Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Good night for LAB, bad one for the LDs in this week’s local b

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited July 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Good night for LAB, bad one for the LDs in this week’s local by-elections

Alston Moor on Eden (Lib Dem defence) Result: Labour 407 (56%, no candidate last time), Conservative 253 (35% -10% on last time), Independent 57 (8%, no candidate last time), Green Party 13 (2%, no candidate last time) No Liberal Democrat candidate (-55%) Labour GAIN from Liberal Democrat with a majority of 154 (21%) on a notional swing of 33% from Conservative to Labour

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    First!
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    I'm getting extremely emotional just listening to Hans Zimmer's soundtrack for Dunkirk, which I've just bought. There is an awful lot of Sir Edward Elgar in there.

    Listen to "Home", and just experience how beautifully he weaves in Nimrod in there.

    Tear down my cheek.

    Based on that recommendation I've just bought it myself now.

    Firing up the player...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Douglas!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Is Gove on manourvres?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    Fourth
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    RobD said:

    Douglas!

    Also appropriately for your post his youngest son is THurd.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    edited July 2017
    FPT:
    IanB2 said:

    What they should have done is identified the issue when she handed in her notice and, in discussion with her, dealt with it by adjusting her notice period (last day worked) so that this balanced with her pro-Rafa holiday entitlement. Pro-rating the holiday entitlement for a part year worked is reasonable, as holiday is granted in proportion to period worked. However seeking to recover cash for excess holiday granted will be more challenging for the company, unless her employment contract (or published company HR policies) expressly allow them to do so, and I would be surprised, unless there is such a contractual provision, if they bother. And even then.

    A more practical issue is whether she left the company on good terms and, if so, whether she might need a reference from them in the future. If so, there is an argument for paying to maintain the goodwill.

    Thanks, I reckon someone in accounts/HR messed up. On the references, I believe they've already provided the necessary references for her new job but I think she'll pay anyway.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    Jonathan said:

    Is Gove on manourvres?

    Dead Ringers clearly thinks so...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    GeoffM said:

    RobD said:

    Douglas!

    Also appropriately for your post his youngest son is THurd.
    Hopefully he did better than that at uni! ;)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    GeoffM said:

    I'm getting extremely emotional just listening to Hans Zimmer's soundtrack for Dunkirk, which I've just bought. There is an awful lot of Sir Edward Elgar in there.

    Listen to "Home", and just experience how beautifully he weaves in Nimrod in there.

    Tear down my cheek.

    Based on that recommendation I've just bought it myself now.

    Firing up the player...
    It's very evocative. Supermarine is the most stirring, The Oil the most haunting, and Home the most moving.

    In my view.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Jonathan said:

    Is Gove on manourvres?

    He's the smartest of the lot.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    Evening all :)

    Not sure the two LD losses are of great significance and both under slightly unusual circumstances but regrettable nonetheless.

    There was a by-election on Wealden DC which the Conservatives held - Labour 2nd and the LDs 3rd - 349,185,120 and a 10% swing Con-Lab.

    Also a contest on Shepway - another CON hold - complicated by a former CON Councillor running as an Independent and finishing a strong third with 27%. Swing of 7.5% Con-Lab.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Tom Newton Dunn had lunch with what he thinks is the next Tory PM, one of the 2015 intake.

    It is one of these 74 MPs, and it ain't Byron Davies, Ben Howlett, Tania Mathias, James Berry or Flick Drummond because they lost, so it's actually one of 69.

    http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2015/05/generation-2015-introducing-the-74-new-conservative-mps.html

    Who?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,979

    Tom Newton Dunn had lunch with what he thinks is the next Tory PM, one of the 2015 intake.

    It is one of these 74 MPs, and it ain't Byron Davies, Ben Howlett, Tania Mathias, James Berry or Flick Drummond because they lost, so it's actually one of 69.

    http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2015/05/generation-2015-introducing-the-74-new-conservative-mps.html

    Who?

    Johnny Mercer.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/887320364589752321
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    So how's that remainer meme working out for the Lib Dems?

    It's almost as if it was an obsession for a tiny minority and the rest of the country has moved on.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    @TSE - given how much you like him, I'm sort of pleased the shortlist came up with 69.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Tom Newton Dunn had lunch with what he thinks is the next Tory PM, one of the 2015 intake.

    It is one of these 74 MPs, and it ain't Byron Davies, Ben Howlett, Tania Mathias, James Berry or Flick Drummond because they lost, so it's actually one of 69.

    http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2015/05/generation-2015-introducing-the-74-new-conservative-mps.html

    Who?

    Heidi Allen.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    edited July 2017
    FPT

    I'm getting extremely emotional just listening to Hans Zimmer's soundtrack for Dunkirk, which I've just bought. There is an awful lot of Sir Edward Elgar in there.

    Listen to "Home", and just experience how beautifully he weaves in Nimrod in there.

    Tear down my cheek.

    Let us read the stirring call from Winston Churchill in the aftermath of that war for a United Europe 'including Great Britain'. '...the resurrection of what was called the Old World, now found in full partnership with the New.' And let us reflect on our current path.

    https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/address_given_by_winston_churchill_at_the_congress_of_europe_in_the_hague_7_may_1948-en-58118da1-af22-48c0-bc88-93cda974f42c.html
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Sean_F said:

    Tom Newton Dunn had lunch with what he thinks is the next Tory PM, one of the 2015 intake.

    It is one of these 74 MPs, and it ain't Byron Davies, Ben Howlett, Tania Mathias, James Berry or Flick Drummond because they lost, so it's actually one of 69.

    http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2015/05/generation-2015-introducing-the-74-new-conservative-mps.html

    Who?

    Heidi Allen.
    LOL!
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688

    Tom Newton Dunn had lunch with what he thinks is the next Tory PM, one of the 2015 intake.

    It is one of these 74 MPs, and it ain't Byron Davies, Ben Howlett, Tania Mathias, James Berry or Flick Drummond because they lost, so it's actually one of 69.

    http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2015/05/generation-2015-introducing-the-74-new-conservative-mps.html

    Who?

    Johnny Mercer.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/887320364589752321
    He/She (my guess) is in your list.

    If you can get BF to list all of those names.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    DavidL said:

    So how's that remainer meme working out for the Lib Dems?

    It's almost as if it was an obsession for a tiny minority and the rest of the country has moved on.

    That's an unnecessarily snide comment from you in all honesty.

    The circumstances of the two LD losses were unusual but that doesn't make the losses any more palatable. Not sure it was that good a night for the Conservatives with the big loss in Leek and some moderate results elsewhere (apart from Stockton which was good).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,587

    Jonathan said:

    Is Gove on manourvres?

    He's the smartest of the lot.
    Bet he can even spell manoeuvre...

    ... though his tend to end in a car crash every so often.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    FPT

    I'm getting extremely emotional just listening to Hans Zimmer's soundtrack for Dunkirk, which I've just bought. There is an awful lot of Sir Edward Elgar in there.

    Listen to "Home", and just experience how beautifully he weaves in Nimrod in there.

    Tear down my cheek.

    Let us read the stirring call from Winston Churchill in the aftermath of that war for a United Europe 'including Great Britain'. '...the resurrection of what was called the Old World, now found in full partnership with the New.' And let us reflect on our current path.

    https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/address_given_by_winston_churchill_at_the_congress_of_europe_in_the_hague_7_may_1948-en-58118da1-af22-48c0-bc88-93cda974f42c.html
    Nice try. But the complete quote is "Thus I saw the vast Soviet Union forming one of these groups. The Council of Europe, including Great Britain linked with her Empire and Commonwealth, would be another. Thirdly, there was the United States and her sister republics in the Western Hemisphere with all their great spheres of interest and influence."

    The September 1946 speech "There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings.

    There is already a natural grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations. These do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organisation. They are in fact its main support."

    "Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia - for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine."

    http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

    It's clear he saw the UK as a flying buttress to support a united Europe, and one of its Sponsors, not immersed right at the heart of it.

    Which, coincidentally, is the position of our current Foreign Secretary.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    stodge said:

    DavidL said:

    So how's that remainer meme working out for the Lib Dems?

    It's almost as if it was an obsession for a tiny minority and the rest of the country has moved on.

    That's an unnecessarily snide comment from you in all honesty.

    The circumstances of the two LD losses were unusual but that doesn't make the losses any more palatable. Not sure it was that good a night for the Conservatives with the big loss in Leek and some moderate results elsewhere (apart from Stockton which was good).
    I think you take criticism of the LDs a bit too personally.

    It was a poor night for the Conservatives, IMHO.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    FPT

    I'm getting extremely emotional just listening to Hans Zimmer's soundtrack for Dunkirk, which I've just bought. There is an awful lot of Sir Edward Elgar in there.

    Listen to "Home", and just experience how beautifully he weaves in Nimrod in there.

    Tear down my cheek.

    Let us read the stirring call from Winston Churchill in the aftermath of that war for a United Europe 'including Great Britain'. '...the resurrection of what was called the Old World, now found in full partnership with the New.' And let us reflect on our current path.

    https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/address_given_by_winston_churchill_at_the_congress_of_europe_in_the_hague_7_may_1948-en-58118da1-af22-48c0-bc88-93cda974f42c.html
    Nice try. But the complete quote is "Thus I saw the vast Soviet Union forming one of these groups. The Council of Europe, including Great Britain linked with her Empire and Commonwealth, would be another. Thirdly, there was the United States and her sister republics in the Western Hemisphere with all their great spheres of interest and influence."

    The September 1946 speech "There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings.

    There is already a natural grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations. These do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organisation. They are in fact its main support."

    "Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia - for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine."

    http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

    It's clear he saw the UK as a flying buttress to support a united Europe, and one of its Sponsors, not immersed right at the heart of it.

    Which, coincidentally, is the position of our current Foreign Secretary.
    The flying buttress was the empire, which has long gone.

    It's very clear from the speech I linked that he saw Great Britain as part of the Europe that should unify, every bit as much as the Iberian Peninsula, Scandinavia, or France and Germany themselves.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,979
    What was it David Cameron said about UKIP?


    A North Wales AM has called Chuka Umunna a “f***ing coconut” during a foul-mouthed rant against him, Barack Obama and Tristram Hunt.

    Michelle Brown, a regional Ukip AM, said the Labour MP for Streatham was “black on the outside, white on the inside” in a telephone conversation with Nigel Williams, who was her senior advisor at the time.

    http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-ukip-am-calls-13368297.amp
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,587
    Addressing a question FPT, some commentary on why the Presidential pardon power might not be a get out of jail free for Trump:
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/07/no_matter_who_he_fires_or_pardons_trump_won_t_be_able_to_escape_state_attorneys.html
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Interpol has circulated a list of 173 Islamic State fighters it believes could have been trained to mount suicide attacks in Europe in revenge for the group’s military defeats in the Middle East.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/21/isis-islamic-state-suicide-brigade-interpol-list
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Is Gove on manourvres?

    He's the smartest of the lot.
    Gove...
    The Wile E Coyote of the Tory party.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    FPT

    I'm getting extremely emotional just listening to Hans Zimmer's soundtrack for Dunkirk, which I've just bought. There is an awful lot of Sir Edward Elgar in there.

    Listen to "Home", and just experience how beautifully he weaves in Nimrod in there.

    Tear down my cheek.

    Let us read the stirring call from Winston Churchill in the aftermath of that war for a United Europe 'including Great Britain'. '...the resurrection of what was called the Old World, now found in full partnership with the New.' And let us reflect on our current path.

    https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/address_given_by_winston_churchill_at_the_congress_of_europe_in_the_hague_7_may_1948-en-58118da1-af22-48c0-bc88-93cda974f42c.html
    http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

    It's clear he saw the UK as a flying buttress to support a united Europe, and one of its Sponsors, not immersed right at the heart of it.

    Which, coincidentally, is the position of our current Foreign Secretary.
    The flying buttress was the empire, which has long gone.

    It's very clear from the speech I linked that he saw Great Britain as part of the Europe that should unify, every bit as much as the Iberian Peninsula, Scandinavia, or France and Germany themselves.
    No, that's just your fantasy.

    Check out P.186-190:

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=K42SDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=winston+churchill+myth+and+reality&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR_M34k5vVAhXBnBoKHcIeAEMQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=winston churchill myth and reality&f=false

    You are a master of selectively quoting facts and evidence that you think support your case.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038

    FPT

    I'm getting extremely emotional just listening to Hans Zimmer's soundtrack for Dunkirk, which I've just bought. There is an awful lot of Sir Edward Elgar in there.

    Listen to "Home", and just experience how beautifully he weaves in Nimrod in there.

    Tear down my cheek.

    Let us read the stirring call from Winston Churchill in the aftermath of that war for a United Europe 'including Great Britain'. '...the resurrection of what was called the Old World, now found in full partnership with the New.' And let us reflect on our current path.

    https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/address_given_by_winston_churchill_at_the_congress_of_europe_in_the_hague_7_may_1948-en-58118da1-af22-48c0-bc88-93cda974f42c.html
    Nice try. But the complete quote is "Thus I saw the vast Soviet Union forming one of these groups. The Council of Europe, including Great Britain linked with her Empire and Commonwealth, would be another. Thirdly, there was the United States and her sister republics in the Western Hemisphere with all their great spheres of interest and influence."

    The September 1946 speech "There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings.

    There is already a natural grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations. These do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organisation. They are in fact its main support."

    "Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia - for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine."

    http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

    It's clear he saw the UK as a flying buttress to support a united Europe, and one of its Sponsors, not immersed right at the heart of it.

    Which, coincidentally, is the position of our current Foreign Secretary.
    The flying buttress was the empire, which has long gone.

    It's very clear from the speech I linked that he saw Great Britain as part of the Europe that should unify, every bit as much as the Iberian Peninsula, Scandinavia, or France and Germany themselves.
    I agree, even if it might not be one of the 'first 13' states. Nor I assume would Norway, Sweden or Denmark.

    Norway's likely to be one of the very last. It can contemplate the world with the comfort of knowing that it has almost $US 1 trillion of oil money in the bank.

    The US took ~150 years to go from 13 to 50 states. Give it time.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Is Gove on manourvres?

    He's the smartest of the lot.
    Gove...
    The Wile E Coyote of the Tory party.
    Gove, possibly advised by his wife, let Boris down. It was rather shabby. There is no place in the UK for a shabby PM (despite current and former indications).
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745



    I think you take criticism of the LDs a bit too personally.

    It was a poor night for the Conservatives, IMHO.

    I was annoyed that David, who is actually a normally sensible contributor with whom I have had a number of interesting debates over the years, decided to take a pop at the LD policy on Brexit as though that was a huge factor in losing a seat in Rutland.

    I've never made national significance of local elections though they are useful as straws in the wind but that's all. As an example, last night's St Helier result suggests the Conservatives have very little chance of recapturing Merton next year but I wouldn't infer any more from it.

    I can take "criticism" but David wasn't offering that.

    I'd be genuinely interested in the views of Conservatives on Vince Cable's remarks - they surprised one or two but no one should doubt Cable's antipathy toward Corbyn-style socialism from his experiences as a Labour Councillor in the late 70s and early 80s. He is ferociously anti-Corbyn but not anti-Labour.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    FPT

    I'm getting extremely emotional just listening to Hans Zimmer's soundtrack for Dunkirk, which I've just bought. There is an awful lot of Sir Edward Elgar in there.

    Listen to "Home", and just experience how beautifully he weaves in Nimrod in there.

    Tear down my cheek.

    Let us read the stirring call from Winston Churchill in the aftermath of that war for a United Europe 'including Great Britain'. '...the resurrection of what was called the Old World, now found in full partnership with the New.' And let us reflect on our current path.

    https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/address_given_by_winston_churchill_at_the_congress_of_europe_in_the_hague_7_may_1948-en-58118da1-af22-48c0-bc88-93cda974f42c.html
    Nice try. But the complete quote is "Thus I saw the vast Soviet Union forming one of these groups. The Council of Europe, including Great Britain linked with her Empire and Commonwealth, would be another. Thirdly, there was the United States and her sister republics in the Western Hemisphere with all their great spheres of interest and influence."

    The September 1946 speech "There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings.

    There is already a natural grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations. These do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organisation. They are in fact its main support."

    "Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia - for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine."

    http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

    It's clear he saw the UK as a flying buttress to support a united Europe, and one of its Sponsors, not immersed right at the heart of it.

    Which, coincidentally, is the position of our current Foreign Secretary.
    The flying buttress was the empire, which has long gone.

    It's very clear from the speech I linked that he saw Great Britain as part of the Europe that should unify, every bit as much as the Iberian Peninsula, Scandinavia, or France and Germany themselves.
    Well I, for one, don't, and would resist it to my dying breath.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780

    stodge said:

    DavidL said:

    So how's that remainer meme working out for the Lib Dems?

    It's almost as if it was an obsession for a tiny minority and the rest of the country has moved on.

    That's an unnecessarily snide comment from you in all honesty.

    The circumstances of the two LD losses were unusual but that doesn't make the losses any more palatable. Not sure it was that good a night for the Conservatives with the big loss in Leek and some moderate results elsewhere (apart from Stockton which was good).
    I think you take criticism of the LDs a bit too personally.

    It was a poor night for the Conservatives, IMHO.
    Oh I agree, it was. But there is a massive difference between how we seem to obsess with every comment and completely unverified comment on here re Brexit and the performance of the Brexit party in the country. These results show a government in trouble and an opposition party that seems irrelevant. Labour are currently rampant.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    Omnium said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Is Gove on manourvres?

    He's the smartest of the lot.
    Gove...
    The Wile E Coyote of the Tory party.
    Gove, possibly advised by his wife, let Boris down. It was rather shabby. There is no place in the UK for a shabby PM (despite current and former indications).
    Blimey, that is a seriously high bar you are setting there.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    FPT

    I'm getting extremely emotional just listening to Hans Zimmer's soundtrack for Dunkirk, which I've just bought. There is an awful lot of Sir Edward Elgar in there.

    Listen to "Home", and just experience how beautifully he weaves in Nimrod in there.

    Tear down my cheek.

    Let us read the stirring call from Winston Churchill in the aftermath of that war for a United Europe 'including Great Britain'. '...the resurrection of what was called the Old World, now found in full partnership with the New.' And let us reflect on our current path.

    https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/address_given_by_winston_churchill_at_the_congress_of_europe_in_the_hague_7_may_1948-en-58118da1-af22-48c0-bc88-93cda974f42c.html
    Nice try. But the complete quote is "Thus I saw the vast Soviet Union forming one of these groups. The Council of Europe, including Great Britain linked with her Empire and Commonwealth, would be another. Thirdly, there was the United States and her sister republics in the Western Hemisphere with all their great spheres of interest and influence."

    The September 1946 speech "There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings.

    There is already a natural grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations. These do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organisation. They are in fact its main support."

    "Great Britain, the British and shine."

    http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

    It's clear he saw the UK as a flying buttress to support a united Europe, and one of its Sponsors, not immersed right at the heart of it.

    Which, coincidentally, is the position of our current Foreign Secretary.
    The flying buttress was the empire, which has long gone.

    It's very clear from the speech I linked that he saw Great Britain as part of the Europe that should unify, every bit as much as the Iberian Peninsula, Scandinavia, or France and Germany themselves.
    I agree, even if it might not be one of the 'first 13' states. Nor I assume would Norway, Sweden or Denmark.

    Norway's likely to be one of the very last. It can contemplate the world with the comfort of knowing that it has almost $US 1 trillion of oil money in the bank.

    The US took ~150 years to go from 13 to 50 states. Give it time.
    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    stodge said:



    I think you take criticism of the LDs a bit too personally.

    It was a poor night for the Conservatives, IMHO.

    I was annoyed that David, who is actually a normally sensible contributor with whom I have had a number of interesting debates over the years, decided to take a pop at the LD policy on Brexit as though that was a huge factor in losing a seat in Rutland.

    I've never made national significance of local elections though they are useful as straws in the wind but that's all. As an example, last night's St Helier result suggests the Conservatives have very little chance of recapturing Merton next year but I wouldn't infer any more from it.

    I can take "criticism" but David wasn't offering that.

    I'd be genuinely interested in the views of Conservatives on Vince Cable's remarks - they surprised one or two but no one should doubt Cable's antipathy toward Corbyn-style socialism from his experiences as a Labour Councillor in the late 70s and early 80s. He is ferociously anti-Corbyn but not anti-Labour.
    Cable was poor in government. He clearly identifies with Labour, however he has very effectively demonstrated that he's his own man. He has some peripheral knowledge of economics and that has proven useful - however when he switches from criticism to planning he's woeful (as are all politicians).
  • I was the "Others" in Billingham North - a decent first ever attempt for the North East Party in Stockton, 15 votes behind the Lib Dems, but hard to break through with LDs and Independent in the mix.
    Still glad I did it though.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    DavidL said:

    Omnium said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Is Gove on manourvres?

    He's the smartest of the lot.
    Gove...
    The Wile E Coyote of the Tory party.
    Gove, possibly advised by his wife, let Boris down. It was rather shabby. There is no place in the UK for a shabby PM (despite current and former indications).
    Blimey, that is a seriously high bar you are setting there.
    When you've chosen the Duke of Omnium as your naming inspiration there is no place for buggering about.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,775
    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.

    (Of course, so do some bust shit holes: Albania and Puerto Rico, for example.)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,775
    Omnium said:

    stodge said:



    I think you take criticism of the LDs a bit too personally.

    It was a poor night for the Conservatives, IMHO.

    I was annoyed that David, who is actually a normally sensible contributor with whom I have had a number of interesting debates over the years, decided to take a pop at the LD policy on Brexit as though that was a huge factor in losing a seat in Rutland.

    I've never made national significance of local elections though they are useful as straws in the wind but that's all. As an example, last night's St Helier result suggests the Conservatives have very little chance of recapturing Merton next year but I wouldn't infer any more from it.

    I can take "criticism" but David wasn't offering that.

    I'd be genuinely interested in the views of Conservatives on Vince Cable's remarks - they surprised one or two but no one should doubt Cable's antipathy toward Corbyn-style socialism from his experiences as a Labour Councillor in the late 70s and early 80s. He is ferociously anti-Corbyn but not anti-Labour.
    Cable was poor in government. He clearly identifies with Labour, however he has very effectively demonstrated that he's his own man. He has some peripheral knowledge of economics and that has proven useful - however when he switches from criticism to planning he's woeful (as are all politicians).
    While I bow to no-one in my loathing of Vince Cable, he was the Chief Economist at Shell, which suggests he has a reasonable grasp of economics. (Albeit presumably with a bias to predicting what oil and natural gas consumption was likely to do.)
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    stodge said:



    I think you take criticism of the LDs a bit too personally.

    It was a poor night for the Conservatives, IMHO.

    I was annoyed that David, who is actually a normally sensible contributor with whom I have had a number of interesting debates over the years, decided to take a pop at the LD policy on Brexit as though that was a huge factor in losing a seat in Rutland.

    I've never made national significance of local elections though they are useful as straws in the wind but that's all. As an example, last night's St Helier result suggests the Conservatives have very little chance of recapturing Merton next year but I wouldn't infer any more from it.

    I can take "criticism" but David wasn't offering that.
    FWIW, I think David's comment could be seen as a bit of a pop but was offered in good faith.

    Half a year or so ago there seemed a genuine chance of a Brexit-propelled Lib Dem resurgence. There was even some talk of whether they could supplant a Labour party that was torn with parliamentary strife and seemed to be steaming away at full speed from the centre of the political battleground. The 48% strategy, added to greater clarity over the risks and costs of Brexit among the more regret-capable component of the 52% and the outpourings of Europhile support from young people, looked like it could be sculpted into a really serious political force.

    But where is it now? It didn't seem to turn up at the GE. And while you can't read too much into local election results, they don't provide much evidence of a historic grassroots anti-Brexit revolt looming up in the shires post-GE.

    (Perhaps this resurgence talk was all silly wishful thinking and really rather overblown in the first place, so it is not a sensible or constructive thing to.compare reality against such lofty expectations. And I know you have always tempered your feelings with more realism. But the fact the Lib Dems are not sweeping the council chambers and bedecking them with blue flags and yellow stars should really be taking some people by surprise, if they truly had believed their predictions from not so long ago, and may for that reason alone bear some reiteration. Albeit not to you, since you were already wise enough to that..)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Sean_F said:

    FPT

    I'm getting extremely emotional just listening to Hans Zimmer's soundtrack for Dunkirk, which I've just bought. There is an awful lot of Sir Edward Elgar in there.

    Listen to "Home", and just experience how beautifully he weaves in Nimrod in there.

    Tear down my cheek.

    Let us read the stirring call from Winston Churchill in the aftermath of that war for a United Europe 'including Great Britain'. '...the resurrection of what was called the Old World, now found in full partnership with the New.' And let us reflect on our current path.

    https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/address_given_by_winston_churchill_at_the_congress_of_europe_in_the_hague_7_may_1948-en-58118da1-af22-48c0-bc88-93cda974f42c.html
    http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

    It's clear he saw the UK as a flying buttress to support a united Europe, and one of its Sponsors, not immersed right at the heart of it.

    Which, coincidentally, is the position of our current Foreign Secretary.
    The flying buttress was the empire, which has long gone.

    It's very clear from the speech I linked that he saw Great Britain as part of the Europe that should unify, every bit as much as the Iberian Peninsula, Scandinavia, or France and Germany themselves.
    I agree, even if it might not be one of the 'first 13' states. Nor I assume would Norway, Sweden or Denmark.

    Norway's likely to be one of the very last. It can contemplate the world with the comfort of knowing that it has almost $US 1 trillion of oil money in the bank.

    The US took ~150 years to go from 13 to 50 states. Give it time.
    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?
    I think those who are misty-eyed about a United Europe have the same level of obsession with WWII as those who do nothing other than recite We Will Fight Them On The Beaches.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,926
    John Williams night at the Proms - on BBC4 albeit, but still :)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Omnium said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Is Gove on manourvres?

    He's the smartest of the lot.
    Gove...
    The Wile E Coyote of the Tory party.
    Gove, possibly advised by his wife, let Boris down. It was rather shabby. There is no place in the UK for a shabby PM (despite current and former indications).
    Gove's mistake was to fail to do his due diligence on Boris before backing him so wholeheartedly.

    But, he also enjoys drama a little too much.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    stodge said:



    I think you take criticism of the LDs a bit too personally.

    It was a poor night for the Conservatives, IMHO.

    I was annoyed that David, who is actually a normally sensible contributor with whom I have had a number of interesting debates over the years, decided to take a pop at the LD policy on Brexit as though that was a huge factor in losing a seat in Rutland.

    I've never made national significance of local elections though they are useful as straws in the wind but that's all. As an example, last night's St Helier result suggests the Conservatives have very little chance of recapturing Merton next year but I wouldn't infer any more from it.

    I can take "criticism" but David wasn't offering that.

    I'd be genuinely interested in the views of Conservatives on Vince Cable's remarks - they surprised one or two but no one should doubt Cable's antipathy toward Corbyn-style socialism from his experiences as a Labour Councillor in the late 70s and early 80s. He is ferociously anti-Corbyn but not anti-Labour.
    Cable was poor in government. He clearly identifies with Labour, however he has very effectively demonstrated that he's his own man. He has some peripheral knowledge of economics and that has proven useful - however when he switches from criticism to planning he's woeful (as are all politicians).
    While I bow to no-one in my loathing of Vince Cable, he was the Chief Economist at Shell, which suggests he has a reasonable grasp of economics. (Albeit presumably with a bias to predicting what oil and natural gas consumption was likely to do.)
    He was indeed. He should have a very good grasp. He doesn't seem to though. Ed Balls has the same curse - he should be really great on economics, but somehow he isn't.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,926

    FPT

    I'm getting extremely emotional just listening to Hans Zimmer's soundtrack for Dunkirk, which I've just bought. There is an awful lot of Sir Edward Elgar in there.

    Listen to "Home", and just experience how beautifully he weaves in Nimrod in there.

    Tear down my cheek.

    Let us read the stirring call from Winston Churchill in the aftermath of that war for a United Europe 'including Great Britain'. '...the resurrection of what was called the Old World, now found in full partnership with the New.' And let us reflect on our current path.

    https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/address_given_by_winston_churchill_at_the_congress_of_europe_in_the_hague_7_may_1948-en-58118da1-af22-48c0-bc88-93cda974f42c.html
    Nice try. But the complete quote is "Thus I saw the vast Soviet Union forming one of these groups. The Council of Europe, including Great Britain linked with her Empire and Commonwealth, would be another. Thirdly, there was the United States and her sister republics in the Western Hemisphere with all their great spheres of interest and influence."

    The September 1946 speech "There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings.

    There is already a natural grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations. These do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organisation. They are in fact its main support."

    "Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia - for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine."

    http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

    It's clear he saw the UK as a flying buttress to support a united Europe, and one of its Sponsors, not immersed right at the heart of it.

    Which, coincidentally, is the position of our current Foreign Secretary.
    The flying buttress was the empire, which has long gone.

    It's very clear from the speech I linked that he saw Great Britain as part of the Europe that should unify, every bit as much as the Iberian Peninsula, Scandinavia, or France and Germany themselves.
    "Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia - for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine."

    Friends and sponsors of Europe - NOT a part of it!
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.

    (Of course, so do some bust shit holes: Albania and Puerto Rico, for example.)
    In fairness to PR, what would have been the "natural" course of Puerto Rico without its attachment to the US?

    Compared to the rest of the top-five Caribbean countries by population, they ain't doing too bad. (Bit of a fiddle though as Trinidad & Tobago, quite a long way behind in sixth place, has similar looking numbers to Puerto Rico.)
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,968
    If anyone is so naïve to believe that the people behind HS2 know what they're doing then have a read of this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/21/living-in-the-path-of-hs2-we-dont-matter-do-we
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,926

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.

    (Of course, so do some bust shit holes: Albania and Puerto Rico, for example.)
    In fairness to PR, what would have been the "natural" course of Puerto Rico without its attachment to the US?

    Compared to the rest of the top-five Caribbean countries by population, they ain't doing too bad. (Bit of a fiddle though as Trinidad & Tobago, quite a long way behind in sixth place, has similar looking numbers to Puerto Rico.)
    If PR became a US State, it would rank 30th in population.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    stodge said:



    I think you take criticism of the LDs a bit too personally.

    It was a poor night for the Conservatives, IMHO.

    I was annoyed that David, who is actually a normally sensible contributor with whom I have had a number of interesting debates over the years, decided to take a pop at the LD policy on Brexit as though that was a huge factor in losing a seat in Rutland.

    I've never made national significance of local elections though they are useful as straws in the wind but that's all. As an example, last night's St Helier result suggests the Conservatives have very little chance of recapturing Merton next year but I wouldn't infer any more from it.

    I can take "criticism" but David wasn't offering that.

    I'd be genuinely interested in the views of Conservatives on Vince Cable's remarks - they surprised one or two but no one should doubt Cable's antipathy toward Corbyn-style socialism from his experiences as a Labour Councillor in the late 70s and early 80s. He is ferociously anti-Corbyn but not anti-Labour.
    Cable was poor in government. He clearly identifies with Labour, however he has very effectively demonstrated that he's his own man. He has some peripheral knowledge of economics and that has proven useful - however when he switches from criticism to planning he's woeful (as are all politicians).
    While I bow to no-one in my loathing of Vince Cable, he was the Chief Economist at Shell, which suggests he has a reasonable grasp of economics. (Albeit presumably with a bias to predicting what oil and natural gas consumption was likely to do.)
    He was indeed. He should have a very good grasp. He doesn't seem to though. Ed Balls has the same curse - he should be really great on economics, but somehow he isn't.

    Sadly there are mountains of evidence that being great on economics simply does not entail useful predictive ability, starting with the fact that if it did, the professors of economics at the Russell Group universities would each have his own Learjet. The only evidence to the contrary is the anecdotal claim that Keynes outperformed the All Share index by 3 or 4 % every year for a decade when investing the King's College SCR wine fund. Whoopee.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    stodge said:



    I think you take criticism of the LDs a bit too personally.

    It was a poor night for the Conservatives, IMHO.

    I was annoyed that David, who is actually a normally sensible contributor with whom I have had a number of interesting debates over the years, decided to take a pop at the LD policy on Brexit as though that was a huge factor in losing a seat in Rutland.

    I've never made national significance of local elections though they are useful as straws in the wind but that's all. As an example, last night's St Helier result suggests the Conservatives have very little chance of recapturing Merton next year but I wouldn't infer any more from it.

    I can take "criticism" but David wasn't offering that.

    I'd be genuinely interested in the views of Conservatives on Vince Cable's remarks - they surprised one or two but no one should doubt Cable's antipathy toward Corbyn-style socialism from his experiences as a Labour Councillor in the late 70s and early 80s. He is ferociously anti-Corbyn but not anti-Labour.
    Cable was poor in government. He clearly identifies with Labour, however he has very effectively demonstrated that he's his own man. He has some peripheral knowledge of economics and that has proven useful - however when he switches from criticism to planning he's woeful (as are all politicians).
    While I bow to no-one in my loathing of Vince Cable, he was the Chief Economist at Shell, which suggests he has a reasonable grasp of economics. (Albeit presumably with a bias to predicting what oil and natural gas consumption was likely to do.)
    He was indeed. He should have a very good grasp. He doesn't seem to though. Ed Balls has the same curse - he should be really great on economics, but somehow he isn't.

    Sadly there are mountains of evidence that being great on economics simply does not entail useful predictive ability, starting with the fact that if it did, the professors of economics at the Russell Group universities would each have his own Learjet. The only evidence to the contrary is the anecdotal claim that Keynes outperformed the All Share index by 3 or 4 % every year for a decade when investing the King's College SCR wine fund. Whoopee.
    Yeah, like Christopher Columbus was the first famous economist? When he set off, he didn't know where he was going, when he got there, he didn't know where he was, and when he returned he didn't know where he had been.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.
    None of them are the former great empires though. We can never be like them, however psychologically attractive it might be to a population weary of the messy realities of the world.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Disappointing there were no Labour candidates in the 2 Rutland seats and the people of Rutland weren't given the opportunity to vote Labour.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Omnium said:

    stodge said:



    I think you take criticism of the LDs a bit too personally.

    It was a poor night for the Conservatives, IMHO.

    I was annoyed that David, who is actually a normally sensible contributor with whom I have had a number of interesting debates over the years, decided to take a pop at the LD policy on Brexit as though that was a huge factor in losing a seat in Rutland.

    I've never made national significance of local elections though they are useful as straws in the wind but that's all. As an example, last night's St Helier result suggests the Conservatives have very little chance of recapturing Merton next year but I wouldn't infer any more from it.

    I can take "criticism" but David wasn't offering that.

    I'd be genuinely interested in the views of Conservatives on Vince Cable's remarks - they surprised one or two but no one should doubt Cable's antipathy toward Corbyn-style socialism from his experiences as a Labour Councillor in the late 70s and early 80s. He is ferociously anti-Corbyn but not anti-Labour.
    Cable was poor in government. He clearly identifies with Labour, however he has very effectively demonstrated that he's his own man. He has some peripheral knowledge of economics and that has proven useful - however when he switches from criticism to planning he's woeful (as are all politicians).
    Vince Cable is a political tart,bed-hopping from one party to another like the rest of his failed gang of SDPers.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.
    None of them are the former great empires though. We can never be like them, however psychologically attractive it might be to a population weary of the messy realities of the world.
    Psychologically attractive = what people want. What's the problem?

    You lot still have not twigged it's not about the money really, have you? Of course we can't be Monaco or Norway. So what? I don't want to be a fucking "European". It's not my identity.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.
    None of them are the former great empires though. We can never be like them, however psychologically attractive it might be to a population weary of the messy realities of the world.
    I do wonder about this "loss of empire" claim. The people with first hand memories of it are now in their 80s, and I have never heard a member of that generation expressing any form of regret for the loss. On the contrary, it meant that there was a high probability that their own parents worked as soldiers or administrators or tea planters in dangerous continents thousands of miles away. We still have a Commonwealth: would you lose more than 5 minutes sleep if we lost that?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.
    None of them are the former great empires though. We can never be like them, however psychologically attractive it might be to a population weary of the messy realities of the world.
    I do wonder about this "loss of empire" claim. The people with first hand memories of it are now in their 80s, and I have never heard a member of that generation expressing any form of regret for the loss. On the contrary, it meant that there was a high probability that their own parents worked as soldiers or administrators or tea planters in dangerous continents thousands of miles away. We still have a Commonwealth: would you lose more than 5 minutes sleep if we lost that?
    My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Disappointing there were no Labour candidates in the 2 Rutland seats and the people of Rutland weren't given the opportunity to vote Labour.

    Ketton has a large cement plant, in what is otherwise quite a posh attractive village, but maybe tbe workers live elsewhere. Whissendine is halfway between Melton Mowbray and Oakham, and quite a smart spot. There is a significant Lab vote in the Parliamentary constituency of Melton and Rutland, but mostly in the larger towns like Melton itself.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.
    None of them are the former great empires though. We can never be like them, however psychologically attractive it might be to a population weary of the messy realities of the world.
    I do wonder about this "loss of empire" claim. The people with first hand memories of it are now in their 80s, and I have never heard a member of that generation expressing any form of regret for the loss. On the contrary, it meant that there was a high probability that their own parents worked as soldiers or administrators or tea planters in dangerous continents thousands of miles away. We still have a Commonwealth: would you lose more than 5 minutes sleep if we lost that?
    My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
    Your reference to the Nazis doesn't give away to you that we're not like all the continental nations?
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.
    None of them are the former great empires though. We can never be like them, however psychologically attractive it might be to a population weary of the messy realities of the world.
    I do wonder about this "loss of empire" claim. The people with first hand memories of it are now in their 80s, and I have never heard a member of that generation expressing any form of regret for the loss. On the contrary, it meant that there was a high probability that their own parents worked as soldiers or administrators or tea planters in dangerous continents thousands of miles away. We still have a Commonwealth: would you lose more than 5 minutes sleep if we lost that?
    My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
    The existence of the Anglosphere or for that matter the Indian Premier League means we will never be (say) Slovakia, or even Italy. We are connected intimately to an extra European world that other European countries aren't.
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138

    Tom Newton Dunn had lunch with what he thinks is the next Tory PM, one of the 2015 intake.

    It is one of these 74 MPs, and it ain't Byron Davies, Ben Howlett, Tania Mathias, James Berry or Flick Drummond because they lost, so it's actually one of 69.

    http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2015/05/generation-2015-introducing-the-74-new-conservative-mps.html

    Who?

    Johnny Mercer.

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/887320364589752321
    You know he colluded with UKIP in order to win his seat (a surprising gain in 2015).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,775
    welshowl said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.
    None of them are the former great empires though. We can never be like them, however psychologically attractive it might be to a population weary of the messy realities of the world.
    I do wonder about this "loss of empire" claim. The people with first hand memories of it are now in their 80s, and I have never heard a member of that generation expressing any form of regret for the loss. On the contrary, it meant that there was a high probability that their own parents worked as soldiers or administrators or tea planters in dangerous continents thousands of miles away. We still have a Commonwealth: would you lose more than 5 minutes sleep if we lost that?
    My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
    The existence of the Anglosphere or for that matter the Indian Premier League means we will never be (say) Slovakia, or even Italy. We are connected intimately to an extra European world that other European countries aren't.
    I don't think that's fair: Portugal is connected to Brazil, Spain to much of the rest of Latin America, and even France to a fair number of former colonies. They have their non European history too.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,288
    Bad night for LibDems, agreed, but a terrible one for UKIP with just 1 candidate and 15 votes. Have they gone beyond the point of no return?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    welshowl said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.
    None of them are the former great empires though. We can never be like them, however psychologically attractive it might be to a population weary of the messy realities of the world.
    I do wonder about this "loss of empire" claim. The people with first hand memories of it are now in their 80s, and I have never heard a member of that generation expressing any form of regret for the loss. On the contrary, it meant that there was a high probability that their own parents worked as soldiers or administrators or tea planters in dangerous continents thousands of miles away. We still have a Commonwealth: would you lose more than 5 minutes sleep if we lost that?
    My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
    The existence of the Anglosphere or for that matter the Indian Premier League means we will never be (say) Slovakia, or even Italy. We are connected intimately to an extra European world that other European countries aren't.
    France Spain, Portugal all have vast areas of the globe equivalent to our Commonwealths. Even tiny Belgium and Netherlands had great colonial empires orders of magnitude bigger than their national lands. Russia, Germany, and Austria Hungary too, to a lesser degree, and both Rome and Greece had overseas cultural influence way beyond their shores. The British Empire was a bit different, but not vastly from the experiences of our Continental neighbours.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.
    None of them are the former great empires though. We can never be like them, however psychologically attractive it might be to a population weary of the messy realities of the world.
    I do wonder about this "loss of empire" claim. The people with first hand memories of it are now in their 80s, and I have never heard a member of that generation expressing any form of regret for the loss. On the contrary, it meant that there was a high probability that their own parents worked as soldiers or administrators or tea planters in dangerous continents thousands of miles away. We still have a Commonwealth: would you lose more than 5 minutes sleep if we lost that?
    My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
    Ho hum. I don't recognise any of that. The thing that sets us apart from Europe, literally and metaphorically, is quite simply the 20 odd miles of the English Channel. A maritime empire, and WW2, and 1815, and everything else are simply consequences of that, as De Gaulle saw: ‘England in effect is insular, she is maritime, she is linked through her interactions, her markets and her supply lines to the most diverse and often the most distant countries; she pursues essentially industrial and commercial activities, and only slight agricultural ones. She has, in all her doings, very marked and very original habits and traditions.’
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,288
    Unfinished from a previous thread...
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....

    Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
    You're right. That is funny.
    Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!

    The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
    The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.

    Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
    "Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years"

    Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...

    2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP
    2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Unfinished from a previous thread...

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....

    Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
    You're right. That is funny.
    Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!

    The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
    The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.

    Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
    "Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years"

    Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...

    2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP
    2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
    Raw figures not %ages, please? It is rather important in this context.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.
    None of them are the former great empires though. We can never be like them, however psychologically attractive it might be to a population weary of the messy realities of the world.
    I do wonder about this "loss of empire" claim. The people with first hand memories of it are now in their 80s, and I have never heard a member of that generation expressing any form of regret for the loss. On the contrary, it meant that there was a high probability that their own parents worked as soldiers or administrators or tea planters in dangerous continents thousands of miles away. We still have a Commonwealth: would you lose more than 5 minutes sleep if we lost that?
    My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
    Ho hum. I don't recognise any of that. The thing that sets us apart from Europe, literally and metaphorically, is quite simply the 20 odd miles of the English Channel. A maritime empire, and WW2, and 1815, and everything else are simply consequences of that, as De Gaulle saw: ‘England in effect is insular, she is maritime, she is linked through her interactions, her markets and her supply lines to the most diverse and often the most distant countries; she pursues essentially industrial and commercial activities, and only slight agricultural ones. She has, in all her doings, very marked and very original habits and traditions.’
    De Gaulle's remarks were self-serving and disingenuous. Any English conservative citing him to back up their view of themselves ought to feel slightly ashamed.

    The existence of the English Channel has certainly played a huge role in forming our history, but it is hardly the only geographical barrier within Europe to have left its mark.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    welshowl said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.
    None of them are the former great empires though. We can never be like them, however psychologically attractive it might be to a population weary of the messy realities of the world.
    I do wonder about this "loss of empire" claim. The people with first hand memories of it are now in their 80s, and I have never heard a member of that generation expressing any form of regret for the loss. On the contrary, it meant that there was a high probability that their own parents worked as soldiers or administrators or tea planters in dangerous continents thousands of miles away. We still have a Commonwealth: would you lose more than 5 minutes sleep if we lost that?
    My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
    The existence of the Anglosphere or for that matter the Indian Premier League means we will never be (say) Slovakia, or even Italy. We are connected intimately to an extra European world that other European countries aren't.
    France Spain, Portugal all have vast areas of the globe equivalent to our Commonwealths. Even tiny Belgium and Netherlands had great colonial empires orders of magnitude bigger than their national lands. Russia, Germany, and Austria Hungary too, to a lesser degree, and both Rome and Greece had overseas cultural influence way beyond their shores. The British Empire was a bit different, but not vastly from the experiences of our Continental neighbours.
    Yes but let's get real, none are as successful as the Anglosphere. Not really our doing of course, but there it is. Mali, Congo, Venezuela, and Angola vs USA, Australia and Canada. Your choice?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,926

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.
    None of them are the former great empires though. We can never be like them, however psychologically attractive it might be to a population weary of the messy realities of the world.
    I do wonder about this "loss of empire" claim. The people with first hand memories of it are now in their 80s, and I have never heard a member of that generation expressing any form of regret for the loss. On the contrary, it meant that there was a high probability that their own parents worked as soldiers or administrators or tea planters in dangerous continents thousands of miles away. We still have a Commonwealth: would you lose more than 5 minutes sleep if we lost that?
    My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
    English is probably the best language in the world!
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    edited July 2017
    rcs1000 said:
    Oh dear.... Vince already out of touch with reality and away with he fairies and he's only been leader for 24hrs! :D
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,775
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Unfinished from a previous thread...

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....

    Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
    You're right. That is funny.
    Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!

    The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
    The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.

    Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
    "Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years"

    Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...

    2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP
    2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
    Raw figures not %ages, please? It is rather important in this context.
    I would have thought percentages were absolutely right in this context. We need to find approximately 40% of GDP to fund our spending commitments. The first question is, do higher corporate tax rates increase the take as a percentage of GDP?

    The second question is, do changes to the corporate tax rate affect the level of GDP through influencing firms' investment decisions? This is, of course, a much harder question to answer because the government's choices do not take place in a vacuum.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,288
    edited July 2017
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Unfinished from a previous thread...

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....

    Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
    You're right. That is funny.
    Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!

    The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
    The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.

    Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
    "Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years"

    Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...

    2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP
    2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
    Raw figures not %ages, please? It is rather important in this context.
    Surely % of GDP is more meaningful?
    In raw figures (taking no account of inflation, population growth etc.)...
    2008 CT take = £47.0bn
    2016 CT take = £44.4bn
    Source ukpublicrevenue.co.uk (from OBR)
    http://www.ukpublicrevenue.co.uk/downloadsrs_ukgr.php?codes=CN445&units=b&group=&fy=2017
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,775
    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.
    None of them are the former great empires though. We can never be like them, however psychologically attractive it might be to a population weary of the messy realities of the world.
    I do wonder about this "loss of empire" claim. The people with first hand memories of it are now in their 80s, and I have never heard a member of that generation expressing any form of regret for the loss. On the contrary, it meant that there was a high probability that their own parents worked as soldiers or administrators or tea planters in dangerous continents thousands of miles away. We still have a Commonwealth: would you lose more than 5 minutes sleep if we lost that?
    My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
    The existence of the Anglosphere or for that matter the Indian Premier League means we will never be (say) Slovakia, or even Italy. We are connected intimately to an extra European world that other European countries aren't.
    France Spain, Portugal all have vast areas of the globe equivalent to our Commonwealths. Even tiny Belgium and Netherlands had great colonial empires orders of magnitude bigger than their national lands. Russia, Germany, and Austria Hungary too, to a lesser degree, and both Rome and Greece had overseas cultural influence way beyond their shores. The British Empire was a bit different, but not vastly from the experiences of our Continental neighbours.
    Yes but let's get real, none are as successful as the Anglosphere. Not really our doing of course, but there it is. Mali, Congo, Venezuela, and Angola vs USA, Australia and Canada. Your choice?
    Hmmm: or Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Even India hasn't done *that* well. If you go back 50 years, Brazil had twice the GDP per capita of India. It's now five times as wealthy per person. But we don't call the Portugueseaphere an enormous success.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    I agree with a lot Nick says in previous thread although you can be pretty sure that "events" will intervene. If I were TM, I'd be looking to sack someone during the hols. If I felt brave, it would be Boris, otherwise any old sub prime cabinet oik would do. She has the 1922 troops on side and she needs to instil a few doubts in the minds of those who would be king
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Unfinished from a previous thread...

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....

    Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
    You're right. That is funny.
    Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!

    The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
    The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.

    Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
    "Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years"

    Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...

    2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP
    2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
    Raw figures not %ages, please? It is rather important in this context.
    I would have thought percentages were absolutely right in this context. We need to find approximately 40% of GDP to fund our spending commitments. The first question is, do higher corporate tax rates increase the take as a percentage of GDP?

    The second question is, do changes to the corporate tax rate affect the level of GDP through influencing firms' investment decisions? This is, of course, a much harder question to answer because the government's choices do not take place in a vacuum.
    But CT tax cuts can only lead to a higher tax take because they lead to increased productivity (slightly smaller percentage slice of absolutely larger cake). So the theory practically requires a drop in % terms. And our spending commitments are absolute (so many £) even if it is useful for some purposes to express them as % of GDP.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Unfinished from a previous thread...

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....

    Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
    You're right. That is funny.
    Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!

    The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
    The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.

    Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.
    "Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years"

    Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...

    2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP
    2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
    Raw figures not %ages, please? It is rather important in this context.
    Surely % of GDP is more meaningful?
    In raw figures (taking no account of inflation, population growth etc.)...
    2008 CT take = £47.0bn
    2016 CT take = £44.4bn
    Source ukpublicrevenue.co.uk (from OBR)
    http://www.ukpublicrevenue.co.uk/downloadsrs_ukgr.php?codes=CN445&units=b&group=&fy=2017
    Thank you!
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.
    None of them are the former great empires though. We can never be like them, however psychologically attractive it might be to a population weary of the messy realities of the world.
    I do wonder about this "loss of empire" claim. The people with first hand memories of it are now in their 80s, and I have never heard a member of that generation expressing any form of regret for the loss. On the contrary, it meant that there was a high probability that their own parents worked as soldiers or administrators or tea planters in dangerous continents thousands of miles away. We still have a Commonwealth: would you lose more than 5 minutes sleep if we lost that?
    My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
    English is probably the best language in the world!
    You obviously think the Dutch think so?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,926
    rcs1000 said:

    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Why would we want to belong to single state called Europe?

    Some of the most prosperous places on earth sit just outside great powers: Monaco, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore.
    None of them are the former great empires though. We can never be like them, however psychologically attractive it might be to a population weary of the messy realities of the world.
    I do wonder about this "loss of empire" claim. The people with first hand memories of it are now in their 80s, and I have never heard a member of that generation expressing any form of regret for the loss. On the contrary, it meant that there was a high probability that their own parents worked as soldiers or administrators or tea planters in dangerous continents thousands of miles away. We still have a Commonwealth: would you lose more than 5 minutes sleep if we lost that?
    My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
    The existence of the Anglosphere or for that matter the Indian Premier League means we will never be (say) Slovakia, or even Italy. We are connected intimately to an extra European world that other European countries aren't.
    France Sia, Germany, and Austria Hungary too, to a lesser degree, and both Rome and Greece had overseas cultural influence way beyond their shores. The British Empire was a bit different, but not vastly from the experiences of our Continental neighbours.
    Yes but let's get real, none are as successful as the Anglosphere. Not really our doing of course, but there it is. Mali, Congo, Venezuela, and Angola vs USA, Australia and Canada. Your choice?
    Hmmm: or Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Even India hasn't done *that* well. If you go back 50 years, Brazil had twice the GDP per capita of India. It's now five times as wealthy per person. But we don't call the Portugueseaphere an enormous success.
    Mozambique?
    Angola?
    Cape Verde?
    Sao Principe?
    East Timor?
    Macau?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,775
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Unfinished from a previous thread...

    DavidL said:

    The government wants low taxes because it thinks that this boosts spending and investment creating growth and thus more tax revenue. Increasing taxes can decrease the tax take through avoidance, relocation and overall reduced economic activity. At the extremes these are not really contentious points. It is where the optimum balance is that politicians have to judge.

    Take Labour's fantasy increased in CT that was supposed to pay for everything. Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years and there is a legitimate expectation that reversing it would have the opposite effect. The result may make those who resent the success of others feel better but it is unlikely to reduce the deficit, quite the reverse in fact.

    "Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years"

    Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...

    2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP
    2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
    Raw figures not %ages, please? It is rather important in this context.
    I would have thought percentages were absolutely right in this context. We need to find approximately 40% of GDP to fund our spending commitments. The first question is, do higher corporate tax rates increase the take as a percentage of GDP?

    The second question is, do changes to the corporate tax rate affect the level of GDP through influencing firms' investment decisions? This is, of course, a much harder question to answer because the government's choices do not take place in a vacuum.
    But CT tax cuts can only lead to a higher tax take because they lead to increased productivity (slightly smaller percentage slice of absolutely larger cake). So the theory practically requires a drop in % terms. And our spending commitments are absolute (so many £) even if it is useful for some purposes to express them as % of GDP.
    There are many reasons why a lower CT rate might lead to a higher tax take, the biggest of which is that corporates will prefer to have profits accrue in the UK rather than in another country

    Imagine you are CFO of a company (as indeed I am). You have subsidiaries in a number of countries that contribute to whatever it is you do. Each of those subsidiaries does something that adds up to the finished product (or service), and you need to account for transactions between these entities. Transfer pricing is the act of working out what subsidiary A should pay subsidiary B; and corporates work to ensure that taxable profit falls in low tax countries.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    I agree with a lot Nick says in previous thread although you can be pretty sure that "events" will intervene. If I were TM, I'd be looking to sack someone during the hols. If I felt brave, it would be Boris, otherwise any old sub prime cabinet oik would do. She has the 1922 troops on side and she needs to instil a few doubts in the minds of those who would be king

    Perhaps the bold move would be to pluck one of the 2015 intake that people are touting as a future leader and put them into the Cabinet making them look like her protégé. That would frighten off some of the contenders who might feel that if they challenged then the contest would result in a generation being skipped.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    edited July 2017

    I agree with a lot Nick says in previous thread although you can be pretty sure that "events" will intervene. If I were TM, I'd be looking to sack someone during the hols. If I felt brave, it would be Boris, otherwise any old sub prime cabinet oik would do. She has the 1922 troops on side and she needs to instil a few doubts in the minds of those who would be king

    Perhaps the bold move would be to pluck one of the 2015 intake that people are touting as a future leader and put them into the Cabinet making them look like her protégé.
    JRM? ;)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,775

    rcs1000 said:

    welshowl said:

    welshowl said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    None of them are the former great empires though. We can never be like them, however psychologically attractive it might be to a population weary of the messy realities of the world.

    I do wonder about this "loss of empire" claim. The people with first hand memories of it are now in their 80s, and I have never heard a member of that generation expressing any form of regret for the loss. On the contrary, it meant that there was a high probability that their own parents worked as soldiers or administrators or tea planters in dangerous continents thousands of miles away. We still have a Commonwealth: would you lose more than 5 minutes sleep if we lost that?
    My take is that it is precisely because there a so few people left with direct experience of it that is has such a bewitching cultural legacy. The folk memory is magnified by the modern-dayinternational dominance of the English language which on some subconscious level makes us feel like Uebermenschen, especially when combined with a popular culture replete with references to our standing alone against the Nazis. We still haven't accepted that we are a European nation like all the other, albeit one with an awful lot to be proud of.
    The existence of the Anglosphere or for that matter the Indian Premier League means we will never be (say) Slovakia, or even Italy. We are connected intimately to an extra European world that other European countries aren't.
    France Sia, Germany, and Austria Hungary too, to a lesser degree, and both Rome and Greece had overseas cultural influence way beyond their shores. The British Empire was a bit different, but not vastly from the experiences of our Continental neighbours.
    Yes but let's get real, none are as successful as the Anglosphere. Not really our doing of course, but there it is. Mali, Congo, Venezuela, and Angola vs USA, Australia and Canada. Your choice?
    Hmmm: or Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan? Even India hasn't done *that* well. If you go back 50 years, Brazil had twice the GDP per capita of India. It's now five times as wealthy per person. But we don't call the Portugueseaphere an enormous success.
    Mozambique?
    Angola?
    Cape Verde?
    Sao Principe?
    East Timor?
    Macau?
    My point exactly: you can cherry pick bits of former empires to get exactly the answer you want.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,288
    edited July 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Unfinished from a previous thread...

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One can read too much into a single month's figures, especially with the distortion of an election, but the borrowing figures for June are seriously disappointing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277....

    Still, look on the bright side. We are being treated to the hilarious spectacle of John McDonnell complaining that the deficit isn't being reduced fast enough.
    You're right. That is funny.
    Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!

    The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
    "Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years"

    Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...

    2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP
    2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
    Raw figures not %ages, please? It is rather important in this context.
    I would have thought percentages were absolutely right in this context. We need to find approximately 40% of GDP to fund our spending commitments. The first question is, do higher corporate tax rates increase the take as a percentage of GDP?

    The second question is, do changes to the corporate tax rate affect the level of GDP through influencing firms' investment decisions? This is, of course, a much harder question to answer because the government's choices do not take place in a vacuum.
    Both good questions rcs... I think the figures I provided earlier at the very least kill the lie that lower CT rates increase the tax take; they very clearly do not have that effect.

    Do CT rates affect the GDP level? Hard to prove as you point out. I might do an analysis of GDP growth versus CT rates and, given CT rates were very high during the 80s. I bet it would point to higher CT rates aligning with higher growth... but I don't claim there's a causative effect :smile: Other factors will also be at work; CT rates don't exist in a vacuum.

    However, I fail to understand why higher CT rates would inhibit investment, as is often claimed. It might impact some short-term inward foreign investment into the UK but for UK companies higher CT rates are actually an incentive to invest, since investment in assets and R&D are CT exempt. The higher the CT rate the more a company is incentivisec to invest in long-term growth, rather than pay tax on declared profits.

    Labour have got this one right.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,775
    GIN1138 said:

    I agree with a lot Nick says in previous thread although you can be pretty sure that "events" will intervene. If I were TM, I'd be looking to sack someone during the hols. If I felt brave, it would be Boris, otherwise any old sub prime cabinet oik would do. She has the 1922 troops on side and she needs to instil a few doubts in the minds of those who would be king

    Perhaps the bold move would be to pluck one of the 2015 intake that people are touting as a future leader and put them into the Cabinet making them look like her protégé. That would frighten off some of the contenders who might feel that if they challenged then the contest would result in a generation being skipped.
    JRM? ;)
    Elected 2010.

    (And while I like JRM, I'm not sure what department I'd want to give him. Also, I'd worry that he might believe what his dad wrote in The Great Reckoning.)
  • Omnium said:

    stodge said:



    I think you take criticism of the LDs a bit too personally.

    It was a poor night for the Conservatives, IMHO.

    I was annoyed that David, who is actually a normally sensible contributor with whom I have had a number of interesting debates over the years, decided to take a pop at the LD policy on Brexit as though that was a huge factor in losing a seat in Rutland.

    I've never made national significance of local elections though they are useful as straws in the wind but that's all. As an example, last night's St Helier result suggests the Conservatives have very little chance of recapturing Merton next year but I wouldn't infer any more from it.

    I can take "criticism" but David wasn't offering that.

    I'd be genuinely interested in the views of Conservatives on Vince Cable's remarks - they surprised one or two but no one should doubt Cable's antipathy toward Corbyn-style socialism from his experiences as a Labour Councillor in the late 70s and early 80s. He is ferociously anti-Corbyn but not anti-Labour.
    Cable was poor in government. He clearly identifies with Labour, however he has very effectively demonstrated that he's his own man. He has some peripheral knowledge of economics and that has proven useful - however when he switches from criticism to planning he's woeful (as are all politicians).
    Vince Cable is a political tart,bed-hopping from one party to another like the rest of his failed gang of SDPers.
    If you were a pro-European progressive who supported an open market economy in the early '80s then surely it was more honourable to strike out and defend those beliefs with the SDP than stay in Labour and make mealy mouthed statements in favour of the 1983 manifesto?

    The same goes for a huge chunk of Labour's current MPs. They'd go up in my estimation if they abandoned ship.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    I agree with a lot Nick says in previous thread although you can be pretty sure that "events" will intervene. If I were TM, I'd be looking to sack someone during the hols. If I felt brave, it would be Boris, otherwise any old sub prime cabinet oik would do. She has the 1922 troops on side and she needs to instil a few doubts in the minds of those who would be king

    Perhaps the bold move would be to pluck one of the 2015 intake that people are touting as a future leader and put them into the Cabinet making them look like her protégé. That would frighten off some of the contenders who might feel that if they challenged then the contest would result in a generation being skipped.
    That sounds good as well, but I think she has to draw blood whatever else she does.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,775

    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Unfinished from a previous thread...

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    You're right. That is funny.

    Increase taxes, it's not rocket science!

    The government should top trying to pursue some ideological neoliberal low tax nirvana; they should run decent public services, that's what we pay them to do!
    "Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years"

    Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...

    2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP
    2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
    Raw figures not %ages, please? It is rather important in this context.
    I would have thought percentages were absolutely right in this context. We need to find approximately 40% of GDP to fund our spending commitments. The first question is, do higher corporate tax rates increase the take as a percentage of GDP?

    The second question is, do changes to the corporate tax rate affect the level of GDP through influencing firms' investment decisions? This is, of course, a much harder question to answer because the government's choices do not take place in a vacuum.
    Both good questions rcs... I think the figures I provided earlier at the very least kill the lie that lower CT rates increase the take.

    Do CT rates affect the GDP level? Hard to prove as you point out. I might do an analysis of GDP growth versus CT rates and, given CT rates were very high during the 80s I bet it would point to higher CT rates aligning with higher growth... but I don't claim there's a cuasative effect :smile: Othe factors at work; CT rates don't exist in a vacuum.

    However, I fail to understand why higher CT rates would inhibit investment, as is often claimed. It might impact inward foreign investment into the UK but for UK companies higher CT rates are actually an incentive to invest, since investment in assets and R&D are CT exempt. The higher the CT rate the more a company is incentivisec to invest in long-term growth, rather than pay tax on declared profits.

    Labour have got this one right.
    Speaking as the CFO of a close to $100m revenue tech business, high corporate tax rates discourage investment, but are far from the dominant factor.

    Investment in assets is not "CT exempt". If I buy a server, it is depreciated over time and this "capital allowance" is deducted against tax. Other countries are far more generous with their capital allowances, and that is a factor in our decisions.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    GIN1138 said:

    I agree with a lot Nick says in previous thread although you can be pretty sure that "events" will intervene. If I were TM, I'd be looking to sack someone during the hols. If I felt brave, it would be Boris, otherwise any old sub prime cabinet oik would do. She has the 1922 troops on side and she needs to instil a few doubts in the minds of those who would be king

    Perhaps the bold move would be to pluck one of the 2015 intake that people are touting as a future leader and put them into the Cabinet making them look like her protégé.
    JRM? ;)
    2010 intake, though that doesn't rule out the possibility. I think other considerations do, though - he and TMay do not look like a match made in heaven.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    rcs1000 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I agree with a lot Nick says in previous thread although you can be pretty sure that "events" will intervene. If I were TM, I'd be looking to sack someone during the hols. If I felt brave, it would be Boris, otherwise any old sub prime cabinet oik would do. She has the 1922 troops on side and she needs to instil a few doubts in the minds of those who would be king

    Perhaps the bold move would be to pluck one of the 2015 intake that people are touting as a future leader and put them into the Cabinet making them look like her protégé. That would frighten off some of the contenders who might feel that if they challenged then the contest would result in a generation being skipped.
    JRM? ;)
    Elected 2010.

    (And while I like JRM, I'm not sure what department I'd want to give him. Also, I'd worry that he might believe what his dad wrote in The Great Reckoning.)
    I was only joking with Willie Glenn.

    I suspect JRM would be his worst nightmare... ;)
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    Ishmael_Z said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I agree with a lot Nick says in previous thread although you can be pretty sure that "events" will intervene. If I were TM, I'd be looking to sack someone during the hols. If I felt brave, it would be Boris, otherwise any old sub prime cabinet oik would do. She has the 1922 troops on side and she needs to instil a few doubts in the minds of those who would be king

    Perhaps the bold move would be to pluck one of the 2015 intake that people are touting as a future leader and put them into the Cabinet making them look like her protégé.
    JRM? ;)
    2010 intake, though that doesn't rule out the possibility. I think other considerations do, though - he and TMay do not look like a match made in heaven.
    He's Boris in an alternative world!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,288
    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Unfinished from a previous thread...

    DavidL said:

    "Reducing CT has increased the take considerably in recent years"

    Really?? Can we just kill that myth please...

    2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP
    2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP
    Raw figures not %ages, please? It is rather important in this context.
    I would have thought percentages were absolutely right in this context. We need to find approximately 40% of GDP to fund our spending commitments. The first question is, do higher corporate tax rates increase the take as a percentage of GDP?

    The second question is, do changes to the corporate tax rate affect the level of GDP through influencing firms' investment decisions? This is, of course, a much harder question to answer because the government's choices do not take place in a vacuum.
    But CT tax cuts can only lead to a higher tax take because they lead to increased productivity (slightly smaller percentage slice of absolutely larger cake). So the theory practically requires a drop in % terms. And our spending commitments are absolute (so many £) even if it is useful for some purposes to express them as % of GDP.
    There are many reasons why a lower CT rate might lead to a higher tax take, the biggest of which is that corporates will prefer to have profits accrue in the UK rather than in another country

    Imagine you are CFO of a company (as indeed I am). You have subsidiaries in a number of countries that contribute to whatever it is you do. Each of those subsidiaries does something that adds up to the finished product (or service), and you need to account for transactions between these entities. Transfer pricing is the act of working out what subsidiary A should pay subsidiary B; and corporates work to ensure that taxable profit falls in low tax countries.
    In which case even at 26% CT rate the UK should be getting the tax receipts of multinationals operating in USA, Japan, France, Germany, Italy... all of whom have CT rates >26%.

    But I honestly think this only operates for a few (admittedly high-profile) global players. The vast majority of UK businesses are not going to say "ooh CT rates are going up to 26%, let's run down our business" I agree raising CT rates might lead to more reinvestment or, dare I say, it higher wages as companies ease their recruitment issues, thus meaning the CT tax take doesn't go up pro rata, but up it will surely go.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Ishmael_Z said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I agree with a lot Nick says in previous thread although you can be pretty sure that "events" will intervene. If I were TM, I'd be looking to sack someone during the hols. If I felt brave, it would be Boris, otherwise any old sub prime cabinet oik would do. She has the 1922 troops on side and she needs to instil a few doubts in the minds of those who would be king

    Perhaps the bold move would be to pluck one of the 2015 intake that people are touting as a future leader and put them into the Cabinet making them look like her protégé.
    JRM? ;)
    2010 intake, though that doesn't rule out the possibility. I think other considerations do, though - he and TMay do not look like a match made in heaven.
    He's Boris in an alternative world!
    I disagree, I think JRM is not basically a prat. If he manages another performance as good as QT a couple of weeks ago, I am seriously intending to stump up £25 to the Con party, for the first time ever, so I can vote for him.
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138
    The St.Helier result is the most interesting. UKIP down 19% labour up 16%.

    The white working class vote (still exists in parts if London) is going back to Labour.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,775
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I agree with a lot Nick says in previous thread although you can be pretty sure that "events" will intervene. If I were TM, I'd be looking to sack someone during the hols. If I felt brave, it would be Boris, otherwise any old sub prime cabinet oik would do. She has the 1922 troops on side and she needs to instil a few doubts in the minds of those who would be king

    Perhaps the bold move would be to pluck one of the 2015 intake that people are touting as a future leader and put them into the Cabinet making them look like her protégé.
    JRM? ;)
    2010 intake, though that doesn't rule out the possibility. I think other considerations do, though - he and TMay do not look like a match made in heaven.
    He's Boris in an alternative world!
    I disagree, I think JRM is not basically a prat. If he manages another performance as good as QT a couple of weeks ago, I am seriously intending to stump up £25 to the Con party, for the first time ever, so I can vote for him.
    I don't think he will run for leader, because I don't think he is popular enough with the parliamentary party.
This discussion has been closed.