Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A bet that seems like a guaranteed 14% return in just over 4 m

24

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Anyway todays big story is the terrble floods in India

    6,000 miles of roads washed away and despair abounds

    I would like to think TM will offer help to India paid out of our foreign aid budget.

    Surely that is what it is for

    It's exactly what a foreign aid budget is there for. We should be offering every available military plane and helicopter, alongside specialist men and equipment.
    The Indian air force ME and RW fleets are 4-5x larger than the RAF. Any token effort the UK made would just complicate and hinder due to the effort taken to integrate them into the operation.

    Also, it would just be an excuse for a great number of senior officers to get on the curries and Kingfisher in New Delhi.

    Also, it's "people" not "men". It's 2018.
    Surely they need every single helo they can get their hands on?

    From reports it sounds like there could be *millions* of people needing to be physically evacuated.
    Its the sort of thing that HMS Ocean would have been very useful for but she was decommissioned earlier this year.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    daodao said:

    I am not a Corbynista, but am disgusted by the widespread hatred displayed towards Corbyn and his supporters, both on this site and in much of the media. It is reasonable to criticise, in a dignified way, his policies and also his lack of competence/ability, for which there is some evidence. However, he is a principled man and a tireless campaigner against racism and oppression in all its forms throughout the world, and deserves to be treated with respect, even if one disagrees with him.

    Its not a brand. Its a moral crusade. A few year diversion by a clutch of trot entryists doesn't change what the movement is and what it represents.

    You're right, I do disagree. Not least because moral crusades are also brands. The idea a political club, broad tents of opinion which shift dramatically over time to the point they might be unrecognizable, are so ideologically and morally fixed that support must be maintained no matter what, seems to fly in the face of the evidence for me. The morals of party's do change, so affixing aligning morals to a party will see our own change.

    I dont begrudge you your choice that despite your well documented concerns with the current leadership Labour remain the best option for the country, but it being a moral imperative to do so rather a than political choice is precisely why some people excuse terrible things or incompetence because it doesn't matter, the other lot are morally reprehensible. I've always found that to be a dangerous attitude. And no, it isn't only labour who think that way at times.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787

    Brexit is simply recalibrating a trading arrangement, and coming up with new bilateral political fora, with our European neighbours.

    No it isn't, and the second assertion belies the first.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Anyway todays big story is the terrble floods in India

    6,000 miles of roads washed away and despair abounds

    I would like to think TM will offer help to India paid out of our foreign aid budget.

    Surely that is what it is for

    It's exactly what a foreign aid budget is there for. We should be offering every available military plane and helicopter, alongside specialist men and equipment.
    The Indian air force ME and RW fleets are 4-5x larger than the RAF. Any token effort the UK made would just complicate and hinder due to the effort taken to integrate them into the operation.

    Also, it would just be an excuse for a great number of senior officers to get on the curries and Kingfisher in New Delhi.

    Also, it's "people" not "men". It's 2018.
    Surely they need every single helo they can get their hands on?

    From reports it sounds like there could be *millions* of people needing to be physically evacuated.
    Its the sort of thing that HMS Ocean would have been very useful for but she was decommissioned earlier this year.
    Indeed. Sadly HMS Queen Elizabeth is in the mid-Atlantic at the moment, en route to the US to pick up her F35s, couldn't be further away from India.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    edited August 2018
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking us back to 1975. And that would cause far more harm to those you want to help than any perceived problems from McVey and the DWP. We have seen it multiple times. Labour wrecks the economy. Corbyn's ambitions would wreck it worse than any before it. Every Labour Govt. leaves office with fewer in emloyment than they inherited. And it is always the average Joe or Joanne who suffers.

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    A rapidly falling deficit.
    Record employment.
    Low inflation.
    Continuous growth.
    Greater equality of incomes.
    Lower taxes on the less well paid.
    A NMW that has increased sharply.
    Policies that encourage and reward work rather than benefit dependency.

    There are problems. The trade deficit, student debt, a dysfunctional housing market, strains on public services especially in social care, insufficient investment in skills and training, some aspects of the gig economy, very modest increases in real wages as a result of poor productivity growth. But does anyone seriously think that Corbyn has credible answers to these issues or that he can maintain what the Tories have achieved since 2010?

    May was determined to win on her own terms in 2017 and hid her Chancellor away with the result that the economic record (which was mainly Osborne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    I’ve never really understood the reasons behind her dislike of Osborne. But neither have I looked hard, assuming an underlying irrationality.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking us back to 1975. And that would cause far more harm to those you want to help than any perceived problems from McVey and the DWP. We have seen it multiple times. Labour wrecks the economy. Corbyn's ambitions would wreck it worse than any before it. Every Labour Govt. leaves office with fewer in emloyment than they inherited. And it is always the average Joe or Joanne who suffers.

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    A rapidly falling deficit.
    Record employment.
    Low inflation.
    Continuous growth.
    Greater equality of incomes.
    Lower taxes on the less well paid.
    A NMW that has increased sharply.
    Policies that encourage and reward work rather than benefit dependency.

    There are problems. The trade deficit, student debt, a dysfunctional housing market, strains on public services especially in social care, insufficient investment in skills and training, some aspects of the gig economy, very modest increases in real wages as a result of poor productivity growth. But does anyone seriously think that Corbyn has credible answers to these issues or that he can maintain what the Tories have achieved since 2010?

    May was determined to win on her own terms in 2017 and hid her Chancellor away with the result that the economic record (which was mainly Osborne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    But Hammond seems deeply disliked by elements of the party so he won't be used again.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    matt said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking us back to 1975. And that would cause far more harm to those you want to help than any perceived problems from McVey and the DWP. We have seen it multiple times. Labour wrecks the economy. Corbyn's ambitions would wreck it worse than any before it. Every Labour Govt. leaves office with fewer in emloyment than they inherited. And it is always the average Joe or Joanne who suffers.

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    A rapidly falling deficit.
    Record employment.
    Low inflation.
    Continuous growth.
    Greater equality of incomes.
    Lower taxes on the less well paid.
    A NMW that has increased sharply.
    Policies that encourage and reward work rather than benefit dependency.

    There are problems. The trade deficit, student debt, a dysfunctional housing market, strains on public services especially in social care, insufficient investment in skills and training, some aspects of the gig economy, very modest increases in real wages as a result of poor productivity growth. But does anyone seriously think that Corbyn has credible answers to these issues or that he can maintain what the Tories have achieved since 2010?

    May was determined to win on her own terms in 2017 and hid her Chancellor away with the result that the economic record (which was mainly Osborne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    I’ve never really understood the reasons behind her dislike of Osborne. But neither have I looked hard, assuming an underlying irrationality.
    On the early days of her premiership the mood music to me seemed to be that she really disliked the entire time in the Cameron government.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited August 2018
    Des

    Nigelb said:

    Labour are in something of a bind.
    As this Politico article argues, on the one hand, there is a pretty strong belief on the socialist left that Corbyn is essential to their electoral appeal, and prospects of ever forming a government (and that is probably correct); on the other, Corbyn is extremely unlikely to resile from positions he he sees as justified by his personal beliefs.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-labour-wont-compromise-no-matter-the-cost/

    His leadership is likely safe for quite some time. Whether his rather strange moral certainties will convince enough people for him ever to be prime minister is another matter.

    Jeremy Corbyn as the Mrs Thatcher de nos jours? It is a long time since we've had a prime minister with strange moral certainties.
    An interesting thought. The difference in these certainties are perhaps a clue to the outcome.

    Despite the sound and fury it's becoming clear this racist meme isn't even spluttering let alone flying. People-the left in particular- have decided Corbyn isn't a racist and that's that. It's the old conundrum of advertising that you can't convince people of something they don't believe. The more people keep flogging this dead horse the more people question why this dead horse is being flogged.

    By contrast Maggie's attitude to racism was always suspect. Her support for Mandela's imprisonment, trading with the apartheid regime, her family interests in South Africa, rejecting Commonwealth sanctions...... convinced those on the left including large swathes of the enlightened middle class including most Jews that she wasn't Kosher thus not to be touched with a bargepole.

    Corbyn and his lefty chums remember this. They will not take lessons from The Mail The Telegraph The Express nor the Tory Party or even those they believe have an agenda on their own side on questions of racism and imperialism. It is a battle they will fight to the end and one I suspect they will win
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Roger said:

    Des

    Nigelb said:

    Labour are in something of a bind.
    As this Politico article argues, on the one hand, there is a pretty strong belief on the socialist left that Corbyn is essential to their electoral appeal, and prospects of ever forming a government (and that is probably correct); on the other, Corbyn is extremely unlikely to resile from positions he he sees as justified by his personal beliefs.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-labour-wont-compromise-no-matter-the-cost/

    His leadership is likely safe for quite some time. Whether his rather strange moral certainties will convince enough people for him ever to be prime minister is another matter.

    Jeremy Corbyn as the Mrs Thatcher de nos jours? It is a long time since we've had a prime minister with strange moral certainties.
    An interesting thought. The difference in these certainties are perhaps a clue to the outcome.

    Despite the sound and fury it's becoming clear this racist meme isn't even spluttering let alone flying. People-the left in particular- have decided Corbyn isn't a racist and that's that. It's the old conundrum of advertising that you can't convince people of something they don't believe. The more people keep flogging this dead horse the more people will question why this dead horse is being flogged.

    By contrast Maggie's attitude to racism was always suspect. Her support for Mandela's imprisonment, trading with the apartheid regime, her family interests in South Africa, rejecting Commonwealth sanctions...... convinced those on the left including large swathes of the enlightened middle class including most Jews that she wasn't Kosher thus not to be touched with a bargepole.

    Corbyn and his lefty chums remember this. They will not take lessons from The Mail The Telegraph The Express nor the Tory Party or even tose they believe have an agenda on their own side on questions of racism and imperialism. It is now up to the jury of public opinion which way this goes.
    Well as you've pointed out the jury has already spoken- either they don't believe it or don't care.
  • houndtanghoundtang Posts: 450
    It is strange to think that if a couple of inept MPs like Margaret Beckett had not given Corbyn a charity nomination back in 2015, none of this would have happened and Andy Burnham would be blandly leading Labour. Talk about for the want of a nail.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    matt said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking us back to 1975. And that would cause far more harm to those you want to help than any perceived problems from McVey and the DWP. We have seen it multiple times. Labour wrecks the economy. Corbyn's ambitions would wreck it worse than any before it. Every Labour Govt. leaves office with fewer in emloyment than they inherited. And it is always the average Joe or Joanne who suffers.

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    A rapidly falling deficit.
    Record employment.
    Low inflation.
    Continuous growth.
    Greater equality of incomes.
    Lower taxes on the less well paid.
    A NMW that has increased sharply.
    Policies that encourage and reward work rather than benefit dependency.

    There are problems. The trade deficit, student debt, a dysfunctional housing market, strains on public services especially in social care, insufficient investment in skills and training, some aspects of the gig economy, very modest increases in real wages as a result of poor productivity growth. But does anyone seriously think that Corbyn has credible answers to these issues or that he can maintain what the Tories have achieved since 2010?

    May was determined to win on her own terms in 2017 and hid her Chancellor away with the result that the economic record (which was mainly Osborne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    I’ve never really understood the reasons behind her dislike of Osborne. But neither have I looked hard, assuming an underlying irrationality.
    Osborne was the enforcer of Cameron's governments and could be quite brutal to Cabinet Ministers seeking to argue for special causes. I suspect he and May clashed on several occasions.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking us back to 1975. And that would cause far more harm to those you want to help than any perceived problems from McVey and the DWP. We have seen it multiple times. Labour wrecks the economy. Corbyn's ambitions would wreck it worse than any before it. Every Labour Govt. leaves office with fewer in emloyment than they inherited. And it is always the average Joe or Joanne who suffers.

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    A rapidly falling deficit.
    Record employment.
    Low inflation.
    Continuous growth.
    Greater equality of incomes.
    Lower taxes on the less well paid.
    A NMW that has increased sharply.
    Policies that encourage and reward work rather than benefit dependency.

    There are problems. The trade deficit, student debt, a dysfunctional housing market, strains on public services especially in social care, insufficient investment in skills and training, some aspects of the gig economy, very modest increases in real wages as a result of poor productivity growth. But does anyone seriously think that Corbyn has credible answers to these issues or that he can maintain what the Tories have achieved since 2010?

    May was determined to win on her own terms in 2017 and hid her Chancellor away with the result that the economic record (which was mainly Osborne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    But Hammond seems deeply disliked by elements of the party so he won't be used again.
    The economic record will be, whoever is Chancellor. And its generally a good one albeit there is a lot to do. Faced with Corbynomics as an alternative it will look even better.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,056
    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    Des

    Nigelb said:

    Labour are in something of a bind.
    As this Politico article argues, on the one hand, there is a pretty strong belief on the socialist left that Corbyn is essential to their electoral appeal, and prospects of ever forming a government (and that is probably correct); on the other, Corbyn is extremely unlikely to resile from positions he he sees as justified by his personal beliefs.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-labour-wont-compromise-no-matter-the-cost/

    His leadership is likely safe for quite some time. Whether his rather strange moral certainties will convince enough people for him ever to be prime minister is another matter.

    Jeremy Corbyn as the Mrs Thatcher de nos jours? It is a long time since we've had a prime minister with strange moral certainties.
    An interesting thought. The difference in these certainties are perhaps a clue to the outcome.

    Despite the sound and fury it's becoming clear this racist meme isn't even spluttering let alone flying. People-the left in particular- have decided Corbyn isn't a racist and that's that. It's the old conundrum of advertising that you can't convince people of something they don't believe. The more people keep flogging this dead horse the more people will question why this dead horse is being flogged.

    By contrast Maggie's attitude to racism was always suspect. Her support for Mandela's imprisonment, trading with the apartheid regime, her family interests in South Africa, rejecting Commonwealth sanctions...... convinced those on the left including large swathes of the enlightened middle class including most Jews that she wasn't Kosher thus not to be touched with a bargepole.

    Corbyn and his lefty chums remember this. They will not take lessons from The Mail The Telegraph The Express nor the Tory Party or even tose they believe have an agenda on their own side on questions of racism and imperialism. It is now up to the jury of public opinion which way this goes.
    Well as you've pointed out the jury has already spoken- either they don't believe it or don't care.
    I think that we have long known that Corbyn's support of Palestinians and Irish Nationalists includes condoning armed as well as peaceful means. I do not agree, but it is not going to change many minds.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    In shock news, the Conservatives might be proposing something in a competent fashion:
    https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/1030920994054197250
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821

    daodao said:

    Mr. daodao, one fears you've been paying as much attention to politics as you have to science fiction.

    "However, he is a principled man and a tireless campaigner against racism and oppression in all its forms throughout the world, and deserves to be treated with respect, even if one disagrees with him."

    I look forward to the footage taken of him praying at the graves of the victims of the Munich attack.

    Which Munich attack? There have been several in the last 100 years, including:

    1. Violence post WW1 in 1918/9, involving extreme left-wing and right radical forces
    2. The attempted Putsch on 9/11/1923
    3. The attempted assassination of AH in 1939
    4. The allied bombing in WW2 which caused thousands of deaths
    5. The attack at the 1972 Olympics
    6. The Oktoberfest bombing in 1980
    7. The terrorist shooting in 2016
    Possibly the most twattish post on here this year.

    You Corbynistas need to expunged from politics.
    I stated in my earlier post that I am NOT a Corbynista. I try to look at matters objectively.

    The only purpose of my last post on the subject of attacks in Munich was to point out that there have been several. Post WW2, there have been 3 major incidents there, all considered to be of a "terrorist" nature, so the obsession with 1 particular attack is misplaced.

    I, and most of the British public, don't give a damn about which if any graves Corbyn laid a wreath on in Tunis some years ago. It really is an irrelevance. Opponents would be better focussing on Corbyn's economic policies, which may have an adverse impact on the UK economy.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    If anyone is interested in the bet and is wondering what the odds of Corbyn dying from natural causes are - the figure I've just looked up is 1 in 42. I don't think that would put me off a punt at the quoted price - but it isn't a guaranteed return.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,056
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking us back to 1975. And that would cause far more harm to those you want to help than any perceived problems from McVey and the DWP. We have seen it multiple times. Labour wrecks the economy. Corbyn's ambitions would wreck it worse than any before it. Every Labour Govt. leaves office with fewer in emloyment than they inherited. And it is always the average Joe or Joanne who suffers.

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    May was determined to win on her own terms in 2017 and hid her Chancellor away with the result that the economic record (which was mainly Osborne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    But Hammond seems deeply disliked by elements of the party so he won't be used again.
    The economic record will be, whoever is Chancellor. And its generally a good one albeit there is a lot to do. Faced with Corbynomics as an alternative it will look even better.
    It very much depends if you have been one of those prospering, or one of those flatlining. The desire for economic redistribution across the regions, across economic sectors and across the generations is a powerful one.

    For many watching the gilded rich, they want a taste of it themselves and rightly or wrongly think that they deserve it. That is what Brexit has to deliver, and to many it looks like Corbyn Brexit not Boris Brexit.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Boris's racist followers are all over the front page of the Sunday Times.
    Boris Johnson is at the centre of a new row over racism after an investigation into online abuse revealed his official Facebook page hosts hundreds of Islamophobic messages.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/boris-johnsons-facebook-page-mobbed-by-racists-after-burqa-furore-f5jp2k77h
    (paywalled)

    Ignoring the racism or even double-standards angles, for next PM betting this is more ammunition for his leadership rivals to prove to backbenchers (the only electorate that counts) that Boris is not to be trusted with the keys to Number 10.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    edited August 2018
    Sandpit said:



    Indeed. Sadly HMS Queen Elizabeth is in the mid-Atlantic at the moment, en route to the US to pick up her F35s, couldn't be further away from India.

    She's not going to "pick up" her F35s. They are going to conduct landing trials using US aircraft from the JOT at Pax River. These trials have to be done with "orange wired" instrumented a/c. The three British instrumented a/c are at Edwards AFB in California.

    The Indian Air Force has about 170 Mi-8/17s. If the RAF moved heaven and earth they could probably position 3-4 Pumas or Chinooks. Sorting out fuel, flight plans, security, crew accomodation, mx support would be the job of some beleaguered Indian Flt Lt who is already having the busiest week of their life. The very minor increase in RW lift that the UK would provide isn't worth the administrative and operational headaches they would bring with them.

    A US CVW/CVN would be a different matter as they would bring a lot more capacity and would self-sufficient.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking us back to 1975. And that would cause far more harm to those you want to help than any perceived problems from McVey and the DWP. We have seen it multiple times. Labour wrecks the economy. Corbyn's ambitions would wreck it worse than any before it. Every Labour Govt. leaves office with fewer in emloyment than they inherited. And it is always the average Joe or Joanne who suffers.

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    May was determined to win on her own terms in 2017 and hid her Chancellor away with the result that the economic record (which was mainly Osborne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    But Hammond seems deeply disliked by elements of the party so he won't be used again.
    The economic record will be, whoever is Chancellor. And its generally a good one albeit there is a lot to do. Faced with Corbynomics as an alternative it will look even better.
    It very much depends if you have been one of those prospering, or one of those flatlining. The desire for economic redistribution across the regions, across economic sectors and across the generations is a powerful one.

    For many watching the gilded rich, they want a taste of it themselves and rightly or wrongly think that they deserve it. That is what Brexit has to deliver, and to many it looks like Corbyn Brexit not Boris Brexit.
    Things can be a hell of a lot worse than flatlining: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45207092

    It will be decades before Greece recovers from its excessive spending and debt. How much of its population hangs around waiting for that happy day remains to be seen.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881

    Anyway todays big story is the terrble floods in India

    6,000 miles of roads washed away and despair abounds

    I would like to think TM will offer help to India paid out of our foreign aid budget.

    Surely that is what it is for

    We stopped aid to India a little while back. They've got a space programme see?

    In any case, very possible that the Indian Govt would refuse our money, it would be very small compared to what they will do themselves. I also doubt that they would be thrilled with British soldiers rocking up.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,056

    Boris's racist followers are all over the front page of the Sunday Times.
    Boris Johnson is at the centre of a new row over racism after an investigation into online abuse revealed his official Facebook page hosts hundreds of Islamophobic messages.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/boris-johnsons-facebook-page-mobbed-by-racists-after-burqa-furore-f5jp2k77h
    (paywalled)

    Ignoring the racism or even double-standards angles, for next PM betting this is more ammunition for his leadership rivals to prove to backbenchers (the only electorate that counts) that Boris is not to be trusted with the keys to Number 10.

    To be fair, if everyone on twitter or Facebook had responsibility for BTL comments, then there would be few left.

    Same for Boris and Jezza, mind you.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking us back to 1975. And that would cause far more harm to those you want to help than any perceived problems from McVey and the DWP. We have seen it multiple times. Labour wrecks the economy. Corbyn's ambitions would wreck it worse than any before it. Every Labour Govt. leaves office with fewer in emloyment than they inherited. And it is always the average Joe or Joanne who suffers.

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    A rapidly falling deficit.
    ket, strains on public services especially in social care, insufficient investment in skills and training, some aspects of the gig economy, very modest increases in real wages as a result of poor productivity growth. But does anyone seriously think that Corbyn has credible answers to these issues or that he can maintain what the Tories have achieved since 2010?

    May was determined to win on her own terms in 2017 and hid her Chancellor away with the result that the economic record (which was mainly Osborne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    But Hammond seems deeply disliked by elements of the party so he won't be used again.
    The economic record will be, whoever is Chancellor. And its generally a good one albeit there is a lot to do. Faced with Corbynomics as an alternative it will look even better.
    There's a reason simply telling people they have had it good does not work. Particularly the further into a government you get. They don't believe it.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking us back to 1975. And that would cause far more harm to those you want to help than any perceived problems from McVey and the DWP. We have seen it multiple times. Labour wrecks the economy. Corbyn's ambitions would wreck it worse than any before it. Every Labour Govt. leaves office with fewer in emloyment than they inherited. And it is always the average Joe or Joanne who suffers.

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    A rapidly falling deficit.
    Record employment.
    Low inflation.
    Continuous growth.
    Greater equality of incomes.
    Lower taxes on the less well paid.
    A NMW that has increased sharply.
    Policies that encourage and reward work rather than benefit dependency.

    There are problems. The trade deficit, student debt, a dysfunctional housing market, strains on public services especially in social care, insufficient investment in skills and training, some aspects of the gig economy, very modest increases in real wages as a result of poor productivity growth. But does anyone seriously think that Corbyn has credible answers to these issues or that he can maintain what the Tories have achieved since 2010?

    May was determined to win on her own terms in 2017 and hid her Chancellor away with the result that the economic record (which was mainly Osborne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    But Hammond seems deeply disliked by elements of the party so he won't be used again.
    Come the next leadership election, Hammond will be running on economic competence, and having been right about Brexit. Bar a few European headbangers who can't even summon up 48 letters to the 1922 Committee, MPs voting for next PM will find a quiet life and sound money an enormously tempting package. 66/1 with Betfred for next prime minister.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,673

    Mr. daodao, one fears you've been paying as much attention to politics as you have to science fiction.

    "However, he is a principled man and a tireless campaigner against racism and oppression in all its forms throughout the world, and deserves to be treated with respect, even if one disagrees with him."

    I look forward to the footage taken of him praying at the graves of the victims of the Munich attack.

    Agreed. He only supports one side.

    No sign of him showing any respect to the victims of Munich or the IRA

    If he was true to his word and not a phoney he would have embraced everyone
    But if he did now go and pray at the graves of the victims of Munich or the IRA - then he would like a phoney. Dragged to doing it by political expediency, not heart-felt commitment.
    Nearly as bad as the Tories with their penchant for cosying up to despots and dictators.
  • I'm a teetotal vegetarian like Jezza :)
  • Chesney Hawkes reference -I got it :)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038

    In shock news, the Conservatives might be proposing something in a competent fashion:
    https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/1030920994054197250

    Well, blow me down.

    Of course, no doubt some rabid backbenchers will tear this down once it is actually in the green paper.

    Not sure about this quote from the article though:

    “The majority of people do not realise the NHS will not be able to pay for their care.”

    Really? After all the stuff about dementia tax last year and the likelihood that most families have at least passing knowledge of the chaos of social care though extended family connections. Seems very unlikely.
  • Boris's racist followers are all over the front page of the Sunday Times.
    Boris Johnson is at the centre of a new row over racism after an investigation into online abuse revealed his official Facebook page hosts hundreds of Islamophobic messages.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/boris-johnsons-facebook-page-mobbed-by-racists-after-burqa-furore-f5jp2k77h
    (paywalled)

    Ignoring the racism or even double-standards angles, for next PM betting this is more ammunition for his leadership rivals to prove to backbenchers (the only electorate that counts) that Boris is not to be trusted with the keys to Number 10.

    Is Islam a "race"?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,056
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    May was determined to win on her own terms in 2017 and hid her Chancellor away with the result that the economic record (which was mainly Osborne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    But Hammond seems deeply disliked by elements of the party so he won't be used again.
    The economic record will be, whoever is Chancellor. And its generally a good one albeit there is a lot to do. Faced with Corbynomics as an alternative it will look even better.
    It very much depends if you have been one of those prospering, or one of those flatlining. The desire for economic redistribution across the regions, across economic sectors and across the generations is a powerful one.

    For many watching the gilded rich, they want a taste of it themselves and rightly or wrongly think that they deserve it. That is what Brexit has to deliver, and to many it looks like Corbyn Brexit not Boris Brexit.
    Things can be a hell of a lot worse than flatlining: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45207092

    It will be decades before Greece recovers from its excessive spending and debt. How much of its population hangs around waiting for that happy day remains to be seen.
    I am not supporting Corbynomics, I loathe debt and have always been very dry economically.

    Nonetheless "You've never had it so good" Tory campaign is not likely to win votes in Hartlepool or Dundee. While those in prospering in Richmond are not going to thank the Tories for Brexit.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking us back to 1975. And that would cause far more harm to those you want to help than any perceived problems from McVey and the DWP. We have seen it multiple times. Labour wrecks the economy. Corbyn's ambitions would wreck it worse than any before it. Every Labour Govt. leaves office with fewer in emloyment than they inherited. And it is always the average Joe or Joanne who suffers.

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    A rapidly falling deficit.
    ket, strains on public services especially in social care, insufficient investment in skills and training, some aspects of the gig economy, very modest increases in real wages as a result of poor productivity growth. But does anyone seriously think that Corbyn has credible answers to these issues or that he can maintain what the Tories have achieved since 2010?

    May was determined to win on her own terms in 2017 and hid her Chancellor away with the result that the economic record (which was mainly Osborne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    But Hammond seems deeply disliked by elements of the party so he won't be used again.
    The economic record will be, whoever is Chancellor. And its generally a good one albeit there is a lot to do. Faced with Corbynomics as an alternative it will look even better.
    There's a reason simply telling people they have had it good does not work. Particularly the further into a government you get. They don't believe it.
    Whilst I would accept that is generally true holding onto nurse can work when the alternative is a bit scary. 1992 was an example of that.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    malcolmg said:



    Nearly as bad as the Tories with their penchant for cosying up to despots and dictators.

    There is no point in the tories clutching their pearls over Jezza's wreath laying antics when they are selling Typhoons and establishing a joint squadron with the country that's been paying off the ISIS credit card for years.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,673
    Sandpit said:

    Anyway todays big story is the terrble floods in India

    6,000 miles of roads washed away and despair abounds

    I would like to think TM will offer help to India paid out of our foreign aid budget.

    Surely that is what it is for

    It's exactly what a foreign aid budget is there for. We should be offering every available military plane and helicopter, alongside specialist men and equipment.
    Considering they could buy and sell us it seems a bit off. May should be focusing on helping the disaster that is the UK. It is certainly a disaster in India but they have far more money and resources than we have and us sending two men and a three legged dog would do little to help.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    malcolmg said:

    Mr. daodao, one fears you've been paying as much attention to politics as you have to science fiction.

    "However, he is a principled man and a tireless campaigner against racism and oppression in all its forms throughout the world, and deserves to be treated with respect, even if one disagrees with him."

    I look forward to the footage taken of him praying at the graves of the victims of the Munich attack.

    Agreed. He only supports one side.

    No sign of him showing any respect to the victims of Munich or the IRA

    If he was true to his word and not a phoney he would have embraced everyone
    But if he did now go and pray at the graves of the victims of Munich or the IRA - then he would like a phoney. Dragged to doing it by political expediency, not heart-felt commitment.
    Nearly as bad as the Tories with their penchant for cosying up to despots and dictators.
    Were you in Dundee yesterday Malc? Or did you find better things to do?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    May was determined to win on her own terms in 2017 and hid her Chancellor away with the result that the economic record (which was mainly Osborne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    But Hammond seems deeply disliked by elements of the party so he won't be used again.
    The economic record will be, whoever is Chancellor. And its generally a good one albeit there is a lot to do. Faced with Corbynomics as an alternative it will look even better.
    It very much depends if you have been one of those prospering, or one of those flatlining. The desire for economic redistribution across the regions, across economic sectors and across the generations is a powerful one.

    For many watching the gilded rich, they want a taste of it themselves and rightly or wrongly think that they deserve it. That is what Brexit has to deliver, and to many it looks like Corbyn Brexit not Boris Brexit.
    Things can be a hell of a lot worse than flatlining: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45207092

    It will be decades before Greece recovers from its excessive spending and debt. How much of its population hangs around waiting for that happy day remains to be seen.
    I am not supporting Corbynomics,
    How can you support Corbyn without supporting his economics?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,673
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Anyway todays big story is the terrble floods in India

    6,000 miles of roads washed away and despair abounds

    I would like to think TM will offer help to India paid out of our foreign aid budget.

    Surely that is what it is for

    It's exactly what a foreign aid budget is there for. We should be offering every available military plane and helicopter, alongside specialist men and equipment.
    The Indian air force ME and RW fleets are 4-5x larger than the RAF. Any token effort the UK made would just complicate and hinder due to the effort taken to integrate them into the operation.

    Also, it would just be an excuse for a great number of senior officers to get on the curries and Kingfisher in New Delhi.

    Also, it's "people" not "men". It's 2018.
    Surely they need every single helo they can get their hands on?

    From reports it sounds like there could be *millions* of people needing to be physically evacuated.
    Its the sort of thing that HMS Ocean would have been very useful for but she was decommissioned earlier this year.
    Maybe send our 200 Admirals over , see if they are good for anything.
  • Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Anyway todays big story is the terrble floods in India

    6,000 miles of roads washed away and despair abounds

    I would like to think TM will offer help to India paid out of our foreign aid budget.

    Surely that is what it is for

    It's exactly what a foreign aid budget is there for. We should be offering every available military plane and helicopter, alongside specialist men and equipment.
    The Indian air force ME and RW fleets are 4-5x larger than the RAF. Any token effort the UK made would just complicate and hinder due to the effort taken to integrate them into the operation.

    Also, it would just be an excuse for a great number of senior officers to get on the curries and Kingfisher in New Delhi.

    Also, it's "people" not "men". It's 2018.
    Surely they need every single helo they can get their hands on?

    From reports it sounds like there could be *millions* of people needing to be physically evacuated.
    Mum's been watching news clips from India on Youtube nearly 24/7. Don't want to bore with details, but she thinks Kerala's State Govt should have evacuated affected areas a whole week ago.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    edited August 2018
    Thinking about Care ISA. This is clever. Not sure if there is a cap, but could mean that many middle class families would avoid IHT altogether, since there is now £1m exemption on the family home.

    It does the leave the whole lottery problem though, and this is where it might unravel.

    Why should my kids not inherit a penny because it was all spent on dementia care, when the kids of the guy next door did inherit because he died of cancer instead?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:


    Indeed. Sadly HMS Queen Elizabeth is in the mid-Atlantic at the moment, en route to the US to pick up her F35s, couldn't be further away from India.

    She's not going to "pick up" her F35s. They are going to conduct landing trials using US aircraft from the JOT at Pax River. These trials have to be done with "orange wired" instrumented a/c. The three British instrumented a/c are at Edwards AFB in California.

    The Indian Air Force has about 170 Mi-8/17s. If the RAF moved heaven and earth they could probably position 3-4 Pumas or Chinooks. Sorting out fuel, flight plans, security, crew accomodation, mx support would be the job of some beleaguered Indian Flt Lt who is already having the busiest week of their life. The very minor increase in RW lift that the UK would provide isn't worth the administrative and operational headaches they would bring with them.

    A US CVW/CVN would be a different matter as they would bring a lot more capacity and would self-sufficient.

    What are the "orange wired" planes, are they calibrating stuff on the ship?
    When do you reckon HMS QE will be fully operational?

    I know you have doubts of the RAF's abilities, but we should still offer to move heaven and earth for the Indians if they need it in the face of a humanitarian disaster.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    (as not discussed unless I've missed it):

    Opinium shows Tories and Labour virtually tied again (Tories ahead by 1), May marginally ahead of Corbyn as best PM (by 6), and significant minorities thinking Labour is anti-semitic (34%) and the Tories are anti-Muslim (27%). It'd be interesting to see the cross-tabs - I suspect the groups with suspicions are (reciprocally) predominantly from supporters of other parties, which would be another reason why there's so little movement.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/18/labour-suspends-ex-mp

    I wrote that late last night so was brief. Expanding a little:

    1. Assuming (as I think we can) that people mostly think that being anti-semitic or anti-Muslim is a very bad thing which pretty much rules out voting for such views, we seem to have a situation where roughly a third of the voters on each side really despise the opposite party and wouldn't dream of voting for them. I'm equating "Thinks X is racist" to "will vote for the opposite party", which isn't quite right, but probably a rough guide in the absence of cross-tabs. This polarisation and the consequent rarity of floating voters isn't good for democracy, but it also explains the stability of the polls.

    2. The remaining third is a mixture: some who despise both big parties, some centrists who fair-mindedly don't like to brand either major party in that way, some who don't care about politics at all. This lacks cohesion as a potential reservoir of votes, which is why SDP Mk 2 doesn't objectively look very promising. 15% for such a party yes, 30% no.

    3. Despite the generally depressing poll, both major parties can arguably feel mildly encouraged by the trends. After the media onslaught, you might expect more than 33-34% to think that JC and Labour are "probably" anti-semitic (a slightly different question a few weeks ago put it at 50%), and the less intense but still substantial stuff about Tory anti-Muslim feelings has only produced 27% thinking they're generally like that. It's very damaging all the same, but it's being contained.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Chesney Hawkes reference -I got it :)

    OOH..... :D
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    In shock news, the Conservatives might be proposing something in a competent fashion:
    https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/1030920994054197250

    Well, blow me down.

    Of course, no doubt some rabid backbenchers will tear this down once it is actually in the green paper.

    Not sure about this quote from the article though:

    “The majority of people do not realise the NHS will not be able to pay for their care.”

    Really? After all the stuff about dementia tax last year and the likelihood that most families have at least passing knowledge of the chaos of social care though extended family connections. Seems very unlikely.
    If this issue had not been majored on in the Manifesto and then this idea was proposed, a majority Conservative Govt. could be implementing it.....
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    Sandpit said:

    and on a side note would really annoy the SNP, who’d lose their third party status

    Yep, a party of the centre left that finds it difficult to reach a governing majority splitting into two parties either of whom would find it impossible to reach a governing majority would break the SNP's little hearts, so it would.

    I'm sure they'll see it as price worth paying for a permanent end to the 'hang on in there Jocks, you'll get a Labour government eventually' bollocks.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    May was determined to win on her own terms in 2017 and hid her Chancellor away with the result that the economic record (which was mainly Osborne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    But Hammond seems deeply disliked by elements of the party so he won't be used again.
    The economic record will be, whoever is Chancellor. And its generally a good one albeit there is a lot to do. Faced with Corbynomics as an alternative it will look even better.
    It very much depends if you have been one of those prospering, or one of those flatlining. The desire for economic redistribution across the regions, across economic sectors and across the generations is a powerful one.

    For many watching the gilded rich, they want a taste of it themselves and rightly or wrongly think that they deserve it. That is what Brexit has to deliver, and to many it looks like Corbyn Brexit not Boris Brexit.
    Things can be a hell of a lot worse than flatlining: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45207092

    It will be decades before Greece recovers from its excessive spending and debt. How much of its population hangs around waiting for that happy day remains to be seen.
    I am not supporting Corbynomics, I loathe debt and have always been very dry economically.

    Nonetheless "You've never had it so good" Tory campaign is not likely to win votes in Hartlepool or Dundee. While those in prospering in Richmond are not going to thank the Tories for Brexit.
    If the Tories are worrying about their votes in Dundee they are home and hosed. Their challenge will be hanging onto places like Angus that they took back from the SNP in 2017.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,673

    In shock news, the Conservatives might be proposing something in a competent fashion:
    https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/1030920994054197250

    Well, blow me down.

    Of course, no doubt some rabid backbenchers will tear this down once it is actually in the green paper.

    Not sure about this quote from the article though:

    “The majority of people do not realise the NHS will not be able to pay for their care.”

    Really? After all the stuff about dementia tax last year and the likelihood that most families have at least passing knowledge of the chaos of social care though extended family connections. Seems very unlikely.
    Given you pay NI for over 40 years for this sort of thing , why should you then have to pay again.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Anyway todays big story is the terrble floods in India

    6,000 miles of roads washed away and despair abounds

    I would like to think TM will offer help to India paid out of our foreign aid budget.

    Surely that is what it is for

    It's exactly what a foreign aid budget is there for. We should be offering every available military plane and helicopter, alongside specialist men and equipment.
    The Indian air force ME and RW fleets are 4-5x larger than the RAF. Any token effort the UK made would just complicate and hinder due to the effort taken to integrate them into the operation.

    Also, it would just be an excuse for a great number of senior officers to get on the curries and Kingfisher in New Delhi.

    Also, it's "people" not "men". It's 2018.
    Surely they need every single helo they can get their hands on?

    From reports it sounds like there could be *millions* of people needing to be physically evacuated.
    Its the sort of thing that HMS Ocean would have been very useful for but she was decommissioned earlier this year.
    Maybe send our 200 Admirals over , see if they are good for anything.
    I think the Indians have enough problems without that kind of help Malcolm.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:


    Indeed. Sadly HMS Queen Elizabeth is in the mid-Atlantic at the moment, en route to the US to pick up her F35s, couldn't be further away from India.

    She's not going to "pick up" her F35s. They are going to conduct landing trials using US aircraft from the JOT at Pax River. These trials have to be done with "orange wired" instrumented a/c. The three British instrumented a/c are at Edwards AFB in California.

    The Indian Air Force has about 170 Mi-8/17s. If the RAF moved heaven and earth they could probably position 3-4 Pumas or Chinooks. Sorting out fuel, flight plans, security, crew accomodation, mx support would be the job of some beleaguered Indian Flt Lt who is already having the busiest week of their life. The very minor increase in RW lift that the UK would provide isn't worth the administrative and operational headaches they would bring with them.

    A US CVW/CVN would be a different matter as they would bring a lot more capacity and would self-sufficient.

    What are the "orange wired" planes, are they calibrating stuff on the ship?
    When do you reckon HMS QE will be fully operational?

    I know you have doubts of the RAF's abilities, but we should still offer to move heaven and earth for the Indians if they need it in the face of a humanitarian disaster.
    Why should we offer at all? Blah blah, global Britain. Like the Indian government gives a fuck.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Borough, perhaps, but recent polling found a shockingly low 2% were aware of/concerned by the Labour anti-Semitism row.

    The public interest in politics is orders of magnitude less than it is here.

    Dr. Prasannan, I'd say 'obviously' not, but some seem to fail to grasp that Islam is an idea, not a skin colour.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    In shock news, the Conservatives might be proposing something in a competent fashion:
    https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/1030920994054197250

    Well, blow me down.

    Of course, no doubt some rabid backbenchers will tear this down once it is actually in the green paper.

    Not sure about this quote from the article though:

    “The majority of people do not realise the NHS will not be able to pay for their care.”

    Really? After all the stuff about dementia tax last year and the likelihood that most families have at least passing knowledge of the chaos of social care though extended family connections. Seems very unlikely.
    I can believe it. Certainly in the sense that people may 'know' it on some level, in that they know there are problems, but don't really appreciate just how bad the situation will be for them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    I actually agree with TSE on this despite it being perhaps the cheesiest PB thread header ever.

    Corbyn has the Labour membership in his pocket and unlike the Tories there is no requirement for a Corbynite to be in the top 2 with MPs before it goes to the membership even if Corbyn stands down which is unlikely
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    and on a side note would really annoy the SNP, who’d lose their third party status

    Yep, a party of the centre left that finds it difficult to reach a governing majority splitting into two parties either of whom would find it impossible to reach a governing majority would break the SNP's little hearts, so it would.

    I'm sure they'll see it as price worth paying for a permanent end to the 'hang on in there Jocks, you'll get a Labour government eventually' bollocks.
    I was waiting to see who'd bite on that one! ;)

    What it would mean in practice is the removal of the SNP two-question slot at PMQs and in other debates, which they get as the third largest party.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Boris's racist followers are all over the front page of the Sunday Times.
    Boris Johnson is at the centre of a new row over racism after an investigation into online abuse revealed his official Facebook page hosts hundreds of Islamophobic messages.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/boris-johnsons-facebook-page-mobbed-by-racists-after-burqa-furore-f5jp2k77h
    (paywalled)

    Ignoring the racism or even double-standards angles, for next PM betting this is more ammunition for his leadership rivals to prove to backbenchers (the only electorate that counts) that Boris is not to be trusted with the keys to Number 10.

    Is Islam a "race"?
    “Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.”
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    May was determined to win on her own terms in 2017 and should not be repeated.
    But Hammond seems deeply disliked by elements of the party so he won't be used again.
    The economic record will be, whoever is Chancellor. And its generally a good one albeit there is a lot to do. Faced with Corbynomics as an alternative it will look even better.
    It very much depends if you have been one of those prospering, or one of those flatlining. The desire for economic redistribution across the regions, across economic sectors and across the generations is a powerful one.

    For many watching the gilded rich, they want a taste of it themselves and rightly or wrongly think that they deserve it. That is what Brexit has to deliver, and to many it looks like Corbyn Brexit not Boris Brexit.
    Things can be a hell of a lot worse than flatlining: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45207092

    It will be decades before Greece recovers from its excessive spending and debt. How much of its population hangs around waiting for that happy day remains to be seen.
    I am not supporting Corbynomics, I loathe debt and have always been very dry economically.

    Nonetheless "You've never had it so good" Tory campaign is not likely to win votes in Hartlepool or Dundee. While those in prospering in Richmond are not going to thank the Tories for Brexit.
    In 1992 the Tories won despite a recession as the alternative was Kinnock, in 1997 the Tories lost despite a growing economy as the alternative was Blair
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    malcolmg said:

    In shock news, the Conservatives might be proposing something in a competent fashion:
    https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/1030920994054197250

    Well, blow me down.

    Of course, no doubt some rabid backbenchers will tear this down once it is actually in the green paper.

    Not sure about this quote from the article though:

    “The majority of people do not realise the NHS will not be able to pay for their care.”

    Really? After all the stuff about dementia tax last year and the likelihood that most families have at least passing knowledge of the chaos of social care though extended family connections. Seems very unlikely.
    Given you pay NI for over 40 years for this sort of thing , why should you then have to pay again.
    Because NI doesn't begin to cover all the things it is supposed to cover.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    matt said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:


    Indeed. Sadly HMS Queen Elizabeth is in the mid-Atlantic at the moment, en route to the US to pick up her F35s, couldn't be further away from India.

    She's not going to "pick up" her F35s. They are going to conduct landing trials using US aircraft from the JOT at Pax River. These trials have to be done with "orange wired" instrumented a/c. The three British instrumented a/c are at Edwards AFB in California.

    The Indian Air Force has about 170 Mi-8/17s. If the RAF moved heaven and earth they could probably position 3-4 Pumas or Chinooks. Sorting out fuel, flight plans, security, crew accomodation, mx support would be the job of some beleaguered Indian Flt Lt who is already having the busiest week of their life. The very minor increase in RW lift that the UK would provide isn't worth the administrative and operational headaches they would bring with them.

    A US CVW/CVN would be a different matter as they would bring a lot more capacity and would self-sufficient.

    What are the "orange wired" planes, are they calibrating stuff on the ship?
    When do you reckon HMS QE will be fully operational?

    I know you have doubts of the RAF's abilities, but we should still offer to move heaven and earth for the Indians if they need it in the face of a humanitarian disaster.
    Why should we offer at all? Blah blah, global Britain. Like the Indian government gives a fuck.
    We should offer because we are humans, and other humans need help at the moment.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    In shock news, the Conservatives might be proposing something in a competent fashion:
    https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/1030920994054197250

    Well, blow me down.

    Of course, no doubt some rabid backbenchers will tear this down once it is actually in the green paper.

    Not sure about this quote from the article though:

    “The majority of people do not realise the NHS will not be able to pay for their care.”

    Really? After all the stuff about dementia tax last year and the likelihood that most families have at least passing knowledge of the chaos of social care though extended family connections. Seems very unlikely.
    This actually looks a very sensible way of encouraging saving for care without having to raise inheritance tax or imposing a dementia tax
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking us back to 1975. And that would cause far more harm to those you want to help than any perceived problems from McVey and the DWP. We have seen it multiple times. Labour wrecks the economy. Corbyn's ambitions would wreck it worse than any before it. Every Labour Govt. leaves office with fewer in emloyment than they inherited. And it is always the average Joe or Joanne who suffers.

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    A rapidly falling deficit.
    Record employment.
    Low inflation.
    Continuous growth.
    Greater equality of incomes.
    Lower taxes on the less well paid.
    A NMW that has increased sharply.
    Policies that encourage and reward work rather than benefit dependency.

    There are problems. The trade deficit, student debt, a dysfunctional housing market, strains on public services especially in social care, rne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    But Hammond seems deeply disliked by elements of the party so he won't be used again.
    Come the next leadership election, Hammond will be running on economic competence, and having been right about Brexit. Bar a few European headbangers who can't even summon up 48 letters to the 1922 Committee, MPs voting for next PM will find a quiet life and sound money an enormously tempting package. 66/1 with Betfred for next prime minister.
    If the alternative is Hammond you might as well stick with May.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    Boris's racist followers are all over the front page of the Sunday Times.
    Boris Johnson is at the centre of a new row over racism after an investigation into online abuse revealed his official Facebook page hosts hundreds of Islamophobic messages.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/boris-johnsons-facebook-page-mobbed-by-racists-after-burqa-furore-f5jp2k77h
    (paywalled)

    Ignoring the racism or even double-standards angles, for next PM betting this is more ammunition for his leadership rivals to prove to backbenchers (the only electorate that counts) that Boris is not to be trusted with the keys to Number 10.

    Yet he still polls best against Corbyn and those MPs will want to stop Corbyn becoming PM.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    daodao said:

    daodao said:

    Mr. daodao, one fears you've been paying as much attention to politics as you have to science fiction.

    "However, he is a principled man and a tireless campaigner against racism and oppression in all its forms throughout the world, and deserves to be treated with respect, even if one disagrees with him."

    I look forward to the footage taken of him praying at the graves of the victims of the Munich attack.

    Which Munich attack? There have been several in the last 100 years, including:

    1. Violence post WW1 in 1918/9, involving extreme left-wing and right radical forces
    2. The attempted Putsch on 9/11/1923
    3. The attempted assassination of AH in 1939
    4. The allied bombing in WW2 which caused thousands of deaths
    5. The attack at the 1972 Olympics
    6. The Oktoberfest bombing in 1980
    7. The terrorist shooting in 2016
    Possibly the most twattish post on here this year.

    You Corbynistas need to expunged from politics.
    I stated in my earlier post that I am NOT a Corbynista. I try to look at matters objectively.
    haha!

    good one!
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    Sandpit said:

    matt said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:


    Indeed. Sadly HMS Queen Elizabeth is in the mid-Atlantic at the moment, en route to the US to pick up her F35s, couldn't be further away from India.

    She's not going to "pick up" her F35s. They are going to conduct landing trials using US aircraft from the JOT at Pax River. These trials have to be done with "orange wired" instrumented a/c. The three British instrumented a/c are at Edwards AFB in California.

    The Indian Air Force has about 170 Mi-8/17s. If the RAF moved heaven and earth they could probably position 3-4 Pumas or Chinooks. Sorting out fuel, flight plans, security, crew accomodation, mx support would be the job of some beleaguered Indian Flt Lt who is already having the busiest week of their life. The very minor increase in RW lift that the UK would provide isn't worth the administrative and operational headaches they would bring with them.

    A US CVW/CVN would be a different matter as they would bring a lot more capacity and would self-sufficient.

    What are the "orange wired" planes, are they calibrating stuff on the ship?
    When do you reckon HMS QE will be fully operational?

    I know you have doubts of the RAF's abilities, but we should still offer to move heaven and earth for the Indians if they need it in the face of a humanitarian disaster.
    Why should we offer at all? Blah blah, global Britain. Like the Indian government gives a fuck.
    We should offer because we are humans, and other humans need help at the moment.
    That would be in your capacity as a UK taxpayer? Or the Royal we?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709



    A Corbyn Govt would use the UK as a sandpit for a full blown 21st Century experiment in neo-marxist economics.

    Would it? That wasn't what the last manifesto said. And nothing they have said has hinted at anything like that. What makes you think it will be the case?
    Of course it wouldn't. Yes I have seen some Kali Ma cultists sat in the pub waving Beetroots shouting "Fuck Capitalism" for the cameras. But when it comes down to it they want people in well paid secure jobs with right - and that means profitable businesses. Which means capitalism. What you would see under Labour is an end to the kind of predatory capitalism which ultimately derails itself - the likes of Carillion - and by building homes that people can afford to live in we stop so much of people's disposable incomes being hoovered up in unsecure rent.

    I don't agree with Tory posters on here and they don't agree with me - thats politics. But my point about McVey and the DWP stands - the Tory ministers know their policies are literally killing people. Literally forcing people into abject poverty supported by food banks. At best they are ignoring their own evidence. At worst they don't care. A party which is "fuck business" as well as doing more than Thatcher ever did to fuck people needs to removed.

    What will upset the Corbyn cultists is when the Corbyn government starts making compromises of "principles". Life isn't the start black and white they think it is, its all shades and too often the options are how much you lose not whether you win or not. They don't understand that. Yet for all that he gets attacked McDonnell does - he ran a tight ship at the GLC...
    Unemployment is half the level Labour left under the Tories
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,673
    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:


    Indeed. Sadly HMS Queen Elizabeth is in the mid-Atlantic at the moment, en route to the US to pick up her F35s, couldn't be further away from India.

    She's not going to "pick up" her F35s. They are going to conduct landing trials using US aircraft from the JOT at Pax River. These trials have to be done with "orange wired" instrumented a/c. The three British instrumented a/c are at Edwards AFB in California.

    The Indian Air Force has about 170 Mi-8/17s. If the RAF moved heaven and earth they could probably position 3-4 Pumas or Chinooks. Sorting out fuel, flight plans, security, crew accomodation, mx support would be the job of some beleaguered Indian Flt Lt who is already having the busiest week of their life. The very minor increase in RW lift that the UK would provide isn't worth the administrative and operational headaches they would bring with them.

    A US CVW/CVN would be a different matter as they would bring a lot more capacity and would self-sufficient.

    What are the "orange wired" planes, are they calibrating stuff on the ship?
    When do you reckon HMS QE will be fully operational?

    I know you have doubts of the RAF's abilities, but we should still offer to move heaven and earth for the Indians if they need it in the face of a humanitarian disaster.
    You not read what he said, we would make no difference and in fact just be a hinderance, they are better off without our miniscule resources.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited August 2018
    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:


    Indeed. Sadly HMS Queen Elizabeth is in the mid-Atlantic at the moment, en route to the US to pick up her F35s, couldn't be further away from India.

    She's not going to "pick up" her F35s. They are going to conduct landing trials using US aircraft from the JOT at Pax River. These trials have to be done with "orange wired" instrumented a/c. The three British instrumented a/c are at Edwards AFB in California.

    The Indian Air Force has about 170 Mi-8/17s. If the RAF moved heaven and earth they could probably position 3-4 Pumas or Chinooks. Sorting out fuel, flight plans, security, crew accomodation, mx support would be the job of some beleaguered Indian Flt Lt who is already having the busiest week of their life. The very minor increase in RW lift that the UK would provide isn't worth the administrative and operational headaches they would bring with them.

    A US CVW/CVN would be a different matter as they would bring a lot more capacity and would self-sufficient.

    What are the "orange wired" planes, are they calibrating stuff on the ship?
    When do you reckon HMS QE will be fully operational?

    I know you have doubts of the RAF's abilities, but we should still offer to move heaven and earth for the Indians if they need it in the face of a humanitarian disaster.
    As Dura_Ace says, we cannot usefully offer helicopters or manpower. A few years ago there was a television news report of a disaster in the Phillipines, iirc, and the sky behind the reporter was black with American helicopters. We simply do not have that capacity. India itself has more than a million soldiers and hundreds of helicopters and transport planes.
    https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=india

    Aside perhaps from stockpiled drugs, it is hard to see what we could usefully offer.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Isn't the bet for a contest, rather than a successful one? In which case, the fact that Jezza is likely to win is beside the point.

    I think a further challenge (perhaps over the #peoplesvote) is far more likely than SDP2.

    If they'd lose why would they challenge? Last time they might have thought they could win at least.

    I think he'll back a second referendum anyway. Another way he'll compromise a bit, whichyet further undermines his opponents who then don't leave.
    Corbyn has made abundantly clear he backs Brexit and opposes a second vote.

    If he concedes that he gives huge momentum to the Umunna faction in Labour
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    Sandpit said:

    matt said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:


    Indeed. Sadly HMS Queen Elizabeth is in the mid-Atlantic at the moment, en route to the US to pick up her F35s, couldn't be further away from India.

    She's not going to "pick up" her F35s. They are going to conduct landing trials using US aircraft from the JOT at Pax River. These trials have to be done with "orange wired" instrumented a/c. The three British instrumented a/c are at Edwards AFB in California.

    The Indian Air Force has about 170 Mi-8/17s. If the RAF moved heaven and earth they could probably position 3-4 Pumas or Chinooks. Sorting out fuel, flight plans, security, crew accomodation, mx support would be the job of some beleaguered Indian Flt Lt who is already having the busiest week of their life. The very minor increase in RW lift that the UK would provide isn't worth the administrative and operational headaches they would bring with them.

    A US CVW/CVN would be a different matter as they would bring a lot more capacity and would self-sufficient.

    What are the "orange wired" planes, are they calibrating stuff on the ship?
    When do you reckon HMS QE will be fully operational?

    I know you have doubts of the RAF's abilities, but we should still offer to move heaven and earth for the Indians if they need it in the face of a humanitarian disaster.
    Why should we offer at all? Blah blah, global Britain. Like the Indian government gives a fuck.
    We should offer because we are humans, and other humans need help at the moment.
    The RAF currently have 60 chinooks, 14 of which are practically brand new and can probably fly and everything. I am sure that they could be of considerable assistance.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    I am not a Corbynista, but am disgusted by the widespread hatred displayed towards Corbyn and his supporters, both on this site and in much of the media. It is reasonable to criticise, in a dignified way, his policies and also his lack of competence/ability, for which there is some evidence. However, he is a principled man and a tireless campaigner against racism and oppression in all its forms throughout the world, and deserves to be treated with respect, even if one disagrees with him.

    He is a tireless campaigner against *certain kinds* of racism. He has been a tacit supporter of the very worst kinds of anti-semitism for a long time, and his support for the oppressed has been subjective and one sided.

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking us back to 1975. And that would cause far more harm to those you want to help than any perceived problems from McVey and the DWP. We have seen it multiple times. Labour wrecks the economy. Corbyn's ambitions would wreck it worse than any before it. Every Labour Govt. leaves office with fewer in emloyment than they inherited. And it is always the average Joe or Joanne who suffers.

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You say that from a remainer point of view.

    The choice on what happens will be made by all mps when they vote on the deal or no deal

    The conservative government have the responsiblity of dealing with Brexit and are bound to come under fire from the two extremes - hard Brexit or remain
    Or the choice will be via a #peoplesvote :)

    Brexit will be an albatross around the Tory neck. Chequers is unpopular, and only a starting point as far as the EU is concerned. Other MPs are not going to vote for it.

    Personally, I think Transition Limbo BINO Brexit is the most likely place that we will be next year.
    Yet most polling shows Chequers Deal plus No Deal still ahead of Remain
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    A rapidly falling deficit.
    Record employment.
    Low inflation.
    Continuous growth.
    Greater equality of incomes.
    Lower taxes on the less well paid.
    A NMW that has increased sharply.
    Policies that encourage and reward work rather than benefit dependency.

    There are problems. The trade deficit, student debt, a dysfunctional housing market, strains on public services especially in social care, insufficient investment in skills and training, some aspects of the gig economy, very modest increases in real wages as a result of poor productivity growth. But does anyone seriously think that Corbyn has credible answers to these issues or that he can maintain what the Tories have achieved since 2010?

    May was determined to win on her own terms in 2017 and hid her Chancellor away with the result that the economic record (which was mainly Osborne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    But Hammond seems deeply disliked by elements of the party so he won't be used again.
    The economic record will be, whoever is Chancellor. And its generally a good one albeit there is a lot to do. Faced with Corbynomics as an alternative it will look even better.
    You haven't learnt the lesson of the referendum. Talking up the economy won't work for most people. Perhaps the 38% Cameron managed in 2015 if you're happy with that.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,673

    malcolmg said:

    In shock news, the Conservatives might be proposing something in a competent fashion:
    https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/1030920994054197250

    Well, blow me down.

    Of course, no doubt some rabid backbenchers will tear this down once it is actually in the green paper.

    Not sure about this quote from the article though:

    “The majority of people do not realise the NHS will not be able to pay for their care.”

    Really? After all the stuff about dementia tax last year and the likelihood that most families have at least passing knowledge of the chaos of social care though extended family connections. Seems very unlikely.
    Given you pay NI for over 40 years for this sort of thing , why should you then have to pay again.
    Because NI doesn't begin to cover all the things it is supposed to cover.
    Exactly , stop robbing people and put their money to teh uses it is intended for. If I had put my NI payments into a health fund I would have so much money in it I could have and medical treatment and live in a palatial care home for ever and never use it up. It is just stealing by politicians who are useless and don't care about the plebs.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited August 2018
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Isn't the bet for a contest, rather than a successful one? In which case, the fact that Jezza is likely to win is beside the point.

    I think a further challenge (perhaps over the #peoplesvote) is far more likely than SDP2.

    If they'd lose why would they challenge? Last time they might have thought they could win at least.

    I think he'll back a second referendum anyway. Another way he'll compromise a bit, whichyet further undermines his opponents who then don't leave.
    Corbyn has made abundantly clear he backs Brexit and opposes a second vote.

    If he concedes that he gives huge momentum to the Umunna faction in Labour
    Except we know the membership are on his side and yet more inclined to a second vote, and are able to marry those contradictions together. I see no reason why he could not change position and retain that support level - indeed, that he still has the membership support makes switching position far easier.

    It also means Labour do not have to risk a no deal by not supporting the government's crappy deal - the people will decide.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    I am not a Corbynista, but am disgusted by the widespread hatred displayed towards Corbyn and his supporters, both on this site and in much of the media. It is reasonable to criticise, in a dignified way, his policies and also his lack of competence/ability, for which there is some evidence. However, he is a principled man and a tireless campaigner against racism and oppression in all its forms throughout the world, and deserves to be treated with respect, even if one disagrees with him.

    He is a tireless campaigner against *certain kinds* of racism. He has been a tacit supporter of the very worst kinds of anti-semitism for a long time, and his support for the oppressed has been subjective and one sided.

    That said, I would take a Corbyn government right now over the current shower - we have lives to save from the ministrations of McVey and the DWP. I know that many posters disagree with my moral arguments for a Labour government and against a Tory government but thats I am sticking with the party. Its not a brand. Its a moral crusade. A few year diversion by a clutch of trot entryists doesn't change what the movement is and what it represents.

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking us back to 1975. And that would cause far more harm to those you want to help than any perceived problems from McVey and the DWP. We have seen it multiple times. Labour wrecks the economy. Corbyn's ambitions would wreck it worse than any before it. Every Labour Govt. leaves office with fewer in emloyment than they inherited. And it is always the average Joe or Joanne who suffers.

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    But, posts like that show your politics is driven by your heart, not your head.
    Of course! Isn't that true for all?

    But for many Leavers, particularly in the provinces Taking Back Control was not about abstract sovereignty, but rather Taking Back Control of economic distribution of wealth.

    The Tories are riding a Populist tiger, and if they fall, will get eaten.
    No, Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration.

    If they wanted greater control of economic distribution after voting Leave in 2016 they would already have voted for Corbyn Labour in 2017
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Isn't the bet for a contest, rather than a successful one? In which case, the fact that Jezza is likely to win is beside the point.

    I think a further challenge (perhaps over the #peoplesvote) is far more likely than SDP2.

    If they'd lose why would they challenge? Last time they might have thought they could win at least.

    I think he'll back a second referendum anyway. Another way he'll compromise a bit, whichyet further undermines his opponents who then don't leave.
    Corbyn has made abundantly clear he backs Brexit and opposes a second vote.

    If he concedes that he gives huge momentum to the Umunna faction in Labour
    Corbyn might back Brexit but how strongly does he feel about the matter? In any case, I think you will find Corbyn and all of Labour will be strongly opposed to this particular Tory Brexit, whatever this particular Tory Brexit might turn out to be.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,673
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    and on a side note would really annoy the SNP, who’d lose their third party status

    Yep, a party of the centre left that finds it difficult to reach a governing majority splitting into two parties either of whom would find it impossible to reach a governing majority would break the SNP's little hearts, so it would.

    I'm sure they'll see it as price worth paying for a permanent end to the 'hang on in there Jocks, you'll get a Labour government eventually' bollocks.
    I was waiting to see who'd bite on that one! ;)

    What it would mean in practice is the removal of the SNP two-question slot at PMQs and in other debates, which they get as the third largest party.
    Wow that would be a huge loss indeed. The arrogant Westminster cartels ignore them anyway so no change whatsoever, just means Tory government forever , how thrilling would that be.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,673
    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Anyway todays big story is the terrble floods in India

    6,000 miles of roads washed away and despair abounds

    I would like to think TM will offer help to India paid out of our foreign aid budget.

    Surely that is what it is for

    It's exactly what a foreign aid budget is there for. We should be offering every available military plane and helicopter, alongside specialist men and equipment.
    The Indian air force ME and RW fleets are 4-5x larger than the RAF. Any token effort the UK made would just complicate and hinder due to the effort taken to integrate them into the operation.

    Also, it would just be an excuse for a great number of senior officers to get on the curries and Kingfisher in New Delhi.

    Also, it's "people" not "men". It's 2018.
    Surely they need every single helo they can get their hands on?

    From reports it sounds like there could be *millions* of people needing to be physically evacuated.
    Its the sort of thing that HMS Ocean would have been very useful for but she was decommissioned earlier this year.
    Maybe send our 200 Admirals over , see if they are good for anything.
    I think the Indians have enough problems without that kind of help Malcolm.
    They will surely need people who can drive boats David.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    A rapidly falling deficit.
    Record employment.
    Low inflation.
    Continuous growth.
    Greater equality of incomes.
    Lower taxes on the less well paid.
    A NMW that has increased sharply.
    Policies that encourage and reward work rather than benefit dependency.

    There are problems. The trade deficit, student debt, a dysfunctional housing market, strains on public services especially in social care, insufficient investment in skills and training, some aspects of the gig economy, very modest increases in real wages as a result of poor productivity growth. But does anyone seriously think that Corbyn has credible answers to these issues or that he can maintain what the Tories have achieved since 2010?

    May was determined to win on her own terms in 2017 and hid her Chancellor away with the result that the economic record (which was mainly Osborne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    But Hammond seems deeply disliked by elements of the party so he won't be used again.
    The economic record will be, whoever is Chancellor. And its generally a good one albeit there is a lot to do. Faced with Corbynomics as an alternative it will look even better.
    You haven't learnt the lesson of the referendum. Talking up the economy won't work for most people. Perhaps the 38% Cameron managed in 2015 if you're happy with that.
    I imagine they would be, so long as Labour get less.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    HYUFD said:



    A Corbyn Govt would use the UK as a sandpit for a full blown 21st Century experiment in neo-marxist economics.

    Would it? That wasn't what the last manifesto said. And nothing they have said has hinted at anything like that. What makes you think it will be the case?
    Of course it wouldn't. Yes I have seen some Kali Ma cultists sat in the pub waving Beetroots shouting "Fuck Capitalism" for the cameras. But when it comes down to it they want people in well paid secure jobs with right - and that means profitable businesses. Which means capitalism. What you would see under Labour is an end to the kind of predatory capitalism which ultimately derails itself - the likes of Carillion - and by building homes that people can afford to live in we stop so much of people's disposable incomes being hoovered up in unsecure rent.

    I don't agree with Tory posters on here and they don't agree with me - thats politics. But my point about McVey and the DWP stands - the Tory ministers know their policies are literally killing people. Literally forcing people into abject poverty supported by food banks. At best they are ignoring their own evidence. At worst they don't care. A party which is "fuck business" as well as doing more than Thatcher ever did to fuck people needs to removed.

    What will upset the Corbyn cultists is when the Corbyn government starts making compromises of "principles". Life isn't the start black and white they think it is, its all shades and too often the options are how much you lose not whether you win or not. They don't understand that. Yet for all that he gets attacked McDonnell does - he ran a tight ship at the GLC...
    Unemployment is half the level Labour left under the Tories
    One of the more astonishing changes in UK politics is that "Tory unemployment!!" is no longer a weapon in Labour's armoury.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    On the social care ISA - they mention 5% interest? Who on earth will be paying that?
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    matt said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:


    Indeed. Sadly HMS Queen Elizabeth is in the mid-Atlantic at the moment, en route to the US to pick up her F35s, couldn't be further away from India.

    She's not going to "pick up" her F35s. They are going to conduct landing trials using US aircraft from the JOT at Pax River. These trials have to be done with "orange wired" instrumented a/c. The three British instrumented a/c are at Edwards AFB in California.

    The Indian Air Force has about 170 Mi-8/17s. If the RAF moved heaven and earth they could probably position 3-4 Pumas or Chinooks. Sorting out fuel, flight plans, security, crew accomodation, mx support would be the job of some beleaguered Indian Flt Lt who is already having the busiest week of their life. The very minor increase in RW lift that the UK would provide isn't worth the administrative and operational headaches they would bring with them.

    A US CVW/CVN would be a different matter as they would bring a lot more capacity and would self-sufficient.

    What are the "orange wired" planes, are they calibrating stuff on the ship?
    When do you reckon HMS QE will be fully operational?

    I know you have doubts of the RAF's abilities, but we should still offer to move heaven and earth for the Indians if they need it in the face of a humanitarian disaster.
    Why should we offer at all? Blah blah, global Britain. Like the Indian government gives a fuck.
    We should offer because we are humans, and other humans need help at the moment.
    The RAF currently have 60 chinooks, 14 of which are practically brand new and can probably fly and everything. I am sure that they could be of considerable assistance.
    Logistics?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Anyway todays big story is the terrble floods in India

    6,000 miles of roads washed away and despair abounds

    I would like to think TM will offer help to India paid out of our foreign aid budget.

    Surely that is what it is for

    It's exactly what a foreign aid budget is there for. We should be offering every available military plane and helicopter, alongside specialist men and equipment.
    The Indian air force ME and RW fleets are 4-5x larger than the RAF. Any token effort the UK made would just complicate and hinder due to the effort taken to integrate them into the operation.

    Also, it would just be an excuse for a great number of senior officers to get on the curries and Kingfisher in New Delhi.

    Also, it's "people" not "men". It's 2018.
    Surely they need every single helo they can get their hands on?

    From reports it sounds like there could be *millions* of people needing to be physically evacuated.
    Its the sort of thing that HMS Ocean would have been very useful for but she was decommissioned earlier this year.
    Maybe send our 200 Admirals over , see if they are good for anything.
    I think the Indians have enough problems without that kind of help Malcolm.
    They will surely need people who can drive boats David.
    What's with the toucan Malcolm?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking us back to 1975. And that would cause far more harm to those you want to help than any perceived problems from McVey and the DWP. We have seen it multiple times. Labour wrecks the economy. Corbyn's ambitions would wreck it worse than any before it. Every Labour Govt. leaves office with fewer in emloyment than they inherited. And it is always the average Joe or Joanne who suffers.

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    A rapidly falling deficit.
    Record employment.
    Low inflation.
    Continuous growth.
    Greater equality of incomes.
    Lower taxes on the less well paid.
    A NMW that has increased sharply.
    Policies that encourage and reward work rather than benefit dependency.

    There are problems. The trade deficit, student debt, a dysfunctional housing market, strains on public services especially in social care, rne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    But Hammond seems deeply disliked by elements of the party so he won't be used again.
    Come the next leadership election, Hammond will be running on economic competence, and having been right about Brexit. Bar a few European headbangers who can't even summon up 48 letters to the 1922 Committee, MPs voting for next PM will find a quiet life and sound money an enormously tempting package. 66/1 with Betfred for next prime minister.
    If the alternative is Hammond you might as well stick with May.
    Backbench Conservative MPs are the very electorate that voted for the lukewarm Remainer Theresa May last time round. Hammond 66/1 is good value, imo.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Roger said:



    Despite the sound and fury it's becoming clear this racist meme isn't even spluttering let alone flying. People-the left in particular- have decided Corbyn isn't a racist and that's that. It's the old conundrum of advertising that you can't convince people of something they don't believe. The more people keep flogging this dead horse the more people question why this dead horse is being flogged.

    I think that's right (the Opinium finding that two thirds don't agree that he's anti-semitic supports it). The usual media tendency to go OTT has helped him - the point at which they jumped the shark was when they implied that he might be sympathetic to the Ku Klux Klan, lol.

    The Conservatives are benefiting in the short term from Boris's exit. That makes it less difficult for May to distance herself from his appeal to the wilder fringes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    The Home Office is sending police business the way of Amazon, so that's more money the Chancellor will never see again. Police systems are being moved to the cloud, specifically AWS.

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/17/police_it_move_aws_home_office_contract/

    Can anyone imagine even the smallest American police force using a foreign company like this? The government needs to get behind British business like the American government does for its own, to give them a fighting chance of becoming competitive in a world market (and in the meantime employing British staff who spend their money in British shops, and who unlike Amazon, pay British taxes.

    Last week it was reported Hammond would raise taxes on Amazon in the Budget
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    HYUFD said:

    The Home Office is sending police business the way of Amazon, so that's more money the Chancellor will never see again. Police systems are being moved to the cloud, specifically AWS.

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/17/police_it_move_aws_home_office_contract/

    Can anyone imagine even the smallest American police force using a foreign company like this? The government needs to get behind British business like the American government does for its own, to give them a fighting chance of becoming competitive in a world market (and in the meantime employing British staff who spend their money in British shops, and who unlike Amazon, pay British taxes.

    Last week it was reported Hammond would raise taxes on Amazon in the Budget
    I'm sure he'll managed to get a few more pennies out of them, very meaningful.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Isn't the bet for a contest, rather than a successful one? In which case, the fact that Jezza is likely to win is beside the point.

    I think a further challenge (perhaps over the #peoplesvote) is far more likely than SDP2.

    If they'd lose why would they challenge? Last time they might have thought they could win at least.

    I think he'll back a second referendum anyway. Another way he'll compromise a bit, whichyet further undermines his opponents who then don't leave.
    Corbyn has made abundantly clear he backs Brexit and opposes a second vote.

    If he concedes that he gives huge momentum to the Umunna faction in Labour
    Except we know the membership are on his side and yet more inclined to a second vote, and are able to marry those contradictions together. I see no reason why he could not change position and retain that support level - indeed, that he still has the membership support makes switching position far easier.

    It also means Labour do not have to risk a no deal by not supporting the government's crappy deal - the people will decide.
    The logical explanation is that the membership don't regard it as a sufficiently important issue to push him. The main focus of internal reform at the moment seems to be Corbynism without the foreign policy baggage.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    matt said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    matt said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:


    Indeed. Sadly HMS Queen Elizabeth is in the mid-Atlantic at the moment, en route to the US to pick up her F35s, couldn't be further away from India.

    She's not going to "pick up" her F35s. They are going to conduct landing trials using US aircraft from the JOT at Pax River. These trials have to be done with "orange wired" instrumented a/c. The three British instrumented a/c are at Edwards AFB in California.

    The Indian Air Force has about 170 Mi-8/17s. If the RAF moved heaven and earth they could probably position 3-4 Pumas or Chinooks. Sorting out fuel, flight plans, security, crew accomodation, mx support would be the job of some beleaguered Indian Flt Lt who is already having the busiest week of their life. The very minor increase in RW lift that the UK would provide isn't worth the administrative and operational headaches they would bring with them.

    A US CVW/CVN would be a different matter as they would bring a lot more capacity and would self-sufficient.

    What are the "orange wired" planes, are they calibrating stuff on the ship?
    When do you reckon HMS QE will be fully operational?

    I know you have doubts of the RAF's abilities, but we should still offer to move heaven and earth for the Indians if they need it in the face of a humanitarian disaster.
    Why should we offer at all? Blah blah, global Britain. Like the Indian government gives a fuck.
    We should offer because we are humans, and other humans need help at the moment.
    The RAF currently have 60 chinooks, 14 of which are practically brand new and can probably fly and everything. I am sure that they could be of considerable assistance.
    Logistics?
    The Indian army had 15 chinooks on order in 2012 so they are presumably operational by now. It is not equipment they are completely unfamiliar with. The UK craft were used in Afghanistan (probably with a fair bit of US help) so they must have some mobile logistical capacity.

    Personally, I would have sought to keep HMS Ocean, paid for by the aid budget but its too late now.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Isn't the bet for a contest, rather than a successful one? In which case, the fact that Jezza is likely to win is beside the point.

    I think a further challenge (perhaps over the #peoplesvote) is far more likely than SDP2.

    If they'd lose why would they challenge? Last time they might have thought they could win at least.

    I think he'll back a second referendum anyway. Another way he'll compromise a bit, whichyet further undermines his opponents who then don't leave.
    Corbyn has made abundantly clear he backs Brexit and opposes a second vote.

    If he concedes that he gives huge momentum to the Umunna faction in Labour
    Except we know the membership are on his side and yet more inclined to a second vote, and are able to marry those contradictions together. I see no reason why he could not change position and retain that support level - indeed, that he still has the membership support makes switching position far easier.

    It also means Labour do not have to risk a no deal by not supporting the government's crappy deal - the people will decide.
    The logical explanation is that the membership don't regard it as a sufficiently important issue to push him.
    That might well be the case, but if there is a continued shift toward remain/second referendum among the general public as more no deal news emerges, the better the chance Corbyn and co will see the electoral gain in switching position. And I don't think he cares enough about the issue to ignore the electoral gain - Despite HYUFD's insistence about his position, he already went against what many believe to be his instincts by backing remain in the referendum, albeit lukewarmly.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited August 2018
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Isn't the bet for a contest, rather than a successful one? In which case, the fact that Jezza is likely to win is beside the point.

    I think a further challenge (perhaps over the #peoplesvote) is far more likely than SDP2.

    If they'd lose why would they challenge? Last time they might have thought they could win at least.

    I think he'll back a second referendum anyway. Another way he'll compromise a bit, whichyet further undermines his opponents who then don't leave.
    Corbyn has made abundantly clear he backs Brexit and opposes a second vote.

    If he concedes that he gives huge momentum to the Umunna faction in Labour
    Except we know the membership are on his side and yet more inclined to a second vote, and are able to marry those contradictions together. I see no reason why he could not change position and retain that support level - indeed, that he still has the membership support makes switching position far easier.

    It also means Labour do not have to risk a no deal by not supporting the government's crappy deal - the people will decide.
    Firstly the majority of the marginal seats the Tories hold Corbyn needs to win to become PM voted Leave and he knows that. Plus Corbyn is reluctant to back the single market which would undermine his nationalisation plans.

    Second if Labour backs a "People's Vote' not impossible May could call her own 'People's Vote' referendum next autumn after Brexit, just the only choice being back the agreed Chequers Deal terms Brexit or go to No Deal Brexit.

    As Leave won the referendum she could argue there does not need to be another Remain option again
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    HYUFD said:



    A Corbyn Govt would use the UK as a sandpit for a full blown 21st Century experiment in neo-marxist economics.

    Would it? That wasn't what the last manifesto said. And nothing they have said has hinted at anything like that. What makes you think it will be the case?
    Of course it wouldn't. Yes I have seen some Kali Ma cultists sat in the pub waving Beetroots shouting "Fuck Capitalism" for the cameras. But when it comes down to it they want people in well paid secure jobs with right - and that means profitable businesses. Which means capitalism. What you would see under Labour is an end to the kind of predatory capitalism which ultimately derails itself - the likes of Carillion - and by building homes that people can afford to live in we stop so much of people's disposable incomes being hoovered up in unsecure rent.

    I don't agree with Tory posters on here and they don't agree with me - thats politics. But my point about McVey and the DWP stands - the Tory ministers know their policies are literally killing people. Literally forcing people into abject poverty supported by food banks. At best they are ignoring their own evidence. At worst they don't care. A party which is "fuck business" as well as doing more than Thatcher ever did to fuck people needs to removed.

    What will upset the Corbyn cultists is when the Corbyn government starts making compromises of "principles". Life isn't the start black and white they think it is, its all shades and too often the options are how much you lose not whether you win or not. They don't understand that. Yet for all that he gets attacked McDonnell does - he ran a tight ship at the GLC...
    Unemployment is half the level Labour left under the Tories
    One of the more astonishing changes in UK politics is that "Tory unemployment!!" is no longer a weapon in Labour's armoury.
    I don't think politics is as simple as that. Not that it was ever a great weapon given that almost nobody believed that Labour had a solution.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Isn't the bet for a contest, rather than a successful one? In which case, the fact that Jezza is likely to win is beside the point.

    I think a further challenge (perhaps over the #peoplesvote) is far more likely than SDP2.

    If they'd lose why would they challenge? Last time they might have thought they could win at least.

    I think he'll back a second referendum anyway. Another way he'll compromise a bit, whichyet further undermines his opponents who then don't leave.
    Corbyn has made abundantly clear he backs Brexit and opposes a second vote.

    If he concedes that he gives huge momentum to the Umunna faction in Labour
    Except we know the membership are on his side and yet more inclined to a second vote, and are able to marry those contradictions together. I see no reason why he could not change position and retain that support level - indeed, that he still has the membership support makes switching position far easier.

    It also means Labour do not have to risk a no deal by not supporting the government's crappy deal - the people will decide.
    Firstly the majority of the marginal seats the Tories hold Corbyn needs to become PM voted Leave and he knows that.Plus Corbyn is reluctant to back the single market which would undermine his nationalisation plans.

    Second if Labour backs a "People's Vote' not impossible May could call her own 'People's Vote' next autumn after Brexit, just the only choice being back the Chequers Deal terms Brexit or No Deal Brexit.

    As Leave won the referendum she could argue there does not need to be another Remain option again
    If the Tories divide, formally or otherwise, on the issue, Corbyn can win a lot of places that he didn't win before.

    Better he is in the EU and in government and able to do something than out of the EU and out of government. It is incredibly naiive to think he actually is as rigid as people pretend - he is not as flexible as most leaders, but he has learned. Furthermore, by going with a second referendum we might indeed still leave, so it doesn't prevent him from doing things.

    Yes there remain significant issues with how a second referendum would end up being called and what options would be on it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Mark, the recent unemployment stats got about 20-30s on ITV News, and was almost the last item they covered.

    Quite astounding how weirdly good the employment stats remain.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Home Office is sending police business the way of Amazon, so that's more money the Chancellor will never see again. Police systems are being moved to the cloud, specifically AWS.

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/17/police_it_move_aws_home_office_contract/

    Can anyone imagine even the smallest American police force using a foreign company like this? The government needs to get behind British business like the American government does for its own, to give them a fighting chance of becoming competitive in a world market (and in the meantime employing British staff who spend their money in British shops, and who unlike Amazon, pay British taxes.

    Last week it was reported Hammond would raise taxes on Amazon in the Budget
    I'm sure he'll managed to get a few more pennies out of them, very meaningful.
    Back of a fag packet suggests should be £320m. £8bn of sales hidden in Luxembourg, 20% margins = £1.6bn of concealed profit, 20% CT = £320m.

    Bet it won't be.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Isn't the bet for a contest, rather than a successful one? In which case, the fact that Jezza is likely to win is beside the point.

    I think a further challenge (perhaps over the #peoplesvote) is far more likely than SDP2.

    If they'd lose why would they challenge? Last time they might have thought they could win at least.

    I think he'll back a second referendum anyway. Another way he'll compromise a bit, whichyet further undermines his opponents who then don't leave.
    Corbyn has made abundantly clear he backs Brexit and opposes a second vote.

    If he concedes that he gives huge momentum to the Umunna faction in Labour
    Corbyn might back Brexit but how strongly does he feel about the matter? In any case, I think you will find Corbyn and all of Labour will be strongly opposed to this particular Tory Brexit, whatever this particular Tory Brexit might turn out to be.
    May's Chequers Deal Brexit is almost identical to the Brexit that Corbyn and McDonnell have proposed
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.
    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?

    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.
    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You say that from a remainer point of view.
    The choice on what happens will be made by all mps when they vote on the deal or no deal
    The conservative government have the responsiblity of dealing with Brexit and are bound to come under fire from the two extremes - hard Brexit or remain
    Or the choice will be via a #peoplesvote :)

    Brexit will be an albatross around the Tory neck. Chequers is unpopular, and only a starting point as far as the EU is concerned. Other MPs are not going to vote for it.

    Personally, I think Transition Limbo BINO Brexit is the most likely place that we will be next year.
    Yet most polling shows Chequers Deal plus No Deal still ahead of Remain
    Doesn`t it also show that Remain plus Chequers is way ahead of No Deal?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:



    A Corbyn Govt would use the UK as a sandpit for a full blown 21st Century experiment in neo-marxist economics.

    Would it? That wasn't what the last manifesto said. And nothing they have said has hinted at anything like that. What makes you think it will be the case?
    Of course it wouldn't. Yes I have seen some Kali Ma cultists sat in the pub waving Beetroots shouting "Fuck Capitalism" for the cameras. But when it comes down to it they want people in well paid secure jobs with right - and that means profitable businesses. Which means capitalism. What you would see under Labour is an end to the kind of predatory capitalism which ultimately derails itself - the likes of Carillion - and by building homes that people can afford to live in we stop so much of people's disposable incomes being hoovered up in unsecure rent.

    I don't agree with Tory posters on here and they don't agree with me - thats politics. But my point about McVey and the DWP stands - the Tory ministers know their policies are literally killing people. Literally forcing people into abject poverty supported by food banks. At best they are ignoring their own evidence. At worst they don't care. A party which is "fuck business" as well as doing more than Thatcher ever did to fuck people needs to removed.

    What will upset the Corbyn cultists is when the Corbyn government starts making compromises of "principles". Life isn't the start black and white they think it is, its all shades and too often the options are how much you lose not whether you win or not. They don't understand that. Yet for all that he gets attacked McDonnell does - he ran a tight ship at the GLC...
    Unemployment is half the level Labour left under the Tories
    One of the more astonishing changes in UK politics is that "Tory unemployment!!" is no longer a weapon in Labour's armoury.
    No hence they cry 'food banks' etc which first arose under Brown
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    daodao said:

    A Corbyn Govt. would do huge damage to the economy, by stepping in the Tardis and taking us back to 1975. And that would cause far more harm to those you want to help than any perceived problems from McVey and the DWP. We have seen it multiple times. Labour wrecks the economy. Corbyn's ambitions would wreck it worse than any before it. Every Labour Govt. leaves office with fewer in emloyment than they inherited. And it is always the average Joe or Joanne who suffers.

    I can see no difference in putting Corbyn in Downing Street than a Scargill or a Red Robbo. They are all economic incompetents.
    A very powerful argument against No Deal Brexit.

    If Tories are sanguine about "f*** business", then why shouldn't the rest of us say the same about other economic policies?
    Tories are not sanguine over business. That comment lost Boris to me. This conservative is 100% pro business and also totally anti no deal
    Which leaves the Tories choosing between No Deal Brexit, Chequers minus, A50 suspension or Limbo Transition to nowhere Brexit.

    The Tory reputation for economic competence is trashed.
    You think?

    A rapidly falling deficit.
    Record employment.
    Low inflation.
    Continuous growth.
    Greater equality of incomes.
    Lower taxes on the less well paid.
    A NMW that has increased sharply.
    Policies that encourage and reward work rather than benefit dependency.

    There are problems. The trade deficit, student debt, a dysfunctional housing market, strains on public services especially in social care, rne's whom she detested) wasn't promoted the way it should have been. It was a serious mistake that should not be repeated.
    But Hammond seems deeply disliked by elements of the party so he won't be used again.
    Come the next leadership election, Hammond will be running on economic competence, and having been right about Brexit. Bar a few European headbangers who can't even summon up 48 letters to the 1922 Committee, MPs voting for next PM will find a quiet life and sound money an enormously tempting package. 66/1 with Betfred for next prime minister.
    If the alternative is Hammond you might as well stick with May.
    Backbench Conservative MPs are the very electorate that voted for the lukewarm Remainer Theresa May last time round. Hammond 66/1 is good value, imo.
    Hammond polls awfully, far worse than May did then
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    matt said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:


    Indeed. Sadly HMS Queen Elizabeth is in the mid-Atlantic at the moment, en route to the US to pick up her F35s, couldn't be further away from India.

    She's not going to "pick up" her F35s. They are going to conduct landing trials using US aircraft from the JOT at Pax River. These trials have to be done with "orange wired" instrumented a/c. The three British instrumented a/c are at Edwards AFB in California.

    The Indian Air Force has about 170 Mi-8/17s. If the RAF moved heaven and earth they could probably position 3-4 Pumas or Chinooks. Sorting out fuel, flight plans, security, crew accomodation, mx support would be the job of some beleaguered Indian Flt Lt who is already having the busiest week of their life. The very minor increase in RW lift that the UK would provide isn't worth the administrative and operational headaches they would bring with them.

    A US CVW/CVN would be a different matter as they would bring a lot more capacity and would self-sufficient.

    What are the "orange wired" planes, are they calibrating stuff on the ship?
    When do you reckon HMS QE will be fully operational?

    I know you have doubts of the RAF's abilities, but we should still offer to move heaven and earth for the Indians if they need it in the face of a humanitarian disaster.
    Why should we offer at all? Blah blah, global Britain. Like the Indian government gives a fuck.
    We should offer because we are humans, and other humans need help at the moment.
    The RAF currently have 60 chinooks, 14 of which are practically brand new and can probably fly and everything. I am sure that they could be of considerable assistance.
    Wow, not just aircraft, but *serviceable* aircraft. :)

    It's worrying how many people think that we shouldn't offer every resource we have available in the face of a massive humanitarian disaster. Every country has a duty to help others in these situations.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Mr. Borough, perhaps, but recent polling found a shockingly low 2% were aware of/concerned by the Labour anti-Semitism row.

    The public interest in politics is orders of magnitude less than it is here.

    Dr. Prasannan, I'd say 'obviously' not, but some seem to fail to grasp that Islam is an idea, not a skin colour.

    I am of the opinion that the people who read newspapers and follow the news closely are the least well informed. I base that on many years of observation, but comparing the prognostications of the news addicts on here with the real world would be sufficient to prove the case.

    As to the Labour anti-Semitism story, it is business as usual. Since the Labour Party emerged it has been under continual and relentless criticism, with the personal shortcomings of its leaders being the mainstay. It just goes on and on and on. No stick is too small, too insignificant or too imaginary to not be used to beat the Labour Party with.

    It just goes on and on.

    Consequently anybody with any sense ignores all of this stuff.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    matt said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:


    Indeed. Sadly HMS Queen Elizabeth is in the mid-Atlantic at the moment, en route to the US to pick up her F35s, couldn't be further away from India.

    She's not going to "pick up" her F35s. They are going to conduct landing trials using US aircraft from the JOT at Pax River. These trials have to be done with "orange wired" instrumented a/c. The three British instrumented a/c are at Edwards AFB in California.

    The Indian Air Force has about 170 Mi-8/17s. If the RAF moved heaven and earth they could probably position 3-4 Pumas or Chinooks. Sorting out fuel, flight plans, security, crew accomodation, mx support would be the job of some beleaguered Indian Flt Lt who is already having the busiest week of their life. The very minor increase in RW lift that the UK would provide isn't worth the administrative and operational headaches they would bring with them.

    A US CVW/CVN would be a different matter as they would bring a lot more capacity and would self-sufficient.

    What are the "orange wired" planes, are they calibrating stuff on the ship?
    When do you reckon HMS QE will be fully operational?

    I know you have doubts of the RAF's abilities, but we should still offer to move heaven and earth for the Indians if they need it in the face of a humanitarian disaster.
    Why should we offer at all? Blah blah, global Britain. Like the Indian government gives a fuck.
    We should offer because we are humans, and other humans need help at the moment.
    The RAF currently have 60 chinooks, 14 of which are practically brand new and can probably fly and everything. I am sure that they could be of considerable assistance.
    Wow, not just aircraft, but *serviceable* aircraft. :)

    It's worrying how many people think that we shouldn't offer every resource we have available in the face of a massive humanitarian disaster. Every country has a duty to help others in these situations.
    I agree we should absolutely offer any help we can give. I lack the knowledge to know if we can, in fact, provide any meaningful help however, if the comments about logistical and administrative issues are as some say.
This discussion has been closed.