Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If there was a CON leadership contest tomorrow my money would

124

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038

    Now Jo Coburn is at it on Daily Politics trying to say both increase in NHS funding that it isn't enough money, and that it isn't affordable!

    Both positions can be true at once.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited June 2018
    David Dimbleby was a brilliant host who had started to look tired - Question Time needed a change

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2018/06/18/david-dimblebys-patience-clearly-running-question-time-needs/

    Actually having politicians and experts from business and academia on the show rather than z-list celebs, Blue Peter presenters and rappers on might be a good start...
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    Elliot said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Betteron to do that.

    Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

    Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

    I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
    Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
    I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

    In short a battle cry for Labour.
    So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
    I believe there is a greyer area than you imagine. You keep citing 1992 rather than 1997 and I continue to believe that 1997 rather than 1992 is a better idea of where we are with peoples' attitudes to the Cons, certainly by 2022. They have done plenty to retoxify themselves not only to working class Leave voters, but to middle class Cons voters, to say nothing of that huge grey area in between; there is a sense that they are tired, worn out, exhausted.

    Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.
    The problem with Boris as leader is that he is bumbling and lazy. The only people that think he is a xenophobic racist are those that already hate the Tories.
    Absolutely. Boris engenders much the same class hatred that Cameron did, and much difference it made. However, the reasons he's been underwhelming - to be kind - at the Foreign Office would apply even more so at No 10.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    Scott_P said:
    Me thinks this tweet will not age well.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038

    David Dimbleby was a brilliant host who had started to look tired - Question Time needed a change

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2018/06/18/david-dimblebys-patience-clearly-running-question-time-needs/

    Actually having politicians and experts from business and academia on the show rather than z-list celebs, Blue Peter presenters and rappers on might be a good start...

    When is Hayley Hughes on next?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274

    David Dimbleby was a brilliant host who had started to look tired - Question Time needed a change

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2018/06/18/david-dimblebys-patience-clearly-running-question-time-needs/

    Actually having politicians and experts from business and academia on the show rather than z-list celebs, Blue Peter presenters and rappers on might be a good start...

    When is Hayley Hughes on next?
    The way QT has been going, its only a matter of time.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    One aspect of May announcing more cash for NHS has been to force a public debate, well at least in the media, about where the money will come from.

    I humbly suggest this is dangerous territory for Labour.

    I agree. While the specifics are bad for the government in this case, the establishment of a practice where the funding of spending commitments are routinely questioned and 'the magic money tree' is referenced by journalists is worse for Labour.
    Labour are making themselves look crazy by saying this is unfounded, but we'd spend more!
    Agreed.

    There was a rather more nuanced attack from a Labour MP on R4 this morning shortly before 9. I didn't catch her name but I think she was on the Health and Social Care Select Committee. She pointed out that this was equivalent to an increase of 3.4% a year which meant that the long term increase since 2010 will still be below the long term average. It was maybe a little complicated but certainly set a more credible platform for "its not enough". She did make some good, if obvious, points about Social Care too.

    Liz Kendall was the MP.
    Thanks. As you may have gathered whilst not agreeing with her I was mildly impressed with the way she was putting her arguments forward.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    edited June 2018

    Me thinks this tweet will not age well.

    Why not? Some people seem to have a great urge to conflate free movement for EU citizens with migration from outside the EU.

    As the man from Barnsley said on the day of the vote: "It's all about immigration! The movement of people in Europe, fair enough. But not from Africa, Syria, Iraq, everywhere else, it's all wrong."
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,049

    TOPPING said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

    Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

    Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

    I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
    Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
    I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

    In short a battle cry for Labour.
    That was true in London too, though. Voters in the middle might be put off by a response from Labour members that was seen as being over the top.
    But Boris's victories in London were before the EU referendum. That changed everything. He would be slaughtered if he stood in London's today.

    He was also standing both times again Ken.
    How well would Ken do now?
    Well, his manifesto would be mainly about Hitler.

    So difficult to predict.
    Of course, now that xenophobia is back in fashion...
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

    Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

    Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

    I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
    Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
    I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

    In short a battle cry for Labour.
    That was true in London too, though. Voters in the middle might be put off by a response from Labour members that was seen as being over the top.
    But Boris's victories in London were before the EU referendum. That changed everything. He would be slaughtered if he stood in London's today.

    He was also standing both times again Ken.
    How well would Ken do now?
    Well, his manifesto would be mainly about Hitler.

    So difficult to predict.
    Of course, now that xenophobia is back in fashion...
    The man is a Turk ffs, and the only value in the word "xenophobia" is as a diagnostic indicator of post-referendum butthurt disorder on the part of the user.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    One aspect of May announcing more cash for NHS has been to force a public debate, well at least in the media, about where the money will come from.

    I humbly suggest this is dangerous territory for Labour.

    I agree. While the specifics are bad for the government in this case, the establishment of a practice where the funding of spending commitments are routinely questioned and 'the magic money tree' is referenced by journalists is worse for Labour.
    Labour are making themselves look crazy by saying this is unfounded, but we'd spend more!
    Agreed.

    There was a rather more nuanced attack from a Labour MP on R4 this morning shortly before 9. I didn't catch her name but I think she was on the Health and Social Care Select Committee. She pointed out that this was equivalent to an increase of 3.4% a year which meant that the long term increase since 2010 will still be below the long term average. It was maybe a little complicated but certainly set a more credible platform for "its not enough". She did make some good, if obvious, points about Social Care too.

    Liz Kendall was the MP.
    Thanks. As you may have gathered whilst not agreeing with her I was mildly impressed with the way she was putting her arguments forward.
    Kendall is good.

    That's why she is nowhere near Jezza's front bench.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,547
    China's mix of economic aid and authoritarianism is proving very popular in Africa...
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-Relations/China-verges-on-luring-all-of-Africa-away-from-Taiwan
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,755

    Now Jo Coburn is at it on Daily Politics trying to say both increase in NHS funding that it isn't enough money, and that it isn't affordable!

    The only people to be annoyed by the NHS announcement are deficit hawks who are strongly pro-Remain. That's quite a niche segment of the electorate.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    One aspect of May announcing more cash for NHS has been to force a public debate, well at least in the media, about where the money will come from.

    I humbly suggest this is dangerous territory for Labour.

    I agree. While the specifics are bad for the government in this case, the establishment of a practice where the funding of spending commitments are routinely questioned and 'the magic money tree' is referenced by journalists is worse for Labour.
    Labour are making themselves look crazy by saying this is unfounded, but we'd spend more!
    Agreed.

    There was a rather more nuanced attack from a Labour MP on R4 this morning shortly before 9. I didn't catch her name but I think she was on the Health and Social Care Select Committee. She pointed out that this was equivalent to an increase of 3.4% a year which meant that the long term increase since 2010 will still be below the long term average. It was maybe a little complicated but certainly set a more credible platform for "its not enough". She did make some good, if obvious, points about Social Care too.

    Liz Kendall was the MP.
    Thanks. As you may have gathered whilst not agreeing with her I was mildly impressed with the way she was putting her arguments forward.
    Kendall is good.

    That's why she is nowhere near Jezza's front bench.
    Yes, she was articulate, she responded intelligently to points and found things to agree with her oppo. It was a reasonably impressive interview.

    Her insight that hospitals are full with people who should be receiving care at home was not exactly earth shattering but she made the point well. Labour need a lot more spokespeople like that if they are ever going to sound like an alternative government.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    F A L K L A N D S M O M E N T
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    One aspect of May announcing more cash for NHS has been to force a public debate, well at least in the media, about where the money will come from.

    I humbly suggest this is dangerous territory for Labour.

    I agree. While the specifics are bad for the government in this case, the establishment of a practice where the funding of spending commitments are routinely questioned and 'the magic money tree' is referenced by journalists is worse for Labour.
    Labour are making themselves look crazy by saying this is unfounded, but we'd spend more!
    Agreed.

    There was a rather more nuanced attack from a Labour MP on R4 this morning shortly before 9. I didn't catch her name but I think she was on the Health and Social Care Select Committee. She pointed out that this was equivalent to an increase of 3.4% a year which meant that the long term increase since 2010 will still be below the long term average. It was maybe a little complicated but certainly set a more credible platform for "its not enough". She did make some good, if obvious, points about Social Care too.

    Liz Kendall was the MP.
    Thanks. As you may have gathered whilst not agreeing with her I was mildly impressed with the way she was putting her arguments forward.
    Kendall is good.

    That's why she is nowhere near Jezza's front bench.
    If I recall, she refused to serve. She is good though and I hope she gets back involved at some point. She has hopefully now realised that her analysis of Corbynism/reasons Labour lost in 2015 were pretty far of the mark.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,211
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

    Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

    Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

    I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, y majority
    Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.


    In short a battle cry for Labour.
    So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
    I
    T ay
    1964 was also 13 years into a Tory Government.
    Wilson won by just 4 seats and Home won a majority in England and there is no evidence yet of Labour matching Wilson's lead then
    Labour is actually performing rather better than at the same stage of the 1959 Parlianent - ie late 1960. Many commentators also believe that Gaitskell would have won a more comfortable victory in 1964 had he lived.
    No, Home may well have beaten Gaitskell who Macmillan comfortably defeated in 1959, it was only the more charismatic Wilson who was able to win a very narrow win over Home after he took over as Labour leader in 1963
    It's all speculation but Gaitskell was not short in the charisma stakes.....and his reputation was transformed by the 1961 "Fight, Fight and Fight Again" speech which is still one of the most potent almost 60 years later.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

    Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

    Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

    I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, Barrow, Dudley North, Newcastle under Lyme, Crewe and Nantwich, Kensington etc ie enough Labour seats with small majorities (which mostly voted Leave) for a small Tory majority
    Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
    I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

    In short a battle cry for Labour.
    That was true in London too, though. Voters in the middle might be put off by a response from Labour members that was seen as being over the top.
    But Boris's victories in London were before the EU referendum. That changed everything. He would be slaughtered if he stood in London's today.

    He was also standing both times again Ken.
    How well would Ken do now?
    Well, his manifesto would be mainly about Hitler.

    So difficult to predict.
    Of course, now that xenophobia is back in fashion...
    The man is a Turk ffs, and the only value in the word "xenophobia" is as a diagnostic indicator of post-referendum butthurt disorder on the part of the user.
    Odd that it frequently is used by leavers on here ... ;)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752
    edited June 2018

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,259

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    You're inferring; he was implying. :wink:
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    You're inferring; he was implying. :wink:
    Yes
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

    Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

    Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

    I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, y majority
    Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
    I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

    In short a battle cry for Labour.
    I
    1964 was also 13 years into a Tory Government.
    Wilson won by just 4 seats and Home won a majority in England and there is no evidence yet of Labour matching Wilson's lead then
    Labour is actually performing rather better than at the same stage of the 1959 Parlianent - ie late 1960. Many commentators also believe that Gaitskell would have won a more comfortable victory in 1964 had he lived.
    No, Home may well have beaten Gaitskell who Macmillan comfortably defeated in 1959, it was only the more charismatic Wilson who was able to win a very narrow win over Home after he took over as Labour leader in 1963
    Gaitskell was probably at least as charismatic as Wilson in 1963 and probably would have fared well against Macmillan had there been a rematch in 1964. He was also seen as more centrist - and principled - than Wilson.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
    If the money is literally being saved by Brexit and spent on the NHS it would be accurate to call it a 'Brexit dividend'. If tax is going to have to go up to pay for it, then the connection with any 'savings' from Brexit is utterly bogus.

    Hint: it's the latter.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    DavidL said:

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.

    It's explicitly Trumpian.

    Tell a big lie. Ignore the press coverage, or claim fake news.

    I can see why Brexiteers like it so much.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
    Full coverage on Sky - BBC avoiding a major speech on the NHS by the PM par for the course
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The key for the Tories is to find someone who dors not keep the current Labour voting coalition together. Gove will, Johnson will, Hunt will, Rees Mogg will. Javid is unknown, so might not. Better, though, would be to find a newer face. But that would require May to bring a few into the Cabinet, which means firing some people. And she is in too weak a position to do that.

    Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

    Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

    I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, y majority
    Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
    I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

    In short a battle cry for Labour.
    I
    1964 was also 13 years into a Tory Government.
    Wilson won by just 4 seats and Home won a majority in England and there is no evidence yet of Labour matching Wilson's lead then
    Labour is actually performing rather better than at the same stage of the 1959 Parlianent - ie late 1960. Many commentators also believe that Gaitskell would have won a more comfortable victory in 1964 had he lived.
    No, Home may well have beaten Gaitskell who Macmillan comfortably defeated in 1959, it was only the more charismatic Wilson who was able to win a very narrow win over Home after he took over as Labour leader in 1963
    Gaitskell was probably at least as charismatic as Wilson in 1963 and probably would have fared well against Macmillan had there been a rematch in 1964. He was also seen as more centrist - and principled - than Wilson.
    By 1963 he was sadly too dead to be elected. The Achilles heal of many a promising Labour politician.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    The problem for Labour is that Corbyns answer is always we will spend more. He has an irrational hatred of Tories, to be fair much like a lot of the commenters on here. If they come up with a good policy that is similar to what he would do he should take it and focus on somewhere that the Tories cannot go such as why do we spend so much on Trident. Instead they always have to be seen to be in general spending more, and specifically always spending on NHS.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.

    It's amazing. A very significant announcement by TMay and BBC web site is silent.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    edited June 2018
    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.

    It's explicitly Trumpian.

    Tell a big lie. Ignore the press coverage, or claim fake news.

    I can see why Brexiteers like it so much.
    May had a simple explanation at her press conference. 'We are leaving the EU and payments will stop and she will prioritise the savings into her number one priority, the NHS

    And that is a simple message the public will hear and understand
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
    If the money is literally being saved by Brexit and spent on the NHS it would be accurate to call it a 'Brexit dividend'. If tax is going to have to go up to pay for it, then the connection with any 'savings' from Brexit is utterly bogus.

    Hint: it's the latter.
    It may turn out to be a bit of both of course. But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from and it is reasonable to infer that they have another agenda.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,702
    Dura_Ace said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    F A L K L A N D S M O M E N T
    Y O U A R E D E L U D E D

    MMT Moment
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    Scott_P said:
    Me thinks this tweet will not age well.
    Is there a breakdown of the results by country. I expect FOM is more popular in eastern and central Rather than northern and Western Europe - as the former take far more advantage of it.

    Apparently only 1400 Brits have used FOM to move to Eastern Europe since 2004 - vs 1.5 million plus coming the other way.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752
    Jonathan said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

    Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

    I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, y majority
    Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
    I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

    In short a battle cry for Labour.
    I
    1964 was also 13 years into a Tory Government.
    Wilson won by just 4 seats and Home won a majority in England and there is no evidence yet of Labour matching Wilson's lead then
    Labour is actually performing rather better than at the same stage of the 1959 Parlianent - ie late 1960. Many commentators also believe that Gaitskell would have won a more comfortable victory in 1964 had he lived.
    No, Home may well have beaten Gaitskell who Macmillan comfortably defeated in 1959, it was only the more charismatic Wilson who was able to win a very narrow win over Home after he took over as Labour leader in 1963
    Gaitskell was probably at least as charismatic as Wilson in 1963 and probably would have fared well against Macmillan had there been a rematch in 1964. He was also seen as more centrist - and principled - than Wilson.
    By 1963 he was sadly too dead to be elected. The Achilles heal of many a promising Labour politician.
    John Smith comes to mind.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Jonathan said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

    Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

    I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, y majority
    Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
    I think @Southam's point about Johnson motivating the Lab vote is a pretty good one. Uber-posho, let's not say r*cist, but let's say loose with his mouth, exemplifying everything even fairly "rightish" Lab supporters dislike if not detest, totally nullifying Jezza's many faux pas.

    In short a battle cry for Labour.
    I
    1964 was also 13 years into a Tory Government.
    Wilson won by just 4 seats and Home won a majority in England and there is no evidence yet of Labour matching Wilson's lead then
    Labour is actually performing rather better than at the same stage of the 1959 Parlianent - ie late 1960. Many commentators also believe that Gaitskell would have won a more comfortable victory in 1964 had he lived.
    No, Home may well have beaten Gaitskell who Macmillan comfortably defeated in 1959, it was only the more charismatic Wilson who was able to win a very narrow win over Home after he took over as Labour leader in 1963
    Gaitskell was probably at least as charismatic as Wilson in 1963 and probably would have fared well against Macmillan had there been a rematch in 1964. He was also seen as more centrist - and principled - than Wilson.
    By 1963 he was sadly too dead to be elected. The Achilles heal of many a promising Labour politician.
    Indeed - he died on 18th January 1963 having been ill for just a few weeks. His demise was not quite as sudden as that of John Smith in May 1994 but at Christmas 1962 there were no serious concerns regarding his health.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
    Full coverage on Sky - BBC avoiding a major speech on the NHS by the PM par for the course
    They'd turn up if Corbyn was opening a first aid box! To be fair to the BBC I want to turn off the TV any time May appears she is so awkward.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    Sean_F said:

    Now Jo Coburn is at it on Daily Politics trying to say both increase in NHS funding that it isn't enough money, and that it isn't affordable!

    The only people to be annoyed by the NHS announcement are deficit hawks who are strongly pro-Remain. That's quite a niche segment of the electorate.
    George Osborne? Although he only added £600bn to the national debt during his time as Chancellor. This is more debt than every Chancellor added before 1997 combined in the nation's entire history!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Listening to Ally McCoist doing WC commentary....I can feel myself losing IQ points at a rate of knots.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
    Full coverage on Sky - BBC avoiding a major speech on the NHS by the PM par for the course
    They'd turn up if Corbyn was opening a first aid box! To be fair to the BBC I want to turn off the TV any time May appears she is so awkward.
    I know what you mean. Its like Fawlty Towers. You watch Basil and it's incredibly funny but there will come a point in any episode where it is just too much and you feel embarrassed.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
    Full coverage on Sky - BBC avoiding a major speech on the NHS by the PM par for the course
    They'd turn up if Corbyn was opening a first aid box! To be fair to the BBC I want to turn off the TV any time May appears she is so awkward.
    I can understand that sentiment but she was impressive today
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
    If the money is literally being saved by Brexit and spent on the NHS it would be accurate to call it a 'Brexit dividend'. If tax is going to have to go up to pay for it, then the connection with any 'savings' from Brexit is utterly bogus.

    Hint: it's the latter.
    It may turn out to be a bit of both of course. But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from and it is reasonable to infer that they have another agenda.
    "But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from"

    Yes, I've never heard a journalist ask 'where is the money going to come from.' (/sarcasm mode)

    Besides, can you explain where the current savings from Brexit are for it to be 'a bit of both' ?
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    Hmm. So it sounds as though Theresa's NHS Brexit Bonanza is now holed below the waterline, with everyone assuming it will be funded by massive tax hikes. I must admit I initially thought this was a masterstroke, but it's looking more like a repeat of John Smith's disastrous 'Shadow Budget'. Tax, Tax, Tax!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited June 2018

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.

    It's explicitly Trumpian.

    Tell a big lie. Ignore the press coverage, or claim fake news.

    I can see why Brexiteers like it so much.
    May had a simple explanation at her press conference. 'We are leaving the EU and payments will stop and she will prioritise the savings into her number one priority, the NHS

    And that is a simple message the public will hear and understand
    Agreed.

    The message that the overall wealth of the nation will be diminished by several billions more as a result of our less than stellar growth rate and hence there will likely be no "saving" is far more complicated.

    Why, even here on PB some people have problems understanding it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    Hmm. So it sounds as though Theresa's NHS Brexit Bonanza is now holed below the waterline, with everyone assuming it will be funded by massive tax hikes. I must admit I initially thought this was a masterstroke, but it's looking more like a repeat of John Smith's disastrous 'Shadow Budget'. Tax, Tax, Tax!

    It's the Brexit double whammy - more taxes and less control.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
    If the money is literally being saved by Brexit and spent on the NHS it would be accurate to call it a 'Brexit dividend'. If tax is going to have to go up to pay for it, then the connection with any 'savings' from Brexit is utterly bogus.

    Hint: it's the latter.
    It may turn out to be a bit of both of course. But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from and it is reasonable to infer that they have another agenda.
    "But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from"

    Yes, I've never heard a journalist ask 'where is the money going to come from.' (/sarcasm mode)

    Besides, can you explain where the current savings from Brexit are for it to be 'a bit of both' ?
    She was talking of the savings from paying into the EU from 2021
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.

    It's explicitly Trumpian.

    Tell a big lie. Ignore the press coverage, or claim fake news.

    I can see why Brexiteers like it so much.
    May had a simple explanation at her press conference. 'We are leaving the EU and payments will stop and she will prioritise the savings into her number one priority, the NHS

    And that is a simple message the public will hear and understand
    Agreed.

    The message that the overall wealth of the nation will be diminished by several billions more as a result of our less than stellar growth rate and hence there will likely be no "saving" is far more complicated.

    Why, even here on PB some people have problems understanding it.

    Or, after the initial road bump, we will grow even faster released from the shackles of the EU.

    Predictions about this are fun, aren't they?

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
    If the money is literally being saved by Brexit and spent on the NHS it would be accurate to call it a 'Brexit dividend'. If tax is going to have to go up to pay for it, then the connection with any 'savings' from Brexit is utterly bogus.

    Hint: it's the latter.
    It may turn out to be a bit of both of course. But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from and it is reasonable to infer that they have another agenda.
    "But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from"

    Yes, I've never heard a journalist ask 'where is the money going to come from.' (/sarcasm mode)

    Besides, can you explain where the current savings from Brexit are for it to be 'a bit of both' ?
    Sigh.

    We will save approximately £8.5bn a year in direct payments to the EU, net of the money we get back. All of that is with the Treasury unlike GDP changes which have only a marginal effect on Treasury receipts, depending on where the changes fall.

    There is an argument that this will be offset by the cost of alternative border arrangements (very unlikely to be beyond what we would have had to do within the EU in the next few years anyway); by reductions in GDP caused by Brexit (possible but currently unproven) and by us paying subs for the bits of Europe we want to remain a part of (cost currently unknown).

    Whether one will outweigh the other really remains to be seen but it is at least probable that there will be a net improvement in the government's books even if there is a small negative effect on GDP. May is choosing to spend that on the NHS. It certainly won't cover £20bn but it will help.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
    If the money is literally being saved by Brexit and spent on the NHS it would be accurate to call it a 'Brexit dividend'. If tax is going to have to go up to pay for it, then the connection with any 'savings' from Brexit is utterly bogus.

    Hint: it's the latter.
    It may turn out to be a bit of both of course. But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from and it is reasonable to infer that they have another agenda.
    "But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from"

    Yes, I've never heard a journalist ask 'where is the money going to come from.' (/sarcasm mode)

    Besides, can you explain where the current savings from Brexit are for it to be 'a bit of both' ?
    She was talking of the savings from paying into the EU from 2021
    Yet we don't know the form of Brexit yet, so counting any 'savings' seems more than a little odd - and more what Conservatives would accuse Labour of doing. Besides, that's in two or three years time.

    The truth needs to be faced: if we went a better health service and social care, then taxation needs to be increased. Governments since 2010 have done a good job of squeezing services, but there is only so far that can go.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.

    It's explicitly Trumpian.

    Tell a big lie. Ignore the press coverage, or claim fake news.

    I can see why Brexiteers like it so much.
    May had a simple explanation at her press conference. 'We are leaving the EU and payments will stop and she will prioritise the savings into her number one priority, the NHS

    And that is a simple message the public will hear and understand
    Agreed.

    The message that the overall wealth of the nation will be diminished by several billions more as a result of our less than stellar growth rate and hence there will likely be no "saving" is far more complicated.

    Why, even here on PB some people have problems understanding it.

    Or, after the initial road bump, we will grow even faster released from the shackles of the EU.

    Predictions about this are fun, aren't they?

    Agreed again. Our FTA with Tonga will be hugely GDP accretive.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    James_C said:

    If Theresa May falls and then (which I think is unlikely) the Tory membership does get a vote, how about David Lidington as the next PM while the members make their mind up?

    Price 100 at Ladbrokes according to Oddschecker.

    It's a possibility. Beware of the small print - some bookies might not pay out on a caretaker PM (although I can't see anything in the Ladbrokes market to suggest that they wouldn't pay out).
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    May had a simple explanation at her press conference. 'We are leaving the EU and payments will stop and she will prioritise the savings into her number one priority, the NHS

    And that is a simple message the public will hear and understand

    And it's simply not true.

    She should Tweet it, like Trump
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752
    James_C said:

    If Theresa May falls and then (which I think is unlikely) the Tory membership does get a vote, how about David Lidington as the next PM while the members make their mind up?

    Price 100 at Ladbrokes according to Oddschecker.

    David Liddington's main role in Cabinet is to make Hammond look dynamic. Its not really working though.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited June 2018
    ‘Tax rise to pay for NHS boost - PM’ is literally the second headline on the BBC website. A day after trying to present it as being connected to Brexit, this is not a great look from TMay.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,007

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
    If the money is literally being saved by Brexit and spent on the NHS it would be accurate to call it a 'Brexit dividend'. If tax is going to have to go up to pay for it, then the connection with any 'savings' from Brexit is utterly bogus.

    Hint: it's the latter.
    It may turn out to be a bit of both of course. But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from and it is reasonable to infer that they have another agenda.
    "But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from"

    Yes, I've never heard a journalist ask 'where is the money going to come from.' (/sarcasm mode)

    Besides, can you explain where the current savings from Brexit are for it to be 'a bit of both' ?
    She was talking of the savings from paying into the EU from 2021
    Yet we don't know the form of Brexit yet, so counting any 'savings' seems more than a little odd - and more what Conservatives would accuse Labour of doing. Besides, that's in two or three years time.

    The truth needs to be faced: if we went a better health service and social care, then taxation needs to be increased. Governments since 2010 have done a good job of squeezing services, but there is only so far that can go.
    Taxation has also reached near all time high levels too.

    At the end of the day there is no cheating the fact that people will need to go on working for longer.

    If you live to 90 rather than 70, then expect to retire at 80, not 60. That shouldn’t be unreasonable - working is good for you.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,261
    rkrkrk said:



    If I recall, she refused to serve. She is good though and I hope she gets back involved at some point. She has hopefully now realised that her analysis of Corbynism/reasons Labour lost in 2015 were pretty far of the mark.

    Yes, I hope so too. It helps that she and JC developed a genuine friendship during the leadership campaign - in theory people with similar views all march in step and people with different views trip each other up, but in real life just liking each other helps a lot.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
    If the money is literally being saved by Brexit and spent on the NHS it would be accurate to call it a 'Brexit dividend'. If tax is going to have to go up to pay for it, then the connection with any 'savings' from Brexit is utterly bogus.

    Hint: it's the latter.
    It may turn out to be a bit of both of course. But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from and it is reasonable to infer that they have another agenda.
    "But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from"

    Yes, I've never heard a journalist ask 'where is the money going to come from.' (/sarcasm mode)

    Besides, can you explain where the current savings from Brexit are for it to be 'a bit of both' ?
    She was talking of the savings from paying into the EU from 2021
    Yet we don't know the form of Brexit yet, so counting any 'savings' seems more than a little odd - and more what Conservatives would accuse Labour of doing. Besides, that's in two or three years time.

    The truth needs to be faced: if we went a better health service and social care, then taxation needs to be increased. Governments since 2010 have done a good job of squeezing services, but there is only so far that can go.
    She made it clear that tax rises will be needed and was projecting the Brexit savings towards the end of the five year period and beyond with the bulk of which to go to the NHS
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2018
    Jeremy Hunt? He's not leadership material IMO. Javid is most likely to be the next leader.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited June 2018
    TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.

    It's explicitly Trumpian.

    Tell a big lie. Ignore the press coverage, or claim fake news.

    I can see why Brexiteers like it so much.
    May had a simple explanation at her press conference. 'We are leaving the EU and payments will stop and she will prioritise the savings into her number one priority, the NHS

    And that is a simple message the public will hear and understand
    Agreed.

    The message that the overall wealth of the nation will be diminished by several billions more as a result of our less than stellar growth rate and hence there will likely be no "saving" is far more complicated.

    Why, even here on PB some people have problems understanding it.
    We are of course spending £50 billion a year in interest on our debt - and that is at chronically historically low interest rates. Does anyone ever ask where the money for that comes from?!! The government spends over £600 billion a year!

    If we can find £50 bn a year for the bankers and bondholders we can surely find more for the NHS. We just borrow a bit more or spend less elsewhere or tax more - after all what's a few more billion on top of our existing £2 trillion and rising debt (ignoring other long term liabilities like state and public sector pensions and off balance sheet financing and PFI!).

    It's just a pity as much attention isnt paid by the media to the £50bn ongoing annual debt interest - as opposed for example to a one off Bung to Ulster to keep the DUP onside! Cos that is £50bn a year and rising not available to fund public services - for decades to come.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electr off for May.
    If the money is literally being saved by Brexit and spent on the NHS it would be accurate to call it a 'Brexit dividend'. If tax is going to have to go up to pay for it, then the connection with any 'savings' from Brexit is utterly bogus.

    Hint: it's the latter.
    It may turn out to be a bit of both of course. But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from and it is reasonable to infer that they have another agenda.
    "But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from"

    Yes, I've never heard a journalist ask 'where is the money going to come from.' (/sarcasm mode)

    Besides, can you explain where the current savings from Brexit are for it to be 'a bit of both' ?
    Sigh.

    We will save approximately £8.5bn a year in direct payments to the EU, net of the money we get back. All of that is with the Treasury unlike GDP changes which have only a marginal effect on Treasury receipts, depending on where the changes fall.

    There is an argument that this will be offset by the cost of alternative border arrangements (very unlikely to be beyond what we would have had to do within the EU in the next few years anyway); by reductions in GDP caused by Brexit (possible but currently unproven) and by us paying subs for the bits of Europe we want to remain a part of (cost currently unknown).

    Whether one will outweigh the other really remains to be seen but it is at least probable that there will be a net improvement in the government's books even if there is a small negative effect on GDP. May is choosing to spend that on the NHS. It certainly won't cover £20bn but it will help.
    What are your scenarios around that possible reduction in GDP? By a curious coincidence, a 1% diminution in GDP (at today's prices) equates to just about bang on £20bn.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
    If the money is literally being saved by Brexit and spent on the NHS it would be accurate to call it a 'Brexit dividend'. If tax is going to have to go up to pay for it, then the connection with any 'savings' from Brexit is utterly bogus.

    Hint: it's the latter.
    It may turn out to be a bit of both of course. But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from and it is reasonable to infer that they have another agenda.
    "But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from"

    Yes, I've never heard a journalist ask 'where is the money going to come from.' (/sarcasm mode)

    Besides, can you explain where the current savings from Brexit are for it to be 'a bit of both' ?
    Sigh.

    We will save approximately £8.5bn a year in direct payments to the EU, net of the money we get back. All of that is with the Treasury unlike GDP changes which have only a marginal effect on Treasury receipts, depending on where the changes fall.

    There is an argument that this will be offset by the cost of alternative border arrangements (very unlikely to be beyond what we would have had to do within the EU in the next few years anyway); by reductions in GDP caused by Brexit (possible but currently unproven) and by us paying subs for the bits of Europe we want to remain a part of (cost currently unknown).

    Whether one will outweigh the other really remains to be seen but it is at least probable that there will be a net improvement in the government's books even if there is a small negative effect on GDP. May is choosing to spend that on the NHS. It certainly won't cover £20bn but it will help.
    +1
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    brendan16 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Now Jo Coburn is at it on Daily Politics trying to say both increase in NHS funding that it isn't enough money, and that it isn't affordable!

    The only people to be annoyed by the NHS announcement are deficit hawks who are strongly pro-Remain. That's quite a niche segment of the electorate.
    George Osborne? Although he only added £600bn to the national debt during his time as Chancellor. This is more debt than every Chancellor added before 1997 combined in the nation's entire history!
    Hardly anyone seems to care about the national debt. When was the last time the UK wasn't in debt I wonder.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,007

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
    If the money is literally being saved by Brexit and spent on the NHS it would be accurate to call it a 'Brexit dividend'. If tax is going to have to go up to pay for it, then the connection with any 'savings' from Brexit is utterly bogus.

    Hint: it's the latter.
    On current form, we will certainly be paying less to the EU from 2021 than we currently are. The debate seems to be whether or not the fact we’re no longer members will lead our economy to grow slower in the medium-term than it otherwise would have done, such that our membership fees to the EU could have been viewed as an economic investment.

    In my view, that’s quite a technocratic argument to make to the electorate and just as important will be spending per head/GDP per head and wage growth per head. Had we Remained immigration levels now would be at all time highs, which would have been another burden on the NHS.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited June 2018
    Scott_P said:
    Nailed on Labour will propose legalize cannabis for "medical use", by which they will go with the US / Canada approach i.e way of decriminalizing it while still having at least some semblance of protection against kids.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    DavidL said:

    Sigh.

    We will save approximately £8.5bn a year in direct payments to the EU, net of the money we get back. All of that is with the Treasury unlike GDP changes which have only a marginal effect on Treasury receipts, depending on where the changes fall.

    There is an argument that this will be offset by the cost of alternative border arrangements (very unlikely to be beyond what we would have had to do within the EU in the next few years anyway); by reductions in GDP caused by Brexit (possible but currently unproven) and by us paying subs for the bits of Europe we want to remain a part of (cost currently unknown).

    Whether one will outweigh the other really remains to be seen but it is at least probable that there will be a net improvement in the government's books even if there is a small negative effect on GDP. May is choosing to spend that on the NHS. It certainly won't cover £20bn but it will help.


    "We will save approximately £8.5bn a year in direct payments to the EU"

    Apparently we also get all the tariffs that are paid on goods imported from outside the EU. Currently this is paid over to the EU which we will be able to keep. This should amount to significantly more income/savings.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    Scott_P said:

    May had a simple explanation at her press conference. 'We are leaving the EU and payments will stop and she will prioritise the savings into her number one priority, the NHS

    And that is a simple message the public will hear and understand

    And it's simply not true.

    She should Tweet it, like Trump
    The public will see it as a simple statement that is logical.

    It may not suit remainers who have been out in force panicking over the actual politics of this
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    DavidL said:

    Sigh.

    We will save approximately £8.5bn a year in direct payments to the EU, net of the money we get back. All of that is with the Treasury unlike GDP changes which have only a marginal effect on Treasury receipts, depending on where the changes fall.

    There is an argument that this will be offset by the cost of alternative border arrangements (very unlikely to be beyond what we would have had to do within the EU in the next few years anyway); by reductions in GDP caused by Brexit (possible but currently unproven) and by us paying subs for the bits of Europe we want to remain a part of (cost currently unknown).

    Whether one will outweigh the other really remains to be seen but it is at least probable that there will be a net improvement in the government's books even if there is a small negative effect on GDP. May is choosing to spend that on the NHS. It certainly won't cover £20bn but it will help.


    "We will save approximately £8.5bn a year in direct payments to the EU"

    Apparently we also get all the tariffs that are paid on goods imported from outside the EU. Currently this is paid over to the EU which we will be able to keep. This should amount to significantly more income/savings.

    We'll never have had it so good.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.

    It's explicitly Trumpian.

    Tell a big lie. Ignore the press coverage, or claim fake news.

    I can see why Brexiteers like it so much.
    May had a simple explanation at her press conference. 'We are leaving the EU and payments will stop and she will prioritise the savings into her number one priority, the NHS

    And that is a simple message the public will hear and understand
    Agreed.

    The message that the overall wealth of the nation will be diminished by several billions more as a result of our less than stellar growth rate and hence there will likely be no "saving" is far more complicated.

    Why, even here on PB some people have problems understanding it.
    Then there is also the question of if we believe those who said we would have an immediate recession after voting to leave.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    edited June 2018

    ‘Tax rise to pay for NHS boost - PM’ is literally the second headline on the BBC website. A day after trying to present it as being connected to Brexit, this is not a great look from TMay.


    BBC and Sky are very anti-Brexit, so not particularly surprising.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,007

    Scott_P said:
    Me thinks this tweet will not age well.
    I’m sure in many parts of the EU freedom of movement is very popular.

    It is far less so in the UK.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Taxation has also reached near all time high levels too.

    At the end of the day there is no cheating the fact that people will need to go on working for longer.

    If you live to 90 rather than 70, then expect to retire at 80, not 60. That shouldn’t be unreasonable - working is good for you.

    Yep, and that is one of the things that needs more mature debate.

    However I'd also say that that might not be the case for manual workers: it's easy to work longer in jobs which require mental effort (as long as you retain your faculties) than it is one which requires significant physical effort for many years.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:
    If the money is literally being saved by Brexit and spent on the NHS it would be accurate to call it a 'Brexit dividend'. If tax is going to have to go up to pay for it, then the connection with any 'savings' from Brexit is utterly bogus.

    Hint: it's the latter.
    It may turn out to be a bit of both of course. But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from and it is reasonable to infer that they have another agenda.
    "But it is unusual for the UK media to show much interest in where the money is to come from"

    Yes, I've never heard a journalist ask 'where is the money going to come from.' (/sarcasm mode)

    Besides, can you explain where the current savings from Brexit are for it to be 'a bit of both' ?
    Sigh.

    We will save approximately £8.5bn a year in direct payments to the EU, net of the money we get back. All of that is with the Treasury unlike GDP changes which have only a marginal effect on Treasury receipts, depending on where the changes fall.

    There is an argument that this will be offset by the cost of alternative border arrangements (very unlikely to be beyond what we would have had to do within the EU in the next few years anyway); by reductions in GDP caused by Brexit (possible but currently unproven) and by us paying subs for the bits of Europe we want to remain a part of (cost currently unknown).

    Whether one will outweigh the other really remains to be seen but it is at least probable that there will be a net improvement in the government's books even if there is a small negative effect on GDP. May is choosing to spend that on the NHS. It certainly won't cover £20bn but it will help.
    What are your scenarios around that possible reduction in GDP? By a curious coincidence, a 1% diminution in GDP (at today's prices) equates to just about bang on £20bn.

    Not to the government it doesn't. Tax is currently just under 40% of GDP so a 1% drop would affect the government's books by about £8bn. That would largely wipe out the "saving" for a year. Whether that would be the same for the next year would depend on whether the UK economy adapted or not and whether a 1% fall continued. It will of course be essentially unknowable since the alternative will never be proven but I think that is highly unlikely.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001

    ‘Tax rise to pay for NHS boost - PM’ is literally the second headline on the BBC website. A day after trying to present it as being connected to Brexit, this is not a great look from TMay.

    It would help if people actually listened to what TM said, not the anti Brexit spin being put forward by the media.

    She made a comprehensive and impressive speech on the subject and explained the future Brexit dividend but that tax will have to rise to sustain the NHS irrespective of future Brexit savings
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,007
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Johnson twice built a coalition to beat Ken Livingstone in London even if the left hated him and the UK as a whole is more Tory and pro Brexit than London

    Things have changed a bit since 2012. Johnson does not help the Tories win the seats from Labour they need for a majority because he keeps the current Labour voting coalition together.

    I could see a Johnson led Tories winning Peterborough, y majority
    Three of those Labour MPs are likely to enjoy a first term incumbency bonus next time.
    I think @Southam's point

    In short a battle cry for Labour.
    So what most of those voters would never vote Tory anyway, it is the small segment of working class Labour Leave voters in marginal provincial Labour Leave seats Boris would be focused on
    I

    Putting Boris at the helm in 2020 will simply signal to a large number of people that they are falling back to their, xenophobic, racist, class-ridden, tin-eared nasty roots.
    The Tories are currently polling about 42% in 1992 they got 41% ie almost the same, in 1997 they got 31%, over 10% less than they are currently polling. 2022 will be 12 years into a Tory government as 1992 was 13 years into a Tory government, 1997 was 18 years into a Tory government.

    Boris may signal to inner city Remain areas and university towns that the Tories are led by an 'unprogressive' leader but so what? Almost all those seats are now pretty safe Labour held seats anyway
    Tories live in abject fear of another GE1997, but it’s a different country now and politics are more polarised around values than economics.
    GE1997 wasn't about economics. There was very little difference between what Blair was offering and the Tory offer. The big difference was that the Tories were tired out, and Blair was offering a bright new (unspecified) sunny tomorrow.
    It was in part because Blair had to pledge not to unpick the Tories economic settlement whilst also increasing public spending.

    Tax and spend was the main axis of public debate at the 1997GE. That’s changed a fair bit over the last 20 years, as it has in many other Western countries.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    I wonder about BBC / ITV when they decide to hire some of these former pros for the WC coverage. Do they do any screen-tests with them? Because my neighbours kids are more informative about the game than Patrice Evra.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited June 2018

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.

    It's explicitly Trumpian.

    Tell a big lie. Ignore the press coverage, or claim fake news.

    I can see why Brexiteers like it so much.
    May had a simple explanation at her press conference. 'We are leaving the EU and payments will stop and she will prioritise the savings into her number one priority, the NHS

    And that is a simple message the public will hear and understand
    Agreed.

    The message that the overall wealth of the nation will be diminished by several billions more as a result of our less than stellar growth rate and hence there will likely be no "saving" is far more complicated.

    Why, even here on PB some people have problems understanding it.
    Then there is also the question of if we believe those who said we would have an immediate recession after voting to leave.
    Yes good point. That's where Mark Carney came in; to head off that possibility.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,007

    Taxation has also reached near all time high levels too.

    At the end of the day there is no cheating the fact that people will need to go on working for longer.

    If you live to 90 rather than 70, then expect to retire at 80, not 60. That shouldn’t be unreasonable - working is good for you.

    Yep, and that is one of the things that needs more mature debate.

    However I'd also say that that might not be the case for manual workers: it's easy to work longer in jobs which require mental effort (as long as you retain your faculties) than it is one which requires significant physical effort for many years.
    True, but I think most manual jobs will eventually go due to AI. We need to be better at giving older people more social and less physical jobs, such as customer service, consultancy and retail sales.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Now Jo Coburn is at it on Daily Politics trying to say both increase in NHS funding that it isn't enough money, and that it isn't affordable!

    The only people to be annoyed by the NHS announcement are deficit hawks who are strongly pro-Remain. That's quite a niche segment of the electorate.
    George Osborne? Although he only added £600bn to the national debt during his time as Chancellor. This is more debt than every Chancellor added before 1997 combined in the nation's entire history!
    Hardly anyone seems to care about the national debt. When was the last time the UK wasn't in debt I wonder.
    In 1997 the national debt was about £350 Bn. By 2011 it was £1.2 trillion and now it's not far off £2 trillion. We have been on a splurge in the last 20 years! And that is before we even think about the demographic challenges ahead for pensions, housing benefit (far more renters in retirement) and social care/the NHS. A lot of cheap low wage labour living on HB and tax credits isn't going to be able to cover that.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Impressive speech by TM on the NHS - as one commentator has just remarked this could have been delivered by a labour politician

    That's meant to be a compliment is it?
    I think he is inferring TM is parking her tanks on Corbyn's lawn
    Not covered by the BBC so far as I can see.

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.
    If the money is literally being saved by Brexit and spent on the NHS it would be accurate to call it a 'Brexit dividend'. If tax is going to have to go up to pay for it, then the connection with any 'savings' from Brexit is utterly bogus.

    Hint: it's the latter.
    On current form, we will certainly be paying less to the EU from 2021 than we currently are. The debate seems to be whether or not the fact we’re no longer members will lead our economy to grow slower in the medium-term than it otherwise would have done, such that our membership fees to the EU could have been viewed as an economic investment.

    In my view, that’s quite a technocratic argument to make to the electorate and just as important will be spending per head/GDP per head and wage growth per head. Had we Remained immigration levels now would be at all time highs, which would have been another burden on the NHS.
    "Had we Remained immigration levels now would be at all time highs"

    Citation required. :)
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    Scott_P said:
    Nailed on Labour will propose legalize cannabis for "medical use", by which they will go with the US / Canada approach i.e way of decriminalizing it while still having at least some semblance of protection against kids.
    Decriminalized but illegal is the worst of both worlds. You still keep all the street dealers but create more demand.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752
    edited June 2018
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.

    It's explicitly Trumpian.

    Tell a big lie. Ignore the press coverage, or claim fake news.

    I can see why Brexiteers like it so much.
    May had a simple explanation at her press conference. 'We are leaving the EU and payments will stop and she will prioritise the savings into her number one priority, the NHS

    And that is a simple message the public will hear and understand
    Agreed.

    The message that the overall wealth of the nation will be diminished by several billions more as a result of our less than stellar growth rate and hence there will likely be no "saving" is far more complicated.

    Why, even here on PB some people have problems understanding it.
    Then there is also the question of if we believe those who said we would have an immediate recession after voting to leave.
    Yes good point. That's where Mark Carney came in; to head off that possibility.
    With a 0.25% cut in interest rates? That offset an immediate recession? I think Carney is good but he is not that good.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    Scott_P said:
    Me thinks this tweet will not age well.
    I’m sure in many parts of the EU freedom of movement is very popular.

    It is far less so in the UK.
    Not everyone's household is a shining example of the benefits of free movement like yours.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164

    I wonder about BBC / ITV when they decide to hire some of these former pros for the WC coverage. Do they do any screen-tests with them? Because my neighbours kids are more informative about the game than Patrice Evra.

    Pretty much no.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:
    Nailed on Labour will propose legalize cannabis for "medical use", by which they will go with the US / Canada approach i.e way of decriminalizing it while still having at least some semblance of protection against kids.
    Decriminalized but illegal is the worst of both worlds. You still keep all the street dealers but create more demand.
    I didn't say it was a good solution, I said it will be what Labour propose. It allows them to play to the yuff / middle class weed smokers and the middle class mums who want to give it to their kids for medical reasons, while also claiming to those worried about their kids getting into it that their will be protections.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.

    It's explicitly Trumpian.

    Tell a big lie. Ignore the press coverage, or claim fake news.

    I can see why Brexiteers like it so much.
    May had a simple explanation at her press conference. 'We are leaving the EU and payments will stop and she will prioritise the savings into her number one priority, the NHS

    And that is a simple message the public will hear and understand
    Agreed.

    The message that the overall wealth of the nation will be diminished by several billions more as a result of our less than stellar growth rate and hence there will likely be no "saving" is far more complicated.

    Why, even here on PB some people have problems understanding it.
    Then there is also the question of if we believe those who said we would have an immediate recession after voting to leave.
    Yes good point. That's where Mark Carney came in; to head off that possibility.
    With a 0.25% cut in interest rates? That offset an immediate recession? I think Carney is good but he is not that good.
    If all it takes is a 0.25 per cent Interest rate cut to stave off economic collapse, massive spending cuts via an emergency budget and WWIII we can do that after leaving too.

    Of course had we been in the Euro that option would not be available as the ECB would set out rates - a fact which the mass ranks of the young unemployed in Southern Europe must be for ever grateful.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Donald J. Trump

    The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!

    The Donald weighs in on Merkel's current problems. I think this can only help her.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited June 2018
    tlg86 said:

    I wonder about BBC / ITV when they decide to hire some of these former pros for the WC coverage. Do they do any screen-tests with them? Because my neighbours kids are more informative about the game than Patrice Evra.

    Pretty much no.
    It is what sets Sky's sport coverage above the rest. Not just the footy, but pretty much all sports they on the whole get former pros that are able to disseminate insights into the professional game *. The golf when they have Butch Harmon is just fantastic, it is a window into the mind of the world top golf coach / all those players under this wings.

    * Cricket is where they need a cull. Too many are now out of touch with what teams are trying to do in things like T20, which they never played.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    DavidL said:

    Sigh.

    We will save approximately £8.5bn a year in direct payments to the EU, net of the money we get back. All of that is with the Treasury unlike GDP changes which have only a marginal effect on Treasury receipts, depending on where the changes fall.

    There is an argument that this will be offset by the cost of alternative border arrangements (very unlikely to be beyond what we would have had to do within the EU in the next few years anyway); by reductions in GDP caused by Brexit (possible but currently unproven) and by us paying subs for the bits of Europe we want to remain a part of (cost currently unknown).

    Whether one will outweigh the other really remains to be seen but it is at least probable that there will be a net improvement in the government's books even if there is a small negative effect on GDP. May is choosing to spend that on the NHS. It certainly won't cover £20bn but it will help.

    We don't know

    We currently in a Schrodinger's Cat Brexit; leaving aside other economic impacts (cyclic or Brexit-related), it is impossible to say how much (if anything) will be 'saved' by Brexit. I hope it's a lot.

    But the really honest answer is to say that it's f'all to do with Brexit, and that an increase in taxation will cover NHS changes now, and that they *hope* savings from Brexit will allow more spending.

    The funny thing is I can imagine what you and others would be saying if Labour had said something like this.

    Look, for avoidance of doubt, I hope Brexit is a success. I keep on swinging between optimism and despair over it, and I feel that if it is a success it will be in spite of, rather than because of, the government's skill. But linking this with Brexit is just silly politicing - and might even be harmful.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,752
    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:
    Nailed on Labour will propose legalize cannabis for "medical use", by which they will go with the US / Canada approach i.e way of decriminalizing it while still having at least some semblance of protection against kids.
    Decriminalized but illegal is the worst of both worlds. You still keep all the street dealers but create more demand.
    Decriminalised, taxed and produced to consumer standards with responsible companies you can sue if it isn't. It really is a no brainer. Taxed at the same level as cigarettes it might even pay for half the NHS increase!
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    Scott_P said:
    Me thinks this tweet will not age well.
    I’m sure in many parts of the EU freedom of movement is very popular.

    It is far less so in the UK.
    Not everyone's household is a shining example of the benefits of free movement like yours.
    No one had an issue with FOM when it was with Western European nations with similar economies, wage levels and welfare systems. When it's all one way FOM it is seemingly less popular with many in the host nations who see their wages fall and their kids priced out of housing.

    Perhaps one day Brits will regret not be able to move en masse to Slovakia and Bulgaria - but that may be some time,
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:
    Nailed on Labour will propose legalize cannabis for "medical use", by which they will go with the US / Canada approach i.e way of decriminalizing it while still having at least some semblance of protection against kids.
    Decriminalized but illegal is the worst of both worlds. You still keep all the street dealers but create more demand.
    Not to mention you don't get that sweet sweet duties and taxes on it.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.

    It's explicitly Trumpian.

    Tell a big lie. Ignore the press coverage, or claim fake news.

    I can see why Brexiteers like it so much.
    May had a simple explanation at her press conference. 'We are leaving the EU and payments will stop and she will prioritise the savings into her number one priority, the NHS

    And that is a simple message the public will hear and understand
    Agreed.

    The message that the overall wealth of the nation will be diminished by several billions more as a result of our less than stellar growth rate and hence there will likely be no "saving" is far more complicated.

    Why, even here on PB some people have problems understanding it.
    Then there is also the question of if we believe those who said we would have an immediate recession after voting to leave.
    Yes good point. That's where Mark Carney came in; to head off that possibility.
    Surely a minor cut in interest rates would have been priced in to the predictions.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    It would help if people actually listened to what TM said, not the anti Brexit spin being put forward by the media.

    She made a comprehensive and impressive speech on the subject and explained the future Brexit dividend but that tax will have to rise to sustain the NHS irrespective of future Brexit savings

    It's on the Downing Street website

    https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1008318646429470723

    Trump would be proud.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,879
    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Now Jo Coburn is at it on Daily Politics trying to say both increase in NHS funding that it isn't enough money, and that it isn't affordable!

    The only people to be annoyed by the NHS announcement are deficit hawks who are strongly pro-Remain. That's quite a niche segment of the electorate.
    George Osborne? Although he only added £600bn to the national debt during his time as Chancellor. This is more debt than every Chancellor added before 1997 combined in the nation's entire history!
    Hardly anyone seems to care about the national debt. When was the last time the UK wasn't in debt I wonder.
    I'd argue there is far too much attention paid to the national debt and the deficit.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    What is really ticking off most of the electronic media (and the FT) about this is the link to the "Brexit dividend". They ahor the idea that anything good can be connected with Brexit in any way so they have been immensely critical. Had this been announced without that link the coverage would probably have been a lot less hostile. That might prove quite an expensive trade off for May.

    It's explicitly Trumpian.

    Tell a big lie. Ignore the press coverage, or claim fake news.

    I can see why Brexiteers like it so much.
    May had a simple explanation at her press conference. 'We are leaving the EU and payments will stop and she will prioritise the savings into her number one priority, the NHS

    And that is a simple message the public will hear and understand
    Agreed.

    The message that the overall wealth of the nation will be diminished by several billions more as a result of our less than stellar growth rate and hence there will likely be no "saving" is far more complicated.

    Why, even here on PB some people have problems understanding it.
    Then there is also the question of if we believe those who said we would have an immediate recession after voting to leave.
    Yes good point. That's where Mark Carney came in; to head off that possibility.
    But you discount the fact that the Government and BoE can take actions to make the long term growth rate faster as well.
    Currently our whole economy is geared to functioning in the EU irrespective of whether that is good for long term growth rates or not. The interesting long term economic forecast would be what are the impacts of the changes we can make do to the growth rate.
    Every economic forecast is based on the BoE and Government will change nothing, leave it all geared to the EU and we leave it. It is no surprise that they forecast a slow down in the growth rate.
    One group who did try to say things can change so we will model some potential changes was The Economists for Free Trade. Instead of being congratulated for at least understanding the main issue, all the "group think" stay in the EU mob tried to ridicule it.
    What a state the country is in.
This discussion has been closed.