.
The idea that May has ever been "as clear as it is humanly possible" is genuinely funny.
As a first instance, they have to row back on the medical lottery element.
People don't like inheritance tax, of course they don't, but faced with a choice between (say) a 10% social care levy on all estates over £100k, or a 50% social care levy on the 1 in 5 estates unlucky enough to have a legator with long-term dementia or similar, how many people really believe the burden should fall solely on those who have already been through that?
Ok but then aren't you basically where Labour policy was before they got hit by 'death tax' claims?
Yes, but the people hitting them on "death tax" now have zero credibility, since their alternative turned out to be "no death tax if your parents live a healthy life and drop dead of a heart attack at 90, but quintuple-mega-death-tax if your parents struggle with dementia for years and die in a care home in their late 70s".
As a first instance, they have to row back on the medical lottery element.
People don't like inheritance tax, of course they don't, but faced with a choice between (say) a 10% social care levy on all estates over £100k, or a 50% social care levy on the 1 in 5 estates unlucky enough to have a legator with long-term dementia or similar, how many people really believe the burden should fall solely on those who have already been through that?
Ok but then aren't you basically where Labour policy was before they got hit by 'death tax' claims?
Yes, but the people hitting them on "death tax" now have zero credibility, since their alternative turned out to be "no death tax if your parents live a healthy life and drop dead of a heart attack at 90, but quintuple-mega-death-tax if your parents struggle with dementia for years and die in a care home in their late 70s".
What we're really talking about is collective insurance/social care.
In which case a blanket 'death tax' regardless of your circumstance is the only option. Say10% on all estates over 100k. How politically possible that is is another matter.
I don't disagree, but that's not the lens that today's young see things through.
The housing market as it stands is a recruiting sergeant for socialism, because it fits so perfectly the centuries old Marxist trope of all the wealth being concentrated in the hands of a capitalist class who do nothing but exploit the labour of the working poor.
Mr Bright Young Grad from a nice middle class family, aged 27, wonders why, even with a half decent job 50% of his pay packet is going to a landlord from whom he rents sub-standard accommodation, which he is afraid to complain about for fear of being turfed out.
Even living within his means and putting £100 or £200 aside every month, it would take him at least a decade to save for a deposit. And how much have house prices risen in the last decade? To him, ownership is an impossible dream.
snip
A society of homeowners creates a society of capitalists, a society of renters creates a society of socialists.
This month's election was the beginning, the first tremor of the earthquake that is to come.
When wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, sooner or later the marginalised become a minority and in a democracy where everybody has one vote, they will vote for redistribution. And we will be completely in their hands when they decide how much is 'fair'.
As a first instance, they have to row back on the medical lottery element.
People don't like inheritance tax, of course they don't, but faced with a choice between (say) a 10% social care levy on all estates over £100k, or a 50% social care levy on the 1 in 5 estates unlucky enough to have a legator with long-term dementia or similar, how many people really believe the burden should fall solely on those who have already been through that?
Precisely. This problem is so solvable it is beyond belief. Face down the Daily Mail over a 10% social care levy on all estates.
What about the money poor asset rich types.A small percentage I know but if faced with death duties of £1mm on a £10mm estate when you only have a few grand liquidity, you'll have to sell the estate to pay it. If this is the family seat then you'll be destroying a legacy.
It's even worse the further up the chain you go. For socialist republicans this is all great, destroy the gentry, but do we really want out grand estates demolished?
"Areas considered safe for the Prime Minister to legislate on tomorrow are security and defence. Backbenchers have been pushing hard for an enhanced Investigatory Powers Bill in the wake of the recent terror attacks."
It must be Jeremy Corbyn's birthday or something.
A pile of new tools for state repression that he can use against the enemies of the left once he becomes PM.
The irony is that the policies she is now unable to do due to the arithmetic would probably have led to the ability to carry them out if she'd never pledged them in the first place.
That's why the first Corbyn honours list should include a knighthood to Nick Timothy
.
+1. Seems amazing to me that Tory MPs are buying the idea that it was all down to the SpADs.
The SpADs were obnoxious, as well as incompetent, so they make easy targets.
Of course, Theresa May deserves lots of criticism for keeping them in place and following their advice.
She lost because she was found out. The voters deemed her arrogant, discovered her leadership skills wanting, and worked out she wanted to play them for her political career.
To be honest, I can't say I blame them.
It still doesn't explain how 40% of the voters were seduced by the far left. On paper, Corbyn should be the most toxic leader of a party at a general election in British democratic history.
Let me put it this way - if a far left extremist can do that, then a far right one can too.
As I kept saying when you were banging away slating Corbyn in every other post during the election campaign , most voters did not believe you .
Well you've become quite the Corbynista, haven't you?
Not at all , I repeatedly pointed out to you that a negative campaign against Corbyn would backfire , you had to give positive reasons to vote Conservative and these were few if not actually none .
The negative campaign against Corbyn, as you describe it, did not backfire. The Tory manifesto did. The polling evidence for that is clear.
Negative campaigning works, and you as an alleged Lib Dem should know that better than most.
BTW It only becomes a mandate when you explain what the mandate is for. She was after a blank cheque.
This has been repeated so often that people believe it must be true, but it's utter tosh. Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation.
The idea that May has ever been "as clear as it is humanly possible" is genuinely funny.
BTW It only becomes a mandate when you explain what the mandate is for. She was after a blank cheque.
This has been repeated so often that people believe it must be true, but it's utter tosh. Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation.
The idea that May has ever been "as clear as it is humanly possible" is genuinely funny.
Really? Perhaps you could point out an example of where she hasn't been clear.
Housing and the housing market is going to play a very big role over the next 5 years. It is getting to a crisis in so many different ways, all of which play into public policy.
We have a chronic overall shortage of housing caused by decades of NIMBYism and a planning system nowhere near fit for purpose. Can the changes made and to be made free the building of sufficient new houses? I doubt it which means we need to look at more public housing on that land to fill the gap.
We also have a serious dislocation of housing. In many areas there is plenty cheap housing but no jobs. In areas where there are jobs the cost of housing is a serious drag on growth.
We have an appalling backlog of defective housing in the public sector of which Grenfell Tower is just a horrible example. The cost of making this housing fit and safe to live in is truly frightening.
We have a horribly distorted housing market which is not just a bubble built on BTL and excessively generous Housing Benefit but also the backrock of security for hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Osborne sought to deflate this slowly by restrictions on HB, making BTL less commercially attractive through taxation, funding deposits and other measures but none of these have had the breakthrough that is required. What else can the government do?
The reduced profitability and incredible increase in regulation of the privately let market is going to cause the next phase of the problem when private tenancies are simply not maintained adequately. Hopefully some of these will come on the market for sale to first time buyers but many won't.
We also have a problem of constrained demand. Domestic borrowing remains at dangerously high levels and savings are non existent for most of the younger market. The regulations about deposits etc which were put in to stop excesses such as Northern Rock's 110% mortgages may be doing a lot more harm than good.
Sorting this all out would be a major task for any government, let alone one that has Brexit to deal with and no majority. But home ownership is a key aspiration and a winning Tory party is the party of aspiration. They need to remember that and get back on track.
You failed to mention Immigration.
Until HMG gets a handle on the number of people wishing to move here from elsewhere, the supply of housing can never, ever come close to satisfying demand.
If we have 250,000 people (net) coming each year, then we have to build over 150k houses per year just to keep where we are.
Can anyone confirm Hezza's assertion that Tory voters are dying out at the rate of 70% of 2% a year ie by 1.4% at the same time as new 18 year olds are registering boosting Labour's support by 1.4%,a total of the age demographic 2.8 % per year? This could mean the Tories are favoured by an early election because of the high mortality rates of their supporters and Labour would be better served in securing an overall majority in 3 years time when more Tory voters will have died off. Mortality rates could be another key factor in predicting election outcomes.
It overlooks the fact that there are voters who have switched over to the Tories, to replace those who are dying off.
In 1997, today's 45-54 year old age cohort were 25-34 years old. Back then, they voted 48% to 28% for Labour. This time, they voted 43% to 40% for the Conservatives.
Plato being one of them, for example.
Plato voted for Paddy Ashdown.
My understanding is that she was a fan of Blair in his first term.
She said she voted for Ashdown in 97. She may have voted Labour once after that. The idea that Plato was ever representative of a Labour voter was a fiction that existed in her mind alone.
She was not representative of a traditional Labour voter, certainly. But, there were a lot of non-traditional Labour voters who were won over in 1993-2001.
The idea that there is more than one Plato, that she represent anyone, is the sort of dystopian horror that keeps all but the Daily Mail features editor awake at night.
I think the next time the tories win an election, it'll likely be with a centre-right Blair figure as leader. Someone who continually picks fights with their own base to win over the centre.
Property ownership (and particularly, rentierism) is the conservatives' clause IV.
"Areas considered safe for the Prime Minister to legislate on tomorrow are security and defence. Backbenchers have been pushing hard for an enhanced Investigatory Powers Bill in the wake of the recent terror attacks."
It must be Jeremy Corbyn's birthday or something.
A pile of new tools for state repression that he can use against the enemies of the left once he becomes PM.
The irony is that the policies she is now unable to do due to the arithmetic would probably have led to the ability to carry them out if she'd never pledged them in the first place.
That's why the first Corbyn honours list should include a knighthood to Nick Timothy
.
+1. Seems amazing to me that Tory MPs are buying the idea that it was all down to the SpADs.
The SpADs were obnoxious, as well as incompetent, so they make easy targets.
Of course, Theresa May deserves lots of criticism for keeping them in place and following their advice.
She lost because she was found out. The voters deemed her arrogant, discovered her leadership skills wanting, and worked out she wanted to play them for her political career.
To be honest, I can't say I blame them.
It still doesn't explain how 40% of the voters were seduced by the far left. On paper, Corbyn should be the most toxic leader of a party at a general election in British democratic history.
Let me put it this way - if a far left extremist can do that, then a far right one can too.
As I kept saying when you were banging away slating Corbyn in every other post during the election campaign , most voters did not believe you .
Well you've become quite the Corbynista, haven't you?
Not at all , I repeatedly pointed out to you that a negative campaign against Corbyn would backfire , you had to give positive reasons to vote Conservative and these were few if not actually none .
The negative campaign against Corbyn, as you describe it, did not backfire. The Tory manifesto did. The polling evidence for that is clear.
Negative campaigning works, and you as an alleged Lib Dem should know that better than most.
You need carrot and stick. There wasn't any carrot.
BTW It only becomes a mandate when you explain what the mandate is for. She was after a blank cheque.
This has been repeated so often that people believe it must be true, but it's utter tosh. Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation.
The idea that May has ever been "as clear as it is humanly possible" is genuinely funny.
Really? Perhaps you could point out an example of where she hasn't been clear.
The recent election campaign where she comprehensively trashed her reputation and uniquely in the history of politics lost a 20pt lead in a short campaign.
Just looking at the battleground for 2022, astonishing that now realistically UKIP and the Greens have zero realistic targets to focus on. Maybe just about IOW and Thurrock respectively. The LDs have maybe 10 realistic targets and the SNP maybe a dozen but could lose 18 on less than 3% swing. Really is back to 2 party politics.
IOW has a big hippy Green community, now, and will keep that as a block vote, the Kippers have largely gone, for now.
But there is a large Conservative vote right across the island - particularly outside Newport, Sandown and Ryde - that will keep IOW Tory for a long time to come.
I don't think there is a particularly large hippy/green subculture on the IOW, the strong showing of the Greens there was largely over botched school closures. Austerity has been tough on the Island too as public sector and council jobs there are amongst the few secure jobs there.
Are we leaving the single market and customs union?
From the Guardian:
Hammond asks [in his Mansion House speech] how Britain can achieve a Brexit that works for the people.
He identifies four priorities.
First, it must get a comprehensive agreement on trade and services.
Second, there must be mutually beneficial transitional arrangement, avoiding disruption and dangerous cliff edges.
Third, there must be frictionless customs arrangements.
This will involve an implementation period, when the UK will be outside the customs union, but customs rules will remain in place pending the new rules coming into force.
And, fourth, there must be arrangements in place to protect the City, he says.>
The third is inconsistent. You either have a formal, frictionless customs arrangement or you have neither. The first implies EEA, if you mean comprehensive in a similar way to what's in place today. The EU have made it clear they want certainty and to move on quickly from Brexit. They aren't currently at all interested in open-ended transitions. The predominance of London as the European financial centre is probably lost under any Brexit scenario.
The logic of Hammond's statements is that he thinks EEA+CU is the way to go, but he is not prepared to say so. Whether he will find a way to do so later remains to be seen.
Not sure it is.
You can formally leave the customs union (i.e. so the UK can set its own non-EU tariff regimes), adopt free-trade in goods with the EU, but at the same time want all rules-of-origin and customs checks between the UK-EU digitised and made as bureaucracy-free as possible. Such methods could form part of the comprehensive agreement on trade and services.
For example, most UK car manufacturers will source most of their components from inside the UK and EU "as-is". With a free trade deal in goods, it should be relatively easily to demarcate or tag these products and fast-track them across the UK/EU border multiple times with only the very occasional spot-check, probably focussed on specific firms and companies to see if their processes and procedures were compliant.
BTW It only becomes a mandate when you explain what the mandate is for. She was after a blank cheque.
This has been repeated so often that people believe it must be true, but it's utter tosh. Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation.
The idea that May has ever been "as clear as it is humanly possible" is genuinely funny.
Really? Perhaps you could point out an example of where she hasn't been clear.
BTW It only becomes a mandate when you explain what the mandate is for. She was after a blank cheque.
This has been repeated so often that people believe it must be true, but it's utter tosh. Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation.
The idea that May has ever been "as clear as it is humanly possible" is genuinely funny.
Really? Perhaps you could point out an example of where she hasn't been clear.
The recent election campaign where she comprehensively trashed her reputation and uniquely in the history of politics lost a 20pt lead in a short campaign.
Well, that was an unmitigated disaster, but we were talking about her position on Brexit.
Just looking at the battleground for 2022, astonishing that now realistically UKIP and the Greens have zero realistic targets to focus on. Maybe just about IOW and Thurrock respectively. The LDs have maybe 10 realistic targets and the SNP maybe a dozen but could lose 18 on less than 3% swing. Really is back to 2 party politics.
IOW has a big hippy Green community, now, and will keep that as a block vote, the Kippers have largely gone, for now.
But there is a large Conservative vote right across the island - particularly outside Newport, Sandown and Ryde - that will keep IOW Tory for a long time to come.
I don't think there is a particularly large hippy/green subculture on the IOW, the strong showing of the Greens there was largely over botched school closures. Austerity has been tough on the Island too as public sector and council jobs there are amongst the few secure jobs there.
When I was at ONS my Grade 6 (i.e one step down from Senior Civil Service) lived on the IOW. I asked him why, and his answer was that it felt like he was going on holiday every time he got on the hovercraft.
Housing and the housing market is going to play a very big role over the next 5 years. It is getting to a crisis in so many different ways, all of which play into public policy.
We have a chronic overall shortage of housing caused by decades of NIMBYism and a planning system nowhere near fit for purpose. Can the changes made and to be made free the building of sufficient new houses? I doubt it which means we need to look at more public housing on that land to fill the gap.
We also have a serious dislocation of housing. In many areas there is plenty cheap housing but no jobs. In areas where there are jobs the cost of housing is a serious drag on growth.
We have an appalling backlog of defective housing in the public sector of which Grenfell Tower is just a horrible example. The cost of making this housing fit and safe to live in is truly frightening.
We have a horribly distorted housing market which is not just a bubble built on BTL and excessively generous Housing Benefit but also the backrock of security for hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Osborne sought to deflate this slowly by restrictions on HB, making BTL less commercially attractive through taxation, funding deposits and other measures but none of these have had the breakthrough that is required. What else can the government do?
The reduced profitability and incredible increase in regulation of the privately let market is going to cause the next phase of the problem when private tenancies are simply not maintained adequately. Hopefully some of these will come on the market for sale to first time buyers but many won't.
We also have a problem of constrained demand. Domestic borrowing remains at dangerously high levels and savings are non existent for most of the younger market. The regulations about deposits etc which were put in to stop excesses such as Northern Rock's 110% mortgages may be doing a lot more harm than good.
Sorting this all out would be a major task for any government, let alone one that has Brexit to deal with and no majority. But home ownership is a key aspiration and a winning Tory party is the party of aspiration. They need to remember that and get back on track.
You failed to mention Immigration.
Until HMG gets a handle on the number of people wishing to move here from elsewhere, the supply of housing can never, ever come close to satisfying demand.
I would agree with that but also acknowledge that the priority is to deal with the consequences of immigration over the last 20 years, consequences we saw in Grenfell Tower.
BTW It only becomes a mandate when you explain what the mandate is for. She was after a blank cheque.
This has been repeated so often that people believe it must be true, but it's utter tosh. Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation.
The idea that May has ever been "as clear as it is humanly possible" is genuinely funny.
Really? Perhaps you could point out an example of where she hasn't been clear.
Housing and the housing market is going to play a very big role over the next 5 years. It is getting to a crisis in so many different ways, all of which play into public policy.
We have a chronic overall shortage of housing caused by decades of NIMBYism and a planning system nowhere near fit for purpose. Can the changes made and to be made free the building of sufficient new houses? I doubt it which means we need to look at more public housing on that land to fill the gap.
We also have a serious dislocation of housing. In many areas there is plenty cheap housing but no jobs. In areas where there are jobs the cost of housing is a serious drag on growth.
We have an appalling backlog of defective housing in the public sector of which Grenfell Tower is just a horrible example. The cost of making this housing fit and safe to live in is truly frightening.
We have a horribly distorted housing market which is not just a bubble built on BTL and excessively generous Housing Benefit but also the backrock of security for hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Osborne sought to deflate this slowly by restrictions on HB, making BTL less commercially attractive through taxation, funding deposits and other measures but none of these have had the breakthrough that is required. What else can the government do?
The reduced profitability and incredible increase in regulation of the privately let market is going to cause the next phase of the problem when private tenancies are simply not maintained adequately. Hopefully some of these will come on the market for sale to first time buyers but many won't.
We also have a problem of constrained demand. Domestic borrowing remains at dangerously high levels and savings are non existent for most of the younger market. The regulations about deposits etc which were put in to stop excesses such as Northern Rock's 110% mortgages may be doing a lot more harm than good.
Sorting this all out would be a major task for any government, let alone one that has Brexit to deal with and no majority. But home ownership is a key aspiration and a winning Tory party is the party of aspiration. They need to remember that and get back on track.
You failed to mention Immigration.
Until HMG gets a handle on the number of people wishing to move here from elsewhere, the supply of housing can never, ever come close to satisfying demand.
I would agree with that but also acknowledge that the priority is to deal with the consequences of immigration over the last 20 years, consequences we saw in Grenfell Tower.
Illegal immigration and Local Authorities continually turning a blind eye to Sub Letting?
I don't disagree, but that's not the lens that today's young see things through.
The housing market as it stands is a recruiting sergeant for socialism, because it fits so perfectly the centuries old Marxist trope of all the wealth being concentrated in the hands of a capitalist class who do nothing but exploit the labour of the working poor.
Mr Bright Young Grad from a nice middle class family, aged 27, wonders why, even with a half decent job 50% of his pay packet is going to a landlord from whom he rents sub-standard accommodation, which he is afraid to complain about for fear of being turfed out.
Even living within his means and putting £100 or £200 aside every month, it would take him at least a decade to save for a deposit. And how much have house prices risen in the last decade? To him, ownership is an impossible dream.
snip
A society of homeowners creates a society of capitalists, a society of renters creates a society of socialists.
This month's election was the beginning, the first tremor of the earthquake that is to come.
When wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, sooner or later the marginalised become a minority and in a democracy where everybody has one vote, they will vote for redistribution. And we will be completely in their hands when they decide how much is 'fair'.
As a first instance, they have to row back on the medical lottery element.
People don't like inheritance tax, of course they don't, but faced with a choice between (say) a 10% social care levy on all estates over £100k, or a 50% social care levy on the 1 in 5 estates unlucky enough to have a legator with long-term dementia or similar, how many people really believe the burden should fall solely on those who have already been through that?
Precisely. This problem is so solvable it is beyond belief. Face down the Daily Mail over a 10% social care levy on all estates.
What about the money poor asset rich types.A small percentage I know but if faced with death duties of £1mm on a £10mm estate when you only have a few grand liquidity, you'll have to sell the estate to pay it. If this is the family seat then you'll be destroying a legacy.
It's even worse the further up the chain you go. For socialist republicans this is all great, destroy the gentry, but do we really want out grand estates demolished?
Housing and the housing market is going to play a very big role over the next 5 years. It is getting to a crisis in so many different ways, all of which play into public policy.
We have a chronic overall shortage of housing caused by decades of NIMBYism and a planning system nowhere near fit for purpose. Can the changes made and to be made free the building of sufficient new houses? I doubt it which means we need to look at more public housing on that land to fill the gap.
We also have a serious dislocation of housing. In many areas there is plenty cheap housing but no jobs. In areas where there are jobs the cost of housing is a serious drag on growth.
We have an appalling backlog of defective housing in the public sector of which Grenfell Tower is just a horrible example. The cost of making this housing fit and safe to live in is truly frightening.
We have a horribly distorted housing market which is not just a bubble built on BTL and excessively generous Housing Benefit but also the backrock of security for hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Osborne sought to deflate this slowly by restrictions on HB, making BTL less commercially attractive through taxation, funding deposits and other measures but none of these have had the breakthrough that is required. What else can the government do?
The reduced profitability and incredible increase in regulation of the privately let market is going to cause the next phase of the problem when private tenancies are simply not maintained adequately. Hopefully some of these will come on the market for sale to first time buyers but many won't.
We also have a problem of constrained demand. Domestic borrowing remains at dangerously high levels and savings are non existent for most of the younger market. The regulations about deposits etc which were put in to stop excesses such as Northern Rock's 110% mortgages may be doing a lot more harm than good.
Sorting this all out would be a major task for any government, let alone one that has Brexit to deal with and no majority. But home ownership is a key aspiration and a winning Tory party is the party of aspiration. They need to remember that and get back on track.
You failed to mention Immigration.
Until HMG gets a handle on the number of people wishing to move here from elsewhere, the supply of housing can never, ever come close to satisfying demand.
I would agree with that but also acknowledge that the priority is to deal with the consequences of immigration over the last 20 years, consequences we saw in Grenfell Tower.
Illegal immigration and Local Authorities continually turning a blind eye to Sub Letting?
Just looking at the battleground for 2022, astonishing that now realistically UKIP and the Greens have zero realistic targets to focus on. Maybe just about IOW and Thurrock respectively. The LDs have maybe 10 realistic targets and the SNP maybe a dozen but could lose 18 on less than 3% swing. Really is back to 2 party politics.
IOW has a big hippy Green community, now, and will keep that as a block vote, the Kippers have largely gone, for now.
But there is a large Conservative vote right across the island - particularly outside Newport, Sandown and Ryde - that will keep IOW Tory for a long time to come.
I don't think there is a particularly large hippy/green subculture on the IOW, the strong showing of the Greens there was largely over botched school closures. Austerity has been tough on the Island too as public sector and council jobs there are amongst the few secure jobs there.
BTW It only becomes a mandate when you explain what the mandate is for. She was after a blank cheque.
This has been repeated so often that people believe it must be true, but it's utter tosh. Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation.
The idea that May has ever been "as clear as it is humanly possible" is genuinely funny.
Really? Perhaps you could point out an example of where she hasn't been clear.
Just looking at the battleground for 2022, astonishing that now realistically UKIP and the Greens have zero realistic targets to focus on. Maybe just about IOW and Thurrock respectively. The LDs have maybe 10 realistic targets and the SNP maybe a dozen but could lose 18 on less than 3% swing. Really is back to 2 party politics.
IOW has a big hippy Green community, now, and will keep that as a block vote, the Kippers have largely gone, for now.
But there is a large Conservative vote right across the island - particularly outside Newport, Sandown and Ryde - that will keep IOW Tory for a long time to come.
I don't think there is a particularly large hippy/green subculture on the IOW, the strong showing of the Greens there was largely over botched school closures. Austerity has been tough on the Island too as public sector and council jobs there are amongst the few secure jobs there.
When I was at ONS my Grade 6 (i.e one step down from Senior Civil Service) lived on the IOW. I asked him why, and his answer was that it felt like he was going on holiday every time he got on the hovercraft.
My relatives there stay for a reason, it is beautiful and there is an element of time travel in crossing the Solent, taking off a couple of decades, but it is still the lowest income area in Southern England, similar in ways to Cornwall.
BTW It only becomes a mandate when you explain what the mandate is for. She was after a blank cheque.
This has been repeated so often that people believe it must be true, but it's utter tosh. Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation.
The idea that May has ever been "as clear as it is humanly possible" is genuinely funny.
Really? Perhaps you could point out an example of where she hasn't been clear.
Brexit means Brexit. Red white and blue Brexit.
They are totally meaningless. We didn't know what she would have done with her huge majority, now at least she (or someone else) will have to get a consensus.
Just looking at the battleground for 2022, astonishing that now realistically UKIP and the Greens have zero realistic targets to focus on. Maybe just about IOW and Thurrock respectively. The LDs have maybe 10 realistic targets and the SNP maybe a dozen but could lose 18 on less than 3% swing. Really is back to 2 party politics.
It never really went away to be honest. The LDs were never competitive in more than 100-125 seats even in 2003-05. All that has happened is that number has diminished to 20-40.
That's not to say other seats won't move back into the "achievable" list if and when the local Government base is rebuilt.
The truth is the LDs prosper only when one of the two main parties is in eclipse so the years 1980-87 when Labour was struggling and 1997-2005 when the Conservatives were in trouble.
IF, and it is a big if, the Conservatives are on a downward slope, LD prospects locally will improve in some of the next level of targets in places like Yeovil and Chippenham.
Housing and the housing market is going to play a very big role over the next 5 years. It is getting to a crisis in so many different ways, all of which play into public policy.
We have a chronic overall shortage of housing caused by decades of NIMBYism and a planning system nowhere near fit for purpose. Can the changes made and to be made free the building of sufficient new houses? I doubt it which means we need to look at more public housing on that land to fill the gap.
We have a horribly distorted housing market which is not just a bubble built on BTL and excessively generous Housing Benefit but also the backrock of security for hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Osborne sought to deflate this slowly by restrictions on HB, making BTL less commercially attractive through taxation, funding deposits and other measures but none of these have had the breakthrough that is required. What else can the government do?
The reduced profitability and incredible increase in regulation of the privately let market is going to cause the next phase of the problem when private tenancies are simply not maintained adequately. Hopefully some of these will come on the market for sale to first time buyers but many won't.
We also have a problem of constrained demand. Domestic borrowing remains at dangerously high levels and savings are non existent for most of the younger market. The regulations about deposits etc which were put in to stop excesses such as Northern Rock's 110% mortgages may be doing a lot more harm than good.
Sorting this all out would be a major task for any government, let alone one that has Brexit to deal with and no majority. But home ownership is a key aspiration and a winning Tory party is the party of aspiration. They need to remember that and get back on track.
You failed to mention Immigration.
Until HMG gets a handle on the number of people wishing to move here from elsewhere, the supply of housing can never, ever come close to satisfying demand.
I would agree with that but also acknowledge that the priority is to deal with the consequences of immigration over the last 20 years, consequences we saw in Grenfell Tower.
Illegal immigration and Local Authorities continually turning a blind eye to Sub Letting?
Yes.
I'm notsure what can be done about sub-letting directly apart from some pretty draconian measures which would attacked as illibral, attacking the poor and probably racist.
Since there has been no response other than to criticicise Theresa May's admittedly ham-fisted soundbites, I repeat my point: "Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation."
Housing and the housing market is going to play a very big role over the next 5 years. It is getting to a crisis in so many different ways, all of which play into public policy.
We have a chronic overall shortage of housing caused by decades of NIMBYism and a planning system nowhere near fit for purpose. Can the changes made and to be made free the building of sufficient new houses? I doubt it which means we need to look at more public housing on that land to fill the gap.
We have a horribly distorted housing market which is not just a bubble built on BTL and excessively generous Housing Benefit but also the backrock of security for hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Osborne sought to deflate this slowly by restrictions on HB, making BTL less commercially attractive through taxation, funding deposits and other measures but none of these have had the breakthrough that is required. What else can the government do?
The reduced profitability and incredible increase in regulation of the privately let market is going to cause the next phase of the problem when private tenancies are simply not maintained adequately. Hopefully some of these will come on the market for sale to first time buyers but many won't.
We also have a problem of constrained demand. Domestic borrowing remains at dangerously high levels and savings are non existent for most of the younger market. The regulations about deposits etc which were put in to stop excesses such as Northern Rock's 110% mortgages may be doing a lot more harm than good.
Sorting this all out would be a major task for any government, let alone one that has Brexit to deal with and no majority. But home ownership is a key aspiration and a winning Tory party is the party of aspiration. They need to remember that and get back on track.
You failed to mention Immigration.
Until HMG gets a handle on the number of people wishing to move here from elsewhere, the supply of housing can never, ever come close to satisfying demand.
I would agree with that but also acknowledge that the priority is to deal with the consequences of immigration over the last 20 years, consequences we saw in Grenfell Tower.
Illegal immigration and Local Authorities continually turning a blind eye to Sub Letting?
Yes.
I'm notsure what can be done about sub-letting directly apart from some pretty draconian measures which would attacked as illibral, attacking the poor and probably racist.
Just looking at the battleground for 2022, astonishing that now realistically UKIP and the Greens have zero realistic targets to focus on. Maybe just about IOW and Thurrock respectively. The LDs have maybe 10 realistic targets and the SNP maybe a dozen but could lose 18 on less than 3% swing. Really is back to 2 party politics.
IOW has a big hippy Green community, now, and will keep that as a block vote, the Kippers have largely gone, for now.
But there is a large Conservative vote right across the island - particularly outside Newport, Sandown and Ryde - that will keep IOW Tory for a long time to come.
I don't think there is a particularly large hippy/green subculture on the IOW, the strong showing of the Greens there was largely over botched school closures. Austerity has been tough on the Island too as public sector and council jobs there are amongst the few secure jobs there.
There is.
I go there regularly.
I do too. The Green community there will never be on the same scale as fashionable parts of the mainland, not least because getting a higher education means leaving the Island. There is little graduate employment to draw them back. My cousins go there regularly, but only one (a teacher) is employed there.
The Greens fell back from second place there. It will remain Tory (though was LD not so long ago).
As a first instance, they have to row back on the medical lottery element.
People don't like inheritance tax, of course they don't, but faced with a choice between (say) a 10% social care levy on all estates over £100k, or a 50% social care levy on the 1 in 5 estates unlucky enough to have a legator with long-term dementia or similar, how many people really believe the burden should fall solely on those who have already been through that?
Ok but then aren't you basically where Labour policy was before they got hit by 'death tax' claims?
Yes, but the people hitting them on "death tax" now have zero credibility, since their alternative turned out to be "no death tax if your parents live a healthy life and drop dead of a heart attack at 90, but quintuple-mega-death-tax if your parents struggle with dementia for years and die in a care home in their late 70s".
I hope you're right. It seems the fairest way to me and I think it would win in a straight death tax v death tax contest. But suspect the Tories will forget they ever proposed this and will go back to deathtax attacks.
Housing and the housing market is going to play a very big role over the next 5 years. It is getting to a crisis in so many different ways, all of which play into public policy.
We have a chronic overall shortage of housing caused by decades of NIMBYism and a planning system nowhere near fit for purpose. Can the changes made and to be made free the building of sufficient new houses? I doubt it which means we need to look at more public housing on that land to fill the gap.
We have a horribly distorted housing market which is not just a bubble built on BTL and excessively generous Housing Benefit but also the backrock of security for hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Osborne sought to deflate this slowly by restrictions on HB, making BTL less commercially attractive through taxation, funding deposits and other measures but none of these have had the breakthrough that is required. What else can the government do?
The reduced profitability and incredible increase in regulation of the privately let market is going to cause the next phase of the problem when private tenancies are simply not maintained adequately. Hopefully some of these will come on the market for sale to first time buyers but many won't.
Sorting this all out would be a major task for any government, let alone one that has Brexit to deal with and no majority. But home ownership is a key aspiration and a winning Tory party is the party of aspiration. They need to remember that and get back on track.
You failed to mention Immigration.
Until HMG gets a handle on the number of people wishing to move here from elsewhere, the supply of housing can never, ever come close to satisfying demand.
I would agree with that but also acknowledge that the priority is to deal with the consequences of immigration over the last 20 years, consequences we saw in Grenfell Tower.
Illegal immigration and Local Authorities continually turning a blind eye to Sub Letting?
Yes.
I'm notsure what can be done about sub-letting directly apart from some pretty draconian measures which would attacked as illibral, attacking the poor and probably racist.
Go after those renting out the properties.
It's a serious problem that needs addressing.
The 'actual' landlords probably have no idea it's happening. It's the sub-lettors themselves which are the ones being naughty. Unless you invest large amounts in council investigation departments then nothings going to happen.
Since there has been no response other than to criticicise Theresa May's admittedly ham-fisted soundbites, I repeat my point: "Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation."
There was a shopping list, but nothing on potential trade offs.
It is clear from yesterday that the EU is also working towards a hard Brexit, outside the CU and Single Market.
Since there has been no response other than to criticicise Theresa May's admittedly ham-fisted soundbites, I repeat my point: "Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation."
May's pre-negotiation position on the single market was to seek to retain membership but with concessions. Her Lancaster House position was lock in the concessions but to seek to retain the benefits.
The former was a more coherent negotiating position and a clearer statement of intent.
BTW It only becomes a mandate when you explain what the mandate is for. She was after a blank cheque.
This has been repeated so often that people believe it must be true, but it's utter tosh. Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation.
The idea that May has ever been "as clear as it is humanly possible" is genuinely funny.
Really? Perhaps you could point out an example of where she hasn't been clear.
Brexit means Brexit. Red white and blue Brexit.
"Brexit means Brexit" is clear, it means we will Leave the EU and have no truck with the anti-democrats who've spent the last year trying to overturn the referendum result.
"Red white and blue Brexit" ("that works for everyone in the UK") is as meaningful as the question it was in answer to (which IIRC was something like "will it be a black, white or grey Brexit?")
As a first instance, they have to row back on the medical lottery element.
People don't like inheritance tax, of course they don't, but faced with a choice between (say) a 10% social care levy on all estates over £100k, or a 50% social care levy on the 1 in 5 estates unlucky enough to have a legator with long-term dementia or similar, how many people really believe the burden should fall solely on those who have already been through that?
Ok but then aren't you basically where Labour policy was before they got hit by 'death tax' claims?
Yep. Lansley not only made a mess of the NHS reorganization but was iirc responsible for doing the dirty on an emerging cross-party agreement on social care.
Didn't know Lansley was responsible for that too. That is quite the legacy of **** he left!
Since there has been no response other than to criticicise Theresa May's admittedly ham-fisted soundbites, I repeat my point: "Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation."
IIRC it was well received in foreign capitals too.
And no, I don't care what Ian Dunt, Jo Maugham or any other Brexit antis thought.
I hope you're right. It seems the fairest way to me and I think it would win in a straight death tax v death tax contest. But suspect the Tories will forget they ever proposed this and will go back to deathtax attacks.
Yes, all those youngsters and young families voting for Corbyn have cemented in inter-generational unfairness. It's a funny old world.
Are we leaving the single market and customs union?
From the Guardian:
Hammond asks [in his Mansion House speech] how Britain can achieve a Brexit that works for the people.
He identifies four priorities.
First, it must get a comprehensive agreement on trade and services.
Second, there must be mutually beneficial transitional arrangement, avoiding disruption and dangerous cliff edges.
Third, there must be frictionless customs arrangements.
This will involve an implementation period, when the UK will be outside the customs union, but customs rules will remain in place pending the new rules coming into force.
And, fourth, there must be arrangements in place to protect the City, he says.>
The third is inconsistent. You either have a formal, frictionless customs arrangement or you have neither. The first implies EEA, if you mean comprehensive in a similar way to what's in place today. The EU have made it clear they want certainty and to move on quickly from Brexit. They aren't currently at all interested in open-ended transitions. The predominance of London as the European financial centre is probably lost under any Brexit scenario.
The logic of Hammond's statements is that he thinks EEA+CU is the way to go, but he is not prepared to say so. Whether he will find a way to do so later remains to be seen.
Not sure it is.
You can formally leave the customs union (i.e. so the UK can set its own non-EU tariff regimes), adopt free-trade in goods with the EU, but at the same time want all rules-of-origin and customs checks between the UK-EU digitised and made as bureaucracy-free as possible. Such methods could form part of the comprehensive agreement on trade and services.
For example, most UK car manufacturers will source most of their components from inside the UK and EU "as-is". With a free trade deal in goods, it should be relatively easily to demarcate or tag these products and fast-track them across the UK/EU border multiple times with only the very occasional spot-check, probably focussed on specific firms and companies to see if their processes and procedures were compliant.
I accept that's possible. The problem is that we leave the EU in 18 months time, while the comprehensive trade deal will realistically take a decade or more to sort out. There's no commitment at this or any stage to implement such such a customs arrangement. The only thing that matters to us in these talks is continuity. What will be the same on April 1 2019 as it was on March 29th? The money is irrelevant and the final destination is for later. Nevertheless the closer the agreed final destination is to what we have now, the more continuity we will have in April 2019.
"Labour won every age segment up to the 55+ group" This isn't what the table says, but it is true if you consider LAB+LD =Anti-Tory Block
Those 55 and over were able to vote in GE1979. Those in the group 45-59 came of age during the Thatcher years. The conservatives were very unpopular with young voters in the 80s
I don't think it's right just to add the Lib Dem score to Labour's.
The Conservatives carried 45-54 year olds. I've read that 47 is the age at which more people started voting Conservative than labour.
A fairly crucial question is whether or not that age is shifting, and, if so, by how much
I hope you're right. It seems the fairest way to me and I think it would win in a straight death tax v death tax contest. But suspect the Tories will forget they ever proposed this and will go back to deathtax attacks.
Yes, all those youngsters and young families voting for Corbyn have cemented in inter-generational unfairness. It's a funny old world.
The difference is labour actually had a plan to pay for their no-death-tax.
A LVT on property solves a load of issues.
It's far more intergenerationally fair than the current setup.
Just looking at the battleground for 2022, astonishing that now realistically UKIP and the Greens have zero realistic targets to focus on. Maybe just about IOW and Thurrock respectively. The LDs have maybe 10 realistic targets and the SNP maybe a dozen but could lose 18 on less than 3% swing. Really is back to 2 party politics.
IOW has a big hippy Green community, now, and will keep that as a block vote, the Kippers have largely gone, for now.
But there is a large Conservative vote right across the island - particularly outside Newport, Sandown and Ryde - that will keep IOW Tory for a long time to come.
I don't think there is a particularly large hippy/green subculture on the IOW, the strong showing of the Greens there was largely over botched school closures. Austerity has been tough on the Island too as public sector and council jobs there are amongst the few secure jobs there.
There is.
I go there regularly.
I do too. The Green community there will never be on the same scale as fashionable parts of the mainland, not least because getting a higher education means leaving the Island. There is little graduate employment to draw them back. My cousins go there regularly, but only one (a teacher) is employed there.
The Greens fell back from second place there. It will remain Tory (though was LD not so long ago).
Funnily enough, it had a brief bout of Europhilia around the turn of (this) century and the council even introduced an Isle of Wight euro.
I hope you're right. It seems the fairest way to me and I think it would win in a straight death tax v death tax contest. But suspect the Tories will forget they ever proposed this and will go back to deathtax attacks.
Yes, all those youngsters and young families voting for Corbyn have cemented in inter-generational unfairness. It's a funny old world.
The difference is labour actually had a plan to pay for their no-death-tax promises.
A LVT on property solves a load of other issues.
Which no-one focused on, and it's not been costed at all.
The recent election campaign where she comprehensively trashed her reputation and uniquely in the history of politics lost a 20pt lead in a short campaign.
Well, that was an unmitigated disaster, but we were talking about her position on Brexit.
Are you referring to her position before the referendum, Richard, or after?
Since there has been no response other than to criticicise Theresa May's admittedly ham-fisted soundbites, I repeat my point: "Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation."
May's pre-negotiation position on the single market was to seek to retain membership but with concessions. Her Lancaster House position was lock in the concessions but to seek to retain the benefits.
The former was a more coherent negotiating position and a clearer statement of intent.
Out of interest - do you feel more or less confident on your bet on Brexit date with Sean T now vs. when you made it?
There was a shopping list, but nothing on potential trade offs.
As I said, this is a negotiation. Trade-offs are for the other side to demand, but implicitly she was offering to pay something towards the EU budget in return for what we were asking for. What do you expect her to say: "We are so desperate that we'll pay through the nose to get it'?
She also very explicitly offered reciprocal rights for citizens, reciprocal rights on trade, and enhanced cooperation on security. She was offering a deal, the outline of which was, as I said, very clear. Of course, we can't force our EU friends to take it if they don't want to, but that's a quite separate point.
The recent election campaign where she comprehensively trashed her reputation and uniquely in the history of politics lost a 20pt lead in a short campaign.
Well, that was an unmitigated disaster, but we were talking about her position on Brexit.
Are you referring to her position before the referendum, Richard, or after?
After - her position when the Article 50 letter was sent.
The recent election campaign where she comprehensively trashed her reputation and uniquely in the history of politics lost a 20pt lead in a short campaign.
Well, that was an unmitigated disaster, but we were talking about her position on Brexit.
Are you referring to her position before the referendum, Richard, or after?
After - her position when the Article 50 letter was sent.
Sorry, I wasn't being sarky, but her position does have to be date-stamped. Likewise Boris of course.
"Areas considered safe for the Prime Minister to legislate on tomorrow are security and defence. Backbenchers have been pushing hard for an enhanced Investigatory Powers Bill in the wake of the recent terror attacks."
It must be Jeremy Corbyn's birthday or something.
A pile of new tools for state repression that he can use against the enemies of the left once he becomes PM.
The irony is that the policies she is now unable to do due to the arithmetic would probably have led to the ability to carry them out if she'd never pledged them in the first place.
That's why the first Corbyn honours list should include a knighthood to Nick Timothy
.
+1. Seems amazing to me that Tory MPs are buying the idea that it was all down to the SpADs.
The SpADs were obnoxious, as well as incompetent, so they make easy targets.
Of course, Theresa May deserves lots of criticism for keeping them in place and following their advice.
She lost because she was found out. The voters deemed her arrogant, discovered her leadership skills wanting, and worked out she wanted to play them for her political career.
To be honest, I can't say I blame them.
It still doesn't explain how 40% of the voters were seduced by the far left. On paper, Corbyn should be the most toxic leader of a party at a general election in British democratic history.
Let me put it this way - if a far left extremist can do that, then a far right one can too.
As I kept saying when you were banging away slating Corbyn in every other post during the election campaign , most voters did not believe you .
Well you've become quite the Corbynista, haven't you?
Not at all , I repeatedly pointed out to you that a negative campaign against Corbyn would backfire , you had to give positive reasons to vote Conservative and these were few if not actually none .
Hard Brexit, Dementia Tax, WFP, Triple Lock - was there anything else?
Can anyone confirm Hezza's assertion that Tory voters are dying out at the rate of 70% of 2% a year ie by 1.4% at the same time as new 18 year olds are registering boosting Labour's support by 1.4%,a total of the age demographic 2.8 % per year? This could mean the Tories are favoured by an early election because of the high mortality rates of their supporters and Labour would be better served in securing an overall majority in 3 years time when more Tory voters will have died off. Mortality rates could be another key factor in predicting election outcomes.
It overlooks the fact that there are voters who have switched over to the Tories, to replace those who are dying off.
In 1997, today's 45-54 year old age cohort were 25-34 years old. Back then, they voted 48% to 28% for Labour. This time, they voted 43% to 40% for the Conservatives.
I hope you're right. It seems the fairest way to me and I think it would win in a straight death tax v death tax contest. But suspect the Tories will forget they ever proposed this and will go back to deathtax attacks.
Yes, all those youngsters and young families voting for Corbyn have cemented in inter-generational unfairness. It's a funny old world.
The difference is labour actually had a plan to pay for their no-death-tax promises.
A LVT on property solves a load of other issues.
Which no-one focused on, and it's not been costed at all.
People focused on it for quite a while, I definitely heard "garden tax" on a more-than-daily basis.
There was a shopping list, but nothing on potential trade offs.
As I said, this is a negotiation. Trade-offs are for the other side to demand, but implicitly she was offering to pay something towards the EU budget in return for what we were asking for. What do you expect her to say: "We are so deperate that we'll pay through the nose to get it'?
She also very explicitly offered reciprocal rights for citizens, reciprocal rights on trade, and enhanced cooperation on security. She was offering a deal, the outline of which was, as I said, very clear. Of course, we can't force our EU friends to take it if they don't want to, but that's a quite separate point.
Do you really not see that her proposed "deal" was just as unrealistic as anything Corbyn stands for? She was proposing motherhood and apple pie, all the benefits of the EU without the drawbacks, without any rationale for why the EU would accept such a thing.
Which is something even the public sensed -- even though May was still enjoying her honeymoon at the time, and even though people thought ideally the kind of Brexit deal she was talking about sounded great, people said by 56% to 20% that the EU would not agree to it:
Sorry, I wasn't being sarky, but her position does have to be date-stamped. Likewise Boris of course.
Of course - her position quite rightly changed in response to the referendum. Nothing wrong with that; it was perfectly reasonable to argue before the referendum that leaving the EU would on balance be too risky, and then accept the result of the referendum and move into figuring out the best way to implement it, given that the decision had been taken.
The 'actual' landlords probably have no idea it's happening. It's the sub-lettors themselves which are the ones being naughty. Unless you invest large amounts in council investigation departments then nothings going to happen.
Except where the landlords are council "tenants", who live elsewhere but hang on to the social home and sublet it.
My late mother-in-law's cleaner had a mortgage in Essex paid for by the undeclared rent on illegally letting out her council flat in Elephant and Castle. No rent book, as this would have proved it was happening, and the target tenants were illegals too so they didn't object.
"Areas considered safe for the Prime Minister to legislate on tomorrow are security and defence. Backbenchers have been pushing hard for an enhanced Investigatory Powers Bill in the wake of the recent terror attacks."
It must be Jeremy Corbyn's birthday or something.
A pile of new tools for state repression that he can use against the enemies of the left once he becomes PM.
The irony is that the policies she is now unable to do due to the arithmetic would probably have led to the ability to carry them out if she'd never pledged them in the first place.
That's why the first Corbyn honours list should include a knighthood to Nick Timothy
.
+1. Seems amazing to me that Tory MPs are buying the idea that it was all down to the SpADs.
The SpADs were obnoxious, as well as incompetent, so they make easy targets.
Of course, Theresa May deserves lots of criticism for keeping them in place and following their advice.
She lost because she was found out. The voters deemed her arrogant, discovered her leadership skills wanting, and worked out she wanted to play them for her political career.
To be honest, I can't say I blame them.
It still doesn't explain how 40% of the voters were seduced by the far left. On paper, Corbyn should be the most toxic leader of a party at a general election in British democratic history.
Let me put it this way - if a far left extremist can do that, then a far right one can too.
As I kept saying when you were banging away slating Corbyn in every other post during the election campaign , most voters did not believe you .
Well you've become quite the Corbynista, haven't you?
Not at all , I repeatedly pointed out to you that a negative campaign against Corbyn would backfire , you had to give positive reasons to vote Conservative and these were few if not actually none .
Hard Brexit, Dementia Tax, WFP, Triple Lock - was there anything else?
The 'actual' landlords probably have no idea it's happening. It's the sub-lettors themselves which are the ones being naughty. Unless you invest large amounts in council investigation departments then nothings going to happen.
Except where the landlords are council "tenants", who live elsewhere but hang on to the social home and sublet it.
My late mother-in-law's cleaner had a mortgage in Essex paid for by the undeclared rent on illegally letting out her council flat in Elephant and Castle. No rent book, as this would have proved it was happening, and the target tenants were illegals too so they didn't object.
It does happen.
I mean landlord as those which actualy own the property, be it the council or private individuals.
Do you really not see that her proposed "deal" was just as unrealistic as anything Corbyn stands for? She was proposing motherhood and apple pie, all the benefits of the EU without the drawbacks, without any rationale for why the EU would accept such a thing.
Possibly, although she was very clear that the rationale was that it was in both sides' interest. As I have said all along, there was always a risk of no deal being done. That risk has now increased as a result of her not getting a majority.
But, we were referring to clarity. No-one seems to accuse the EU of lack of clarity, when their proposed 'deal' (or at least the early statement of it) was completely out with the fairies - that we should pay €60bn+ for nothing in return.
I hope you're right. It seems the fairest way to me and I think it would win in a straight death tax v death tax contest. But suspect the Tories will forget they ever proposed this and will go back to deathtax attacks.
Yes, all those youngsters and young families voting for Corbyn have cemented in inter-generational unfairness. It's a funny old world.
The difference is labour actually had a plan to pay for their no-death-tax promises.
A LVT on property solves a load of other issues.
Which no-one focused on, and it's not been costed at all.
People focused on it for quite a while, I definitely heard "garden tax" on a more-than-daily basis.
No one thought labour would actually be in power (and they aren't). That isn;t likely to be the case in the next election. Besides until people actually know how much extra it is and see the bills, its all a bit neublous.
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
I don't disagree with that, but I don't think you can simply absolve voters from all responsibility for the consequences of their votes. As our PM used to be fond of saying, politics is not a game.
Housing and the housing market is going to play a very big role over the next 5 years. It is getting to a crisis in so many different ways, all of which play into public policy.
We have a chronic overall shortage of housing caused by decades of NIMBYism and a planning system nowhere near fit for purpose. Can the changes made and to be made free the building of sufficient new houses? I doubt it which means we need to look at more public housing on that land to fill the gap.
We also have a serious dislocation of housing. In many areas there is plenty cheap housing but no jobs. In areas where there are jobs the cost of housing is a serious drag on growth.
We also have a problem of constrained demand. Domestic borrowing remains at dangerously high levels and savings are non existent for most of the younger market. The regulations about deposits etc which were put in to stop excesses such as Northern Rock's 110% mortgages may be doing a lot more harm than good.
Sorting this all out would be a major task for any government, let alone one that has Brexit to deal with and no majority. But home ownership is a key aspiration and a winning Tory party is the party of aspiration. They need to remember that and get back on track.
You failed to mention Immigration.
Until HMG gets a handle on the number of people wishing to move here from elsewhere, the supply of housing can never, ever come close to satisfying demand.
I would agree with that but also acknowledge that the priority is to deal with the consequences of immigration over the last 20 years, consequences we saw in Grenfell Tower.
Illegal immigration and Local Authorities continually turning a blind eye to Sub Letting?
The italian couple that arrived in London and had a council flat within a month ?
Barca and Peckham are cutting down on these air bnbs.
Long term is council housing viable to control - or should it be scrapped completely and other solutions found.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
I don't disagree with that, but I don't think you can simply absolve voters from all responsibility for the consequences of their votes. As our PM used to be fond of saying, politics is not a game.
Then she turned out to be the biggest game player of all...
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
I'm not convinced that it's a zero sum game. Obviously the EU will want what is best for the EU and the same applies to the UK. The EU will take into account the need to not encourage others to leave, but there will be many things that will be good for both the UK and the EU and it will make sense for both sides to reach an agreement.
No-one seems to accuse the EU of lack of clarity, when their proposed 'deal' (or at least the early statement of it) was completely out with the fairies - that we should pay €60bn+ for nothing in return.
Well, yes, but atleast they didn't instigate an unnecessary election (and all the extra scrutiny that was going to lead to), with their out-with-the-fairies "deal" as the main plank of the campaign.
The difference is labour actually had a plan to pay for their no-death-tax.
Yes, find a rainbow and dig up the gold.
Your point was a good one: had Labour won, under Corbyn/McDonnell, a lot of the money they'd expect to squeeze out of the populace would have simply disappeared.
I had contingency plans to transfer £10k over to my cousin in Canada (who I trust implicitly) to hold for me in trust, and my parents in an offshore Jersey account.
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
Absolutely. Regardless of whether or not you support leaving the EU, triggering Article 50 before you are ready is grossly irresponsible. The most egregious of several unforced errors made by May. In fact she has not done a single thing to advance Britain's interests. She isn't even an effective double agent for Remain, as she is contributing to the car crash, rather than avoiding it.
Housing and the housing market is going to play a very big role over the next 5 years. It is getting to a crisis in so many different ways, all of which play into public policy.
We have a chronic overall shortage of housing caused by decades of NIMBYism and a planning system nowhere near fit for purpose. Can the changes made and to be made free the building of sufficient new houses? I doubt it which means we need to look at more public housing on that land to fill the gap.
We also have a serious dislocation of housing. In many areas there is plenty cheap housing but no jobs. In areas where there are jobs the cost of housing is a serious drag on growth.
We also have a problem of constrained demand. Domestic borrowing remains at dangerously high levels and savings are non existent for most of the younger market. The regulations about deposits etc which were put in to stop excesses such as Northern Rock's 110% mortgages may be doing a lot more harm than good.
Sorting this all out would be a major task for any government, let alone one that has Brexit to deal with and no majority. But home ownership is a key aspiration and a winning Tory party is the party of aspiration. They need to remember that and get back on track.
You failed to mention Immigration.
Until HMG gets a handle on the number of people wishing to move here from elsewhere, the supply of housing can never, ever come close to satisfying demand.
I would agree with that but also acknowledge that the priority is to deal with the consequences of immigration over the last 20 years, consequences we saw in Grenfell Tower.
Illegal immigration and Local Authorities continually turning a blind eye to Sub Letting?
The italian couple that arrived in London and had a council flat within a month ?
Barca and Peckham are cutting down on these air bnbs.
Long term is council housing viable to control - or should it be scrapped completely and other solutions found.
I understood that the italian couple were in one of the 25% or so of the block that had been sold off to the private sector via right to buy. Not all the subletting would be illegal.
Reading the Lib Dem tea leaves I'd go with Davey -> Cable -> Lamb (Most likely to least likely) if they are running.
I'm afraid Lamb abstaining on Article 50 is looking like treason to alot of the members, although it is supposed to be the party of the "48%", it is in effect becoming the party of the hardcore end of that 48%, and Ed Davey seems by far the most hardcore on the spectrum of the three who I think will run.
The second part of my 2nd paragraph might sound obvious enough, but Davey is the one who will take advantage of it in a leadership election. I'll be sticking with my back to lay of Jo for ~£10 profit - but Davey looks the most likely winner to me (Should he declare)
Sorry, I wasn't being sarky, but her position does have to be date-stamped. Likewise Boris of course.
Of course - her position quite rightly changed in response to the referendum. Nothing wrong with that; it was perfectly reasonable to argue before the referendum that leaving the EU would on balance be too risky, and then accept the result of the referendum and move into figuring out the best way to implement it, given that the decision had been taken.
Boris is a slightly different case, though.
No, nothing wrong with that Richard. Nor would there have been anything wrong with saying it was a very bad result for the country and as she was elected to do what was best for the country she could not in all conscience encourage the nation in pursuit of self-harm. That would have been rather a noble thing to do but she decided instead that if the country was determined to drive itself over a cliff it would be better if somebody responsible and capable, like her, were to lead it as it did so. All very honorable and altruistic, and nothing to do with self or Party advancement, no?
And I suppose her decision to declare a snap election was wholly driven by considerations of National interest, and nothing to do with self or even Party advantage either, no?
Can anyone confirm Hezza's assertion that Tory voters are dying out at the rate of 70% of 2% a year ie by 1.4% at the same time as new 18 year olds are registering boosting Labour's support by 1.4%,a total of the age demographic 2.8 % per year? This could mean the Tories are favoured by an early election because of the high mortality rates of their supporters and Labour would be better served in securing an overall majority in 3 years time when more Tory voters will have died off. Mortality rates could be another key factor in predicting election outcomes.
It overlooks the fact that there are voters who have switched over to the Tories, to replace those who are dying off.
In 1997, today's 45-54 year old age cohort were 25-34 years old. Back then, they voted 48% to 28% for Labour. This time, they voted 43% to 40% for the Conservatives.
The assumption that you make is that people will continue to trend Tory as they age. That may well decouple over time as more and more Gen Y and Millenials feel lees and les part of a society that works for them.
Brexit is the new fault line in British politics - nothing else really explains Mansfield and Stoke South going Tory while Canterbury and Kensington went Labour.
With UKIP's disappearance the Tories are now THE Brexit party. If it goes horribly wrong they are going to struggle to win back many under 40s over the coming years no matter what age they become.
The reluctance to replace May largely stems from that fact that in the current circumstances nobody wants to be the leader that crashes us out of the EU without a deal. I think most MPs blame May for the situation and think she should carry the bloody can for it herself.
The eurosceptics finally scuppering the Tory party after decades of trying would be quite amusing if it were not for the fact that they are going to take the country down with them
Housing and the housing market is going to play a very big role over the next 5 years. It is getting to a crisis in so many different ways, all of which play into public policy.
We have a chronic overall shortage of housing caused by decades of NIMBYism and a planning system nowhere near fit for purpose. Can the changes made and to be made free the building of sufficient new houses? I doubt it which means we need to look at more public housing on that land to fill the gap.
We also have a serious dislocation of housing. In many areas there is plenty cheap housing but no jobs. In areas where there are jobs the cost of housing is a serious drag on growth.
We also have a problem of constrained demand. Domestic borrowing remains at dangerously high levels and savings are non existent for most of the younger market. The regulations about deposits etc which were put in to stop excesses such as Northern Rock's 110% mortgages may be doing a lot more harm than good.
Sorting this all out would be a major task for any government, let alone one that has Brexit to deal with and no majority. But home ownership is a key aspiration and a winning Tory party is the party of aspiration. They need to remember that and get back on track.
You failed to mention Immigration.
Until HMG gets a handle on the number of people wishing to move here from elsewhere, the supply of housing can never, ever come close to satisfying demand.
I would agree with that but also acknowledge that the priority is to deal with the consequences of immigration over the last 20 years, consequences we saw in Grenfell Tower.
Illegal immigration and Local Authorities continually turning a blind eye to Sub Letting?
The italian couple that arrived in London and had a council flat within a month ?
Barca and Peckham are cutting down on these air bnbs.
Long term is council housing viable to control - or should it be scrapped completely and other solutions found.
I understood that the italian couple were in one of the 25% or so of the block that had been sold off to the private sector via right to buy. Not all the subletting would be illegal.
Fair enough - but should councils really be running property empires ?
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
Absolutely. Regardless of whether or not you support leaving the EU, triggering Article 50 before you are ready is grossly irresponsible. The most egregious of several unforced errors made by May. In fact she has not done a single thing to advance Britain's interests. She isn't even an effective double agent for Remain, as she is contributing to the car crash, rather than avoiding it.
I am forced to agree. Get rid of her. Get Hammond in, and get a long transitional deal. Done.
What favourable attributes does Hammond have other than "not May" ?
Big mistake to rush this - as per last summer when chicken Dave ran for the hills.
There was a shopping list, but nothing on potential trade offs.
As I said, this is a negotiation. Trade-offs are for the other side to demand, but implicitly she was offering to pay something towards the EU budget in return for what we were asking for. What do you expect her to say: "We are so desperate that we'll pay through the nose to get it'?
She also very explicitly offered reciprocal rights for citizens, reciprocal rights on trade, and enhanced cooperation on security. She was offering a deal, the outline of which was, as I said, very clear. Of course, we can't force our EU friends to take it if they don't want to, but that's a quite separate point.
What reciprocal rights did May offer? She never actually bothered to tell anyone, did she? The EU does not know, for sure.
Thought: a lot of people will vote tactically at the next GE, to keep Corbyn out of power. Kippers and Tories will go LD in LD/Labour marginals, or LDs and Tories might even go SNP in SNP/Lab marginals.... Tories might benefit from LD votes in the south, and so on.
Corbyn is popular with many, but he also terrifies many.
There are no LD/Labour marginals! Highly unlikely that in Scotland that supporters of Ruth Davidson are suddenly going to shift back to voting for the pro- Independence party on a tactical basis. Much more likely that Labour will finish at 25 - 30 seats in Scotland next time - mainly at the expense of the SNP but also up to 4 possible gains from the Tories if pro-Union tactical voting unwinds as a result of Labour being seen to be back in the game.
Can anyone confirm Hezza's assertion that Tory voters are dying out at the rate of 70% of 2% a year ie by 1.4% at the same time as new 18 year olds are registering boosting Labour's support by 1.4%,a total of the age demographic 2.8 % per year? This could mean the Tories are favoured by an early election because of the high mortality rates of their supporters and Labour would be better served in securing an overall majority in 3 years time when more Tory voters will have died off. Mortality rates could be another key factor in predicting election outcomes.
It overlooks the fact that there are voters who have switched over to the Tories, to replace those who are dying off.
In 1997, today's 45-54 year old age cohort were 25-34 years old. Back then, they voted 48% to 28% for Labour. This time, they voted 43% to 40% for the Conservatives.
Reading the Lib Dem tea leaves I'd go with Davey -> Cable -> Lamb (Most likely to least likely) if they are running.
I'm afraid Lamb abstaining on Article 50 is looking like treason to alot of the members, although it is supposed to be the party of the "48%", it is in effect becoming the party of the hardcore end of that 48%, and Ed Davey seems by far the most hardcore on the spectrum of the three who I think will run.
The second part of my 2nd paragraph might sound obvious enough, but Davey is the one who will take advantage of it in a leadership election. I'll be sticking with my back to lay of Jo for ~£10 profit - but Davey looks the most likely winner to me (Should he declare)
If Ed Davey is the answer, what is the question?!? What's he ever done or said that was interesting.
Atleast Cable has a bit of (generally positive) regard built up with the general public.
Reading the Lib Dem tea leaves I'd go with Davey -> Cable -> Lamb (Most likely to least likely) if they are running.
I'm afraid Lamb abstaining on Article 50 is looking like treason to alot of the members, although it is supposed to be the party of the "48%", it is in effect becoming the party of the hardcore end of that 48%, and Ed Davey seems by far the most hardcore on the spectrum of the three who I think will run.
The second part of my 2nd paragraph might sound obvious enough, but Davey is the one who will take advantage of it in a leadership election. I'll be sticking with my back to lay of Jo for ~£10 profit - but Davey looks the most likely winner to me (Should he declare)
I would disagree. I think Lamb will run and he will win.
His A50 stance, leaves open a soft Brexit policy. I think we saw 2 weeks ago how well a rejectionist Brexit policy went down. Lamb is also stronger on non Brexit policy, and will be more equidistant between the main 2 parties.
The risk of May's Tories with a blank cheque on Brexit was greater than the risk of Corbyn.
The irony is that failure to give May a blank cheque (or a 'mandate' as we used to call it) to negotiate has dramatically increased the risk of a chaotic Brexit. It's easily the most dangerous election result of my lifetime.
Calling a GE after triggering A50 is now looking more criminally irresponsible by the day. Our hand was never that strong but May chucked away the few cards we did hold. I think the only thing on offer will be a very harsh deal - there is little incentive for the other 27 to do much else.
Absolutely. Regardless of whether or not you support leaving the EU, triggering Article 50 before you are ready is grossly irresponsible. The most egregious of several unforced errors made by May. In fact she has not done a single thing to advance Britain's interests. She isn't even an effective double agent for Remain, as she is contributing to the car crash, rather than avoiding it.
I'm trying to remember the reasoning behind it now (seems so long ago). Wasn't it announced during the 'Citizens of Nowhere' conference speech? I suppose the idea was to neutralise the Kippers first up. That seems incredibly naive and short-sighted in hindsight, especially considering the Kippers went to Labour.
Since there has been no response other than to criticicise Theresa May's admittedly ham-fisted soundbites, I repeat my point: "Her Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter were as clear as it is humanly possible to be clear, given that the nature of Brexit is not completely in our hands but will be the outcome of a negotiation."
There was a shopping list, but nothing on potential trade offs.
It is clear from yesterday that the EU is also working towards a hard Brexit, outside the CU and Single Market.
As the UK government has consistently ruled out being a part of the customs union and single market, they have been left with no alternative.
Comments
We miss Plato.
Hammond asks [in his Mansion House speech] how Britain can achieve a Brexit that works for the people.
He identifies four priorities.
First, it must get a comprehensive agreement on trade and services.
Second, there must be mutually beneficial transitional arrangement, avoiding disruption and dangerous cliff edges.
Third, there must be frictionless customs arrangements.
This will involve an implementation period, when the UK will be outside the customs union, but customs rules will remain in place pending the new rules coming into force.
And, fourth, there must be arrangements in place to protect the City, he says.>
The third is inconsistent. You either have a formal, frictionless customs arrangement or you have neither. The first implies EEA, if you mean comprehensive in a similar way to what's in place today. The EU have made it clear they want certainty and to move on quickly from Brexit. They aren't currently at all interested in open-ended transitions. The predominance of London as the European financial centre is probably lost under any Brexit scenario.
The logic of Hammond's statements is that he thinks EEA+CU is the way to go, but he is not prepared to say so. Whether he will find a way to do so later remains to be seen.
But there is a large Conservative vote right across the island - particularly outside Newport, Sandown and Ryde - that will keep IOW Tory for a long time to come.
Until HMG gets a handle on the number of people wishing to move here from elsewhere, the supply of housing can never, ever come close to satisfying demand.
In which case a blanket 'death tax' regardless of your circumstance is the only option. Say10% on all estates over 100k. How politically possible that is is another matter.
It's even worse the further up the chain you go. For socialist republicans this is all great, destroy the gentry, but do we really want out grand estates demolished?
Negative campaigning works, and you as an alleged Lib Dem should know that better than most.
Property ownership (and particularly, rentierism) is the conservatives' clause IV.
They actually need a Nick Timothy.
You can formally leave the customs union (i.e. so the UK can set its own non-EU tariff regimes), adopt free-trade in goods with the EU, but at the same time want all rules-of-origin and customs checks between the UK-EU digitised and made as bureaucracy-free as possible. Such methods could form part of the comprehensive agreement on trade and services.
For example, most UK car manufacturers will source most of their components from inside the UK and EU "as-is". With a free trade deal in goods, it should be relatively easily to demarcate or tag these products and fast-track them across the UK/EU border multiple times with only the very occasional spot-check, probably focussed on specific firms and companies to see if their processes and procedures were compliant.
If:
Brexit = Brexit
and
Enough = Enough,
Strong + Stable = ?
Hmmm. Stuck. Can I phone Diane Abbott?
I go there regularly.
Blimey.
That's not to say other seats won't move back into the "achievable" list if and when the local Government base is rebuilt.
The truth is the LDs prosper only when one of the two main parties is in eclipse so the years 1980-87 when Labour was struggling and 1997-2005 when the Conservatives were in trouble.
IF, and it is a big if, the Conservatives are on a downward slope, LD prospects locally will improve in some of the next level of targets in places like Yeovil and Chippenham.
It's a serious problem that needs addressing.
The Greens fell back from second place there. It will remain Tory (though was LD not so long ago).
It is clear from yesterday that the EU is also working towards a hard Brexit, outside the CU and Single Market.
The former was a more coherent negotiating position and a clearer statement of intent.
"Red white and blue Brexit" ("that works for everyone in the UK") is as meaningful as the question it was in answer to (which IIRC was something like "will it be a black, white or grey Brexit?")
That is quite the legacy of **** he left!
And no, I don't care what Ian Dunt, Jo Maugham or any other Brexit antis thought.
A LVT on property solves a load of issues.
It's far more intergenerationally fair than the current setup.
Williamglenn should perhaps holiday there.
She also very explicitly offered reciprocal rights for citizens, reciprocal rights on trade, and enhanced cooperation on security. She was offering a deal, the outline of which was, as I said, very clear. Of course, we can't force our EU friends to take it if they don't want to, but that's a quite separate point.
Which is something even the public sensed -- even though May was still enjoying her honeymoon at the time, and even though people thought ideally the kind of Brexit deal she was talking about sounded great, people said by 56% to 20% that the EU would not agree to it:
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/xalfiwu0ed/TimesResults_170118_VI_Trackers_MaySpeech_W.pdf
Boris is a slightly different case, though.
My late mother-in-law's cleaner had a mortgage in Essex paid for by the undeclared rent on illegally letting out her council flat in Elephant and Castle. No rent book, as this would have proved it was happening, and the target tenants were illegals too so they didn't object.
It does happen.
Wish Lamb had declared first so I could've laid a bit. Did that for Cable yesterday (mildly longer back odds on Ladbrokes than Betfair's lay odds).
https://twitter.com/britainelects?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
But, we were referring to clarity. No-one seems to accuse the EU of lack of clarity, when their proposed 'deal' (or at least the early statement of it) was completely out with the fairies - that we should pay €60bn+ for nothing in return.
If anything goes wrong on their heads be it...
Barca and Peckham are cutting down on these air bnbs.
Long term is council housing viable to control - or should it be scrapped completely and other solutions found.
Obviously the EU will want what is best for the EU and the same applies to the UK. The EU will take into account the need to not encourage others to leave, but there will be many things that will be good for both the UK and the EU and it will make sense for both sides to reach an agreement.
I had contingency plans to transfer £10k over to my cousin in Canada (who I trust implicitly) to hold for me in trust, and my parents in an offshore Jersey account.
I'm afraid Lamb abstaining on Article 50 is looking like treason to alot of the members, although it is supposed to be the party of the "48%", it is in effect becoming the party of the hardcore end of that 48%, and Ed Davey seems by far the most hardcore on the spectrum of the three who I think will run.
The second part of my 2nd paragraph might sound obvious enough, but Davey is the one who will take advantage of it in a leadership election. I'll be sticking with my back to lay of Jo for ~£10 profit - but Davey looks the most likely winner to me (Should he declare)
And I suppose her decision to declare a snap election was wholly driven by considerations of National interest, and nothing to do with self or even Party advantage either, no?
She's not an easy sell, is she , Richard?
With UKIP's disappearance the Tories are now THE Brexit party. If it goes horribly wrong they are going to struggle to win back many under 40s over the coming years no matter what age they become.
The reluctance to replace May largely stems from that fact that in the current circumstances nobody wants to be the leader that crashes us out of the EU without a deal. I think most MPs blame May for the situation and think she should carry the bloody can for it herself.
The eurosceptics finally scuppering the Tory party after decades of trying would be quite amusing if it were not for the fact that they are going to take the country down with them
Big mistake to rush this - as per last summer when chicken Dave ran for the hills.
Thatcher also terrified many.
No we don'r
Atleast Cable has a bit of (generally positive) regard built up with the general public.
His A50 stance, leaves open a soft Brexit policy. I think we saw 2 weeks ago how well a rejectionist Brexit policy went down. Lamb is also stronger on non Brexit policy, and will be more equidistant between the main 2 parties.