Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The reshuffle has left TMay weaker but has it hastened her dep

135

Comments

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,890

    Frictionless? So a sort of KY-Brexit.

    Right in the as...
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,046
    Scott_P said:
    That's quite a clever response - just stand back as the Daily Mail supporting euro-sceptic Right tear into one of Britain's best-loved businessmen.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,890

    That's quite a clever response - just stand back as the Daily Mail supporting euro-sceptic Right tear into one of Britain's best-loved businessmen.

    @CJTerry: Political triangulation: 2017 edition. twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/…

    @CJTerry: Nationalised trains for some. Copies of the Daily Mail for others.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628
    edited January 10
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:
    What do we want? the #Matt Private Members Bill. When do we want it? Now.

    The comparison between that pathetic effort and Matt's cartoon about not asking the dog to move from the seat because, when he failed to do so it would undermine his authority is painful. One is funny, the other,...just isn't.
    Can I move an amendment to include Brant also?
    Did he not die 10 years ago? I wasn't planning to ban historical cartoons, just those that think they are topical.
    We could get him out of retirement

    The Day Today was simply inspired TV and he had a good part in that. But he's still dead. So unless Terry Pratchett type rules apply no amendment is necessary.
    ah apols hadn't realised. What about a CGI recreation of his work projected onto the side of the houses of parliament?

    Edit: I missed that he died in the prog
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116

    Just out of interest with the McVey thing.

    Is the argument that he said this...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11229909/Labour-distances-itself-from-MPs-lynching-remarks.html
    ____________________________________
    He said: “I spoke at a packed public meeting... there was a whole group in the audience that completely kicked off quite critical of the whole concept, because they were arguing ‘Why are sacking her? Why aren’t we lynching the b******?’.”
    ___________________________________

    Or that he said something else?

    Specifically in regards to the lynching part, the stain on the humanity insult is a bit low in my opinion but hardly sackable stuff.

    That is part of it. But according to the papers she is now facing more abuse suggesting death etc. Given what happened to Jo Cox, it is utterly wrong that any MP should face this kind of vile abuse. Labour should make clear that it is wrong and that none of its MPs or members should do such a thing or condone it and should call it out as wrong. Jess Phillips has said as much - and good for her for doing so.

    Disagree with the policy by all means but violent mysogynist abuse and threats of MPs is beyond the pale.

    The criticism of McDonnell is that he has not been willing clearly to disassociate himself from these comments and that he seems or has seemed equivocal about threats of violence against political opponents I don't know whether this is fair criticism in the case of McVey. But McDonnell has been quite relaxed about supporting other sorts of political violence, as we know. And Corbyn is a bit too inclined to adopt a Nelsonian blind eye when it comes to wrong behaviour by his supporters.

    But given that it has started again, I would have thought it would be entirely appropriate for Corbyn to make it clear in the strongest possible terms that no member of his party should behave in such a fashion and if they do they will be disciplined. Mysogyny, let alone violent mysogyny, should have no place in the Labour Party, at least if its proclaimed values are to mean something.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 4,238

    Scott_P said:
    That's quite a clever response - just stand back as the Daily Mail supporting euro-sceptic Right tear into one of Britain's best-loved businessmen.
    A clever quotation from someone who killed 45,000,000 people with batty left-wingery? Massively droll (if not quite up there with a good Adamstoon).
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,054

    Kinder gentler politics....

    Jeremy Corbyn accused of fostering hate as Esther McVey faces renewed abuse

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/10/jeremy-corbyn-accused-fostering-hate-esther-mcvey-faces-renewed/

    Is McVey a kinder or gentler type of figure

    Makes Toby Young look like an Angel
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 1,651
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Scott_P said:
    That's quite a clever response - just stand back as the Daily Mail supporting euro-sceptic Right tear into one of Britain's best-loved businessmen.
    A clever quotation from someone who killed 45,000,000 people with batty left-wingery? Massively droll (if not quite up there with a good Adamstoon).
    Quite.

    I fear some of us have a markedly different definition of 'clever'.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555

    Kinder gentler politics....

    Jeremy Corbyn accused of fostering hate as Esther McVey faces renewed abuse

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/10/jeremy-corbyn-accused-fostering-hate-esther-mcvey-faces-renewed/

    Is McVey a kinder or gentler type of figure

    Makes Toby Young look like an Angel
    The left despised Thatcher who they considered Satan with pearls but she won 3 general elections
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,604
    Cyclefree said:

    Just out of interest with the McVey thing.

    Is the argument that he said this...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11229909/Labour-distances-itself-from-MPs-lynching-remarks.html
    ____________________________________
    He said: “I spoke at a packed public meeting... there was a whole group in the audience that completely kicked off quite critical of the whole concept, because they were arguing ‘Why are sacking her? Why aren’t we lynching the b******?’.”
    ___________________________________

    Or that he said something else?

    Specifically in regards to the lynching part, the stain on the humanity insult is a bit low in my opinion but hardly sackable stuff.

    That is part of it. But according to the papers she is now facing more abuse suggesting death etc. Given what happened to Jo Cox, it is utterly wrong that any MP should face this kind of vile abuse. Labour should make clear that it is wrong and that none of its MPs or members should do such a thing or condone it and should call it out as wrong. Jess Phillips has said as much - and good for her for doing so.

    Disagree with the policy by all means but violent mysogynist abuse and threats of MPs is beyond the pale.

    The criticism of McDonnell is that he has not been willing clearly to disassociate himself from these comments and that he seems or has seemed equivocal about threats of violence against political opponents I don't know whether this is fair criticism in the case of McVey. But McDonnell has been quite relaxed about supporting other sorts of political violence, as we know. And Corbyn is a bit too inclined to adopt a Nelsonian blind eye when it comes to wrong behaviour by his supporters.

    But given that it has started again, I would have thought it would be entirely appropriate for Corbyn to make it clear in the strongest possible terms that no member of his party should behave in such a fashion and if they do they will be disciplined. Mysogyny, let alone violent mysogyny, should have no place in the Labour Party, at least if its proclaimed values are to mean something.
    It's not the first time. McDonnell made a joke about how he misspoke once in meaning to say he wanted to go back in time to "section" Margaret Thatcher, but accidentally said "assassinate" Margaret Thatcher.

    He then repeated this joke twice thereafter, saying quite a few people seemed to agree she should be assassinated.

    It's dogwhistle stuff. We all know McDonnell thinks violence is a legitimate tool for achieving political ends, which is why he's wholly unqualified to be an MP, let alone Chancellor.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,314
    edited January 10
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:

    Labour would be miles ahead with a sensible leader

    So would the Tories...
    TM is the Brexit leader and it is not at all certain anyone else could do better. Post Brexit is a whole different ball game
    Actually polling in the last year showed only Khan would do better for Labour than Corbyn and only Davis would do better for the Tories than May, other alternatives like Cooper, Umunna, Hammond and Rudd and Boris would all do relatively worse than the incumbents
    Polling in the last year showed the Tories heading for a 200 seat majority.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,604

    Scott_P said:
    That's quite a clever response - just stand back as the Daily Mail supporting euro-sceptic Right tear into one of Britain's best-loved businessmen.
    You've got to admire his chutzpah.

    Corbyn and his team seem much better at turning events to their advantage than May.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,604

    Kinder gentler politics....

    Jeremy Corbyn accused of fostering hate as Esther McVey faces renewed abuse

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/10/jeremy-corbyn-accused-fostering-hate-esther-mcvey-faces-renewed/

    Read Fallout, particularly the chapter on Lennists and Lennonists.

    There are a number in Corbyn's inner circle that believe fostering hatred is a useful political tool.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,604
    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:
    What do we want? the #Matt Private Members Bill. When do we want it? Now.

    The comparison between that pathetic effort and Matt's cartoon about not asking the dog to move from the seat because, when he failed to do so it would undermine his authority is painful. One is funny, the other,...just isn't.
    Like the New European, Osborne and his team are too dogmatic to know how to be funny.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555
    edited January 10

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:

    Labour would be miles ahead with a sensible leader

    So would the Tories...
    TM is the Brexit leader and it is not at all certain anyone else could do better. Post Brexit is a whole different ball game
    Actually polling in the last year showed only Khan would do better for Labour than Corbyn and only Davis would do better for the Tories than May, other alternatives like Cooper, Umunna, Hammond and Rudd and Boris would all do relatively worse than the incumbents
    Polling in the last year showed the Tories heading for a 200 seat majority.
    That is irrelevant and is interparty polling not leader polling.

    It was when polling showed Heseltine and Major getting a higher Tory voteshare than Thatcher in 1990 and Brown a higher Labour voteshare than Blair from 2005 that led to their departure.

    There is no similar polling for May and Corbyn showing rivals doing significantly better
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,604

    rkrkrk said:

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.
    Agree it’s worth having.
    20k gross income seems too high to me - especially given the number of part time workers.
    The numbers working aged 65+ are going to increase, so tax would earn more over time.

    I can imagine this policy would go down badly with those over 65 who are a reliable voting block and go Tory - that’s probably why this hasn’t happened. “I’ve paid in all my life and now they move the goalposts etcetc”
    Yeah, £20K might be too high. On the other hand some under-65 women are also past retirement age, which would boost the numbers. Probably somewhere between £1bn and £1.5bn at a rough estimate.

    You are right about the politics, but compared with other ways of raising new revenue I'd have thought this was pretty uncontroversial.
    If we're going to do that, we might as well scrap National Insurance and merge it with income tax and put the basic/higher rates up to 22% and 42% respectively. It would have the added advantage in effectively acting as a tax cut for the lowest paid because the IT threshold is significantly higher than the NI threshold.

    You then have an employment insurance tax just for employers on top, but I'd like to see that cut in the long term to around 10% (rather than 13.9% or whatever it is).

    Will never happen of course, like many sensible HM Treasury reforms, because of the political optics.
  • BromBrom Posts: 900
    I recommend less cartoons and tweets. Will be a challenge to see if Scott P can post something of any worth.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,664
    It is amazing how it isn’t ok to make a “joke” quoting the words of mass murderer mao, but if you did the same using hitlers / nazi slogans you would be out on your arse by the end of the day.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116

    Kinder gentler politics....

    Jeremy Corbyn accused of fostering hate as Esther McVey faces renewed abuse

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/10/jeremy-corbyn-accused-fostering-hate-esther-mcvey-faces-renewed/

    Is McVey a kinder or gentler type of figure

    Makes Toby Young look like an Angel
    I'm going to call you out on this. Whether McVey is kind or gentle is irrelevant.

    No-one should face this kind of abuse. Threats of violence against an MP, a female MP are wrong.

    A female MP was murdered in 2016 as a result of people fostering a climate of hate. Just because the MP on the receiving end now is a Tory does not justify it. You should be ashamed of implying it, even as a joke.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,604
    HYUFD said:

    Kinder gentler politics....

    Jeremy Corbyn accused of fostering hate as Esther McVey faces renewed abuse

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/10/jeremy-corbyn-accused-fostering-hate-esther-mcvey-faces-renewed/

    Is McVey a kinder or gentler type of figure

    Makes Toby Young look like an Angel
    The left despised Thatcher who they considered Satan with pearls but she won 3 general elections
    Some on the Left seem to consider women or ethnic minorities who support the Tories as Uncle Toms, and deserving of everything they get.

    But, I really don't understand the particular hatred towards Tory women.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555

    rkrkrk said:

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.
    Agree it’s worth having.
    20k gross income seems too high to me - especially given the number of part time workers.
    The numbers working aged 65+ are going to increase, so tax would earn more over time.

    I can imagine this policy would go down badly with those over 65 who are a reliable voting block and go Tory - that’s probably why this hasn’t happened. “I’ve paid in all my life and now they move the goalposts etcetc”
    Yeah, £20K might be too high. On the other hand some under-65 women are also past retirement age, which would boost the numbers. Probably somewhere between £1bn and £1.5bn at a rough estimate.

    You are right about the politics, but compared with other ways of raising new revenue I'd have thought this was pretty uncontroversial.
    If we're going to do that, we might as well scrap National Insurance and merge it with income tax and put the basic/higher rates up to 22% and 42% respectively. It would have the added advantage in effectively acting as a tax cut for the lowest paid because the IT threshold is significantly higher than the NI threshold.

    You then have an employment insurance tax just for employers on top, but I'd like to see that cut in the long term to around 10% (rather than 13.9% or whatever it is).

    Will never happen of course, like many sensible HM Treasury reforms, because of the political optics.
    No, we should be returning NI to insurance principles as social insurance for pensions, unemployment and healthcare not ending it
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555

    HYUFD said:

    Kinder gentler politics....

    Jeremy Corbyn accused of fostering hate as Esther McVey faces renewed abuse

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/10/jeremy-corbyn-accused-fostering-hate-esther-mcvey-faces-renewed/

    Is McVey a kinder or gentler type of figure

    Makes Toby Young look like an Angel
    The left despised Thatcher who they considered Satan with pearls but she won 3 general elections
    Some on the Left seem to consider women or ethnic minorities who support the Tories as Uncle Toms, and deserving of everything they get.

    But, I really don't understand the particular hatred towards Tory women.
    It is partly her involvement with welfare reforms for McVey ie pushing Tory principles, Greening, who never challenged the left on education like Gove, got nowhere near the abuse McVey gets
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952
    Cyclefree said:

    Kinder gentler politics....

    Jeremy Corbyn accused of fostering hate as Esther McVey faces renewed abuse

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/10/jeremy-corbyn-accused-fostering-hate-esther-mcvey-faces-renewed/

    Is McVey a kinder or gentler type of figure

    Makes Toby Young look like an Angel
    I'm going to call you out on this. Whether McVey is kind or gentle is irrelevant.

    No-one should face this kind of abuse. Threats of violence against an MP, a female MP are wrong.

    A female MP was murdered in 2016 as a result of people fostering a climate of hate. Just because the MP on the receiving end now is a Tory does not justify it. You should be ashamed of implying it, even as a joke.
    +1 Under no circumstances should there be threats of violence.

    Mr D earlier today quoted a superb put down. A litlle more effort at verbal fisticuffs rather than real pnes would be a step forward.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,054

    Barnesian said:

    Corbyn is hopeless

    Corbyn did very well today. He spoke more slowly and had the close attention of the house. May was forced back on her recitation of statistics.
    Statistics are fine. They are spending more money than ever on the NHS. Yet its patently clear that there are deep and serious cuts at the front line, forcing her to apologise for the impact of them. Yet she clings on to the "more money" line even when having to apologise for delivering less money.

    Where is the money disappearing to? All these service contracts and provider organisations don't pay for themselves you know...
    The NHS income at my local Acute Hospital has risen by 5% in 7 years. Throughput of patients by 42%.

    Car Park income trebled to rake in an extra £800k mind!!
  • Response to cycle free

    This is a general trend in society unfortunately. There have been 3 big kicking off points that have really inflamed passions politically (on top of passions that are already there) Scottish indy, Brexit and Corbyn. The first happened before Corbyn, the second the criticisms of Corbyn seems to come from both extremes so hard to argue his part in his one. The third is obviously him, I doubt many would seriously claim he tried to become this divisive indeed he tried to take many with him at first and they repaid him by trying to replace him. I would argue that much of the negative atmosphere around Corbyn or not was driven by those who really couldn't accept his victory in the leadership to start with but the third one does involve him.

    Give the wide range of characters abused and that much of this is pre Corbyn rise and or not really much to do with Corbyn in terms of Brexit and considering the fact Dianne Abbot gets more abuse than everyone outside of May and Corbyn put together I would argue that the constant attempts to put it at Corbyns door are nothing but pure propaganda and actually make the situation worse.

    There are unfortunately lots of groups at it from Corbyn supporters to all other parties and trains of thought. All of them are wrong and should be condemned.

    I think there are better to people to pick out for a call against violence against MPs that 'I'd stab him in the front' Jess Phillips and no that isn't her just repeating what a bunch of other people have said that is her statement of what she would like to do. Whether the fact she didn't actually mean stabbing so that's okay but McDonnell repeated a comment about lynching where he obviously meant he wanted her killed (in the comment he was repeating and has stated wasn't his own words or beliefs)

    Given the outrage about McDonnell seemingly just repeating a statement why has Jess got off so easy with this, why do even people like you who seem to be against voilence against MPs hold her up as some example?

    Surely we want more Corbyn's who do not directly insult opponents or use violent language against them and less Jess Phillips who do so if we want a less violent atmosphere around MPs?

    This is where it is hard to feel that rather than an actual issue people want to get to the bottom off people are just playing their own politics with the issue.


  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116
    edited January 10

    HYUFD said:

    Kinder gentler politics....

    Jeremy Corbyn accused of fostering hate as Esther McVey faces renewed abuse

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/10/jeremy-corbyn-accused-fostering-hate-esther-mcvey-faces-renewed/

    Is McVey a kinder or gentler type of figure

    Makes Toby Young look like an Angel
    The left despised Thatcher who they considered Satan with pearls but she won 3 general elections
    Some on the Left seem to consider women or ethnic minorities who support the Tories as Uncle Toms, and deserving of everything they get.

    But, I really don't understand the particular hatred towards Tory women.
    It's because some of them think that women are a group (minority/oppressed - who cares?) who ought to be their voters, as if they own us.

    Patronising and condescending nonsense.

    So if someone who "ought" to be Labour but isn't, it's seen - again by some on the Left, not all - as if they are traitors to the cause, or something.

    The same happens to black Tories e.g. what that Dent Coad woman said about Shaun Bailey.

    The right do it too to some extent: the whole "champagne socialist" meme as if being rich and not voting Tory is some sort of class betrayal.

    It's all risible nonsense. But when it leads to violence / threats of it / vile abuse it crosses a red line.

    (Perhaps those Hope not Hate people might start picketing those who direct hate at Tories. Or perhaps pigs might fly.)
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 1,928
    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.
    Agree it’s worth having.
    20k gross income seems too high to me - especially given the number of part time workers.
    The numbers working aged 65+ are going to increase, so tax would earn more over time.

    I can imagine this policy would go down badly with those over 65 who are a reliable voting block and go Tory - that’s probably why this hasn’t happened. “I’ve paid in all my life and now they move the goalposts etcetc”
    Yeah, £20K might be too high. On the other hand some under-65 women are also past retirement age, which would boost the numbers. Probably somewhere between £1bn and £1.5bn at a rough estimate.

    You are right about the politics, but compared with other ways of raising new revenue I'd have thought this was pretty uncontroversial.
    If we're going to do that, we might as well scrap National Insurance and merge it with income tax and put the basic/higher rates up to 22% and 42% respectively. It would have the added advantage in effectively acting as a tax cut for the lowest paid because the IT threshold is significantly higher than the NI threshold.

    You then have an employment insurance tax just for employers on top, but I'd like to see that cut in the long term to around 10% (rather than 13.9% or whatever it is).

    Will never happen of course, like many sensible HM Treasury reforms, because of the political optics.
    No, we should be returning NI to insurance principles as social insurance for pensions, unemployment and healthcare not ending it
    Hypothecated taxes are lazy dishonesty. Keep tax simple.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555
    edited January 10
    JonathanD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    There are around 1.2 million people over 65 in employment, although I imagine that a substantial proportion of those are not working full time. If we assume £20K average gross employment income, National insurance is £1.4K, so we might be looking at something in the region of £1.5bn or so. That's not massive in the context of the overall tax bill, but it's worth having. It's a complete mystery to me why governments haven't gone for it, I'd have thought it was a no-brainer.
    Agree it’s worth having.
    20k gross income seems too high to me - especially given the number of part time workers.
    The numbers working aged 65+ are going to increase, so tax would earn more over time.

    I can imagine this policy would go down badly with those over 65 who are a reliable voting block and go Tory - that’s probably why this hasn’t happened. “I’ve paid in all my life and now they move the goalposts etcetc”
    Yeah, £20K might be too high. On the other hand some under-65 women are also past retirement age, which would boost the numbers. Probably somewhere between £1bn and £1.5bn at a rough estimate.

    You are right about the politics, but compared with other ways of raising new revenue I'd have thought this was pretty uncontroversial.
    If we're going to do that, we might as well scrap National Insurance and merge it with income tax and put the basic/higher rates up to 22% and 42% respectively. It would have the added advantage in effectively acting as a tax cut for the lowest paid because the IT threshold is significantly higher than the NI threshold.

    You then have an employment insurance tax just for employers on top, but I'd like to see that cut in the long term to around 10% (rather than 13.9% or whatever it is).

    Will never happen of course, like many sensible HM Treasury reforms, because of the political optics.
    No, we should be returning NI to insurance principles as social insurance for pensions, unemployment and healthcare not ending it
    Hypothecated taxes are lazy dishonesty. Keep tax simple.
    The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

    Most other nations use social insurance properly for pensions, welfare, social care and healthcare as should we
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,098
    HYUFD said:


    The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

    Utter rot.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 6
    Mike says that May may like to continue to the next election but I cannot see how this would work.

    She will either fight or not fight the next election. If she doesn`t fight it then she will have to step down well before the next election for a successor to establish him/herself.

    So she either goes well before 2022 or she stays to fight the next election as leader.

    My guess is that she will stay on past the next election (and I`m on Jeremy Hunt to (eventually) be the next leader - he`s playing his cards well at the moment).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,604
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Kinder gentler politics....

    Jeremy Corbyn accused of fostering hate as Esther McVey faces renewed abuse

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/10/jeremy-corbyn-accused-fostering-hate-esther-mcvey-faces-renewed/

    Is McVey a kinder or gentler type of figure

    Makes Toby Young look like an Angel
    The left despised Thatcher who they considered Satan with pearls but she won 3 general elections
    Some on the Left seem to consider women or ethnic minorities who support the Tories as Uncle Toms, and deserving of everything they get.

    But, I really don't understand the particular hatred towards Tory women.
    It's because some of them think that women are a group (minority/oppressed - who cares?) who ought to be their voters, as if they own us.

    Patronising and condescending nonsense.

    So if someone who "ought" to be Labour but isn't, it's seen - again by some on the Left, not all - as if they are traitors to the cause, or something.

    The same happens to black Tories e.g. what that Dent Coad woman said about Shaun Bailey.

    The right do it too to some extent: the whole "champagne socialist" meme as if being rich and not voting Tory is some sort of class betrayal.

    It's all risible nonsense. But when it leads to violence / threats of it / vile abuse it crosses a red line.

    (Perhaps those Hope not Hate people might start picketing those who direct hate at Tories. Or perhaps pigs might fly.)
    I get remarkably little of it*. But, as I'm white, male, middle-class, southern, dress conservatively, and am privately educated, it's expected of me.

    I'm just a "Tory", or "Tory boy", which doesn't really draw blood.

    (Well, Tyson suggested I'm like a paedophile who rapes babies because I didn't agree with him on foxhunting, but that's just Tyson being Tyson.)
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,401
    edited January 10
    I think Jeremy Hunt taking on social care is likely to be a mistake. There is certainly a need to coordinate social care and health care. Devising the wonkish social care policy that addresses all interests is a different job from ensuring there are doctors to see patients. Hunt has been in charge of the seeing the doctor bit while the service has got worse. The (very high) risk is that Hunt gets bogged down in social care policy while medical care deteriorates further. It would be better for Hunt to focus on whatever deliverables are seen as important while someone else, who talks to him, tries to take some of the pressure off through social care policy.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116

    Response to cycle free

    This is a general trend in society unfortunately. There have been 3 big kicking off points that have really inflamed passions politically: Scottish indy, Brexit and Corbyn. The first happened before Corbyn, the second the criticisms of Corbyn seems to come from both extremes so hard to argue his part in his one. The third is obviously him, I doubt many would seriously claim he tried to become this divisive indeed he tried to take many with him at first and they repaid him by trying to replace him. I would argue that much of the negative atmosphere around Corbyn or not was driven by those who really couldn't accept his victory in the leadership to start with but the third one does involve him.

    [Snipped]

    Given the outrage about McDonnell seemingly just repeating a statement why has Jess got off so easy with this, why do even people like you who seem to be against voilence against MPs hold her up as some example?

    Surely we want more Corbyn's who do not directly insult opponents or use violent language against them and less Jess Phillips who do so if we want a less violent atmosphere around MPs?




    I did not know that about Jess Phillips. That is wrong of her.

    One of the reasons people focus on Corbyn is because he and McDonnell have a long history of associating with people who do think that violence in the pursuit of political ends is justified.

    Corbyn talks a good talk on this (no personal abuse etc). But I am a bit cynical about this. He seems to think that it is enough for him to say that violent language is wrong but he does not criticise let alone discipline those on his side who do it. This sends out mixed signals, at best.

    And when he was very specifically asked by one of his MPs, Ruth Smeeth, to condemn in the clearest possible terms, the anti-Semitic abuse she was getting from people who claimed to be doing it on behalf of Jeremy Corbyn, he did not do so. Listen to the start of this programme where she explains what she faced and Corbyn's inaction - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09fj3xk.

    Now it does not matter that he did not ask these people to do this. That may be so. But if you're a leader who claims not to want this sort of abuse and not to do personal attacks, why wouldn't you condemn it when it happens, when it is claimed to be done in your name and when your own MP asks you to? Why the inaction? Why the silence? If Corbyn really means what he says he would do more than intone that he doesn't like it? He's the leader, for heaven's sake. Let him lead, let him show an example, let him discipline those who misbehave.

    He's either weak or doesn't really mean it or is equivocal. Or he is being two-faced, being fine with others doing it so long as he doesn't get his hands dirty. The former is pathetic. The latter is sinister. Which is it? Because this matters if this man is going to become PM.
  • Scott_P said:
    They aren't Brits,

    They are collaborators.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:


    The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

    Utter rot.
    No, entirely correct and entirely in accordance with what most western nations do ie have a proper system of hypothecated social insurance
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555
    edited January 10
    Stocky said:

    Mike says that May may like to continue to the next election but I cannot see how this would work.

    She will either fight or not fight the next election. If she doesn`t fight it then she will have to step down well before the next election for a successor to establish him/herself.

    So she either goes well before 2022 or she stays to fight the next election as leader.

    My guess is that she will stay on past the next election (and I`m on Jeremy Hunt to (eventually) be the next leader - he`s playing his cards well at the moment).

    She will go certainly by the end of the transition period most likely replaced by Davis or Boris with Gove also a contender if he does not back the latter
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,197
    edited January 10
    Cyclefree said:

    I did not know that about Jess Phillips. That is wrong of her.

    IIRC, she was asked if she would "stab Corbyn in the back" at some point in the future, and she replied that "no, I would stab him in the front."

    It's practically the oldest political metaphor there is (with apologies to Julius Caesar, for whom it was a touch more literal). The story has been used as pure whataboutery by those trying to excuse McDonnell and others.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,401
    The Office of National Statistics reports today on Household disposable income and inequality.

    It says
    "There has been a small decline in income inequality in the last 10 years."

    See https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/householddisposableincomeandinequalityfinancialyearending2017
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,604

    Response to cycle free

    This is a general trend in society unfortunately. There have been 3 big kicking off points that have really inflamed passions politically (on top of passions that are already there) Scottish indy, Brexit and Corbyn. The first happened before Corbyn, the second the criticisms of Corbyn seems to come from both extremes so hard to argue his part in his one. The third is obviously him, I doubt many would seriously claim he tried to become this divisive indeed he tried to take many with him at first and they repaid him by trying to replace him. I would argue that much of the negative atmosphere around Corbyn or not was driven by those who really couldn't accept his victory in the leadership to start with but the third one does involve him.

    Give the wide range of characters abused and that much of this is pre Corbyn rise and or not really much to do with Corbyn in terms of Brexit and considering the fact Dianne Abbot gets more abuse than everyone outside of May and Corbyn put together I would argue that the constant attempts to put it at Corbyns door are nothing but pure propaganda and actually make the situation worse.

    There are unfortunately lots of groups at it from Corbyn supporters to all other parties and trains of thought. All of them are wrong and should be condemned.

    I think there are better to people to pick out for a call against violence against MPs that 'I'd stab him in the front' Jess Phillips and no that isn't her just repeating what a bunch of other people have said that is her statement of what she would like to do. Whether the fact she didn't actually mean stabbing so that's okay but McDonnell repeated a comment about lynching where he obviously meant he wanted her killed (in the comment he was repeating and has stated wasn't his own words or beliefs)

    Given the outrage about McDonnell seemingly just repeating a statement why has Jess got off so easy with this, why do even people like you who seem to be against voilence against MPs hold her up as some example?

    Surely we want more Corbyn's who do not directly insult opponents or use violent language against them and less Jess Phillips who do so if we want a less violent atmosphere around MPs?

    This is where it is hard to feel that rather than an actual issue people want to get to the bottom off people are just playing their own politics with the issue.


    "Stab in the back", is a well-established and mainstream metaphor for political skulduggery. Like an "eye for an eye", or "took the bullet for the PM".

    John "bullets, bombs and ballot box" McDonnell is in earnest.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,098
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:


    The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

    Utter rot.
    No, entirely correct and entirely in accordance with what most western nations do ie have a proper system of hypothecated social insurance
    Tosh, it's just an employment tax... that ONLY applies to income derived from labour that clobbers regular workers.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,088

    Scott_P said:
    They aren't Brits,

    They are collaborators.
    So it will take about 20,000 odd years for all of us to convert to being French at that rate.

    What a non story.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,721
    In other News, the pope is Catholic, and Farron is about as Liberal as the KKK.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,604
    Cyclefree said:

    Response to cycle free

    This is a general trend in society unfortunately. There have been 3 big kicking off points that have really inflamed passions politically: Scottish indy, Brexit and Corbyn. The first happened before Corbyn, the second the criticisms of Corbyn seems to come from both extremes so hard to argue his part in his one. The third is obviously him, I doubt many would seriously claim he tried to become this divisive indeed he tried to take many with him at first and they repaid him by trying to replace him. I would argue that much of the negative atmosphere around Corbyn or not was driven by those who really couldn't accept his victory in the leadership to start with but the third one does involve him.

    [Snipped]

    Given the outrage about McDonnell seemingly just repeating a statement why has Jess got off so easy with this, why do even people like you who seem to be against voilence against MPs hold her up as some example?

    Surely we want more Corbyn's who do not directly insult opponents or use violent language against them and less Jess Phillips who do so if we want a less violent atmosphere around MPs?






    And when he was very specifically asked by one of his MPs, Ruth Smeeth, to condemn in the clearest possible terms, the anti-Semitic abuse she was getting from people who claimed to be doing it on behalf of Jeremy Corbyn, he did not do so. Listen to the start of this programme where she explains what she faced and Corbyn's inaction - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09fj3xk.

    Now it does not matter that he did not ask these people to do this. That may be so. But if you're a leader who claims not to want this sort of abuse and not to do personal attacks, why wouldn't you condemn it when it happens, when it is claimed to be done in your name and when your own MP asks you to? Why the inaction? Why the silence? If Corbyn really means what he says he would do more than intone that he doesn't like it? He's the leader, for heaven's sake. Let him lead, let him show an example, let him discipline those who misbehave.

    He's either weak or doesn't really mean it or is equivocal. Or he is being two-faced, being fine with others doing it so long as he doesn't get his hands dirty. The former is pathetic. The latter is sinister. Which is it? Because this matters if this man is going to become PM.
    Corbyn/McDonnell are effective because of their good cop, bad cop, double act.

    FWIW, I think Corbyn struggles to understand and respond to criticism of his political allies, because his worldview is so firmly set, he can't differentiate - just as he is very quick to criticise the UK, US and Israel for the world's problems.

    For Corbyn, the problem is his dogma. For McDonnell, his ideological malevolence.
  • HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    Mike says that May may like to continue to the next election but I cannot see how this would work.

    She will either fight or not fight the next election. If she doesn`t fight it then she will have to step down well before the next election for a successor to establish him/herself.

    So she either goes well before 2022 or she stays to fight the next election as leader.

    My guess is that she will stay on past the next election (and I`m on Jeremy Hunt to (eventually) be the next leader - he`s playing his cards well at the moment).

    She will go certainly by the end of the transition period most likely replaced by Davis or Boris with Gove also a contender if he does not back the latter
    To be honest they are the past. Listening to Hunt on the NHS in the house today he was very impressive. This last few days has finished the chances of the old guard and there are some really good prospects coming into view. Give it 6 months and the position will be much clearer
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:


    The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

    Utter rot.
    No, entirely correct and entirely in accordance with what most western nations do ie have a proper system of hypothecated social insurance
    Tosh, it's just an employment tax... that ONLY applies to income derived from labour that clobbers regular workers.
    It is deducted from salary exactly as pension payments are and entirely correctly.

    Every other western nation has a social insurance payment deducted from wages to cover unemployment benefits, state pensions, state healthcare and social care and we must ensure National Insurance is exactly the same
  • Cyclefree said:

    I did not know that about Jess Phillips. That is wrong of her.

    IIRC, she was asked if she would "stab Corbyn in the back" at some point in the future, and she replied that "no, I would stab him in the front."

    It's practically the oldest political metaphor there is (with apologies to Julius Caesar, for whom it was a touch more literal). The story has been used as pure whataboutery by those trying to excuse McDonnell and others.
    If people can call for McDonnell to be sacked for repeating comments It would seem fairly consistent that they would criticse Jess for her own violent calls, she could have easily have used a different metaphor or put it a different way as could have many others who have been criticised for their language. If we really want to stamp out that kind of talk we have to ask for it from those who we like the political aims of as well as those we dislike otherwise it becomes just about partisanship rather than the thing it is about to start with.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,098
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:


    The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

    Utter rot.
    No, entirely correct and entirely in accordance with what most western nations do ie have a proper system of hypothecated social insurance
    Tosh, it's just an employment tax... that ONLY applies to income derived from labour that clobbers regular workers.
    It is deducted from salary exactly as pension payments are and entirely correctly.

    Every other western nation has a social insurance payment deducted from wages to cover unemployment benefits, state pensions, state healthcare and social care and we must ensure National Insurance is exactly the same
    Oh don't try and roll pension payments into this. Those payments go toward an actual pot, I get a statement every year from Aegon detailing how mine is doing actually.

    NI is simply a tax, roll it into income tax.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555
    edited January 10

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    Mike says that May may like to continue to the next election but I cannot see how this would work.

    She will either fight or not fight the next election. If she doesn`t fight it then she will have to step down well before the next election for a successor to establish him/herself.

    So she either goes well before 2022 or she stays to fight the next election as leader.

    My guess is that she will stay on past the next election (and I`m on Jeremy Hunt to (eventually) be the next leader - he`s playing his cards well at the moment).

    She will go certainly by the end of the transition period most likely replaced by Davis or Boris with Gove also a contender if he does not back the latter
    To be honest they are the past. Listening to Hunt on the NHS in the house today he was very impressive. This last few days has finished the chances of the old guard and there are some really good prospects coming into view. Give it 6 months and the position will be much clearer
    The biggest swing from the Tories in the polls since the general election has not been to Labour but to UKIP, Hunt is not going to win them back, Boris or Davis might.

    Boris is also almost exactly the same age as Hunt. Mogg is a future opposition leader but not next PM
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,197
    Pulpstar said:
    They didn't quite succeed
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,721
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:


    The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

    Utter rot.
    No, entirely correct and entirely in accordance with what most western nations do ie have a proper system of hypothecated social insurance
    Tosh, it's just an employment tax... that ONLY applies to income derived from labour that clobbers regular workers.
    It is deducted from salary exactly as pension payments are and entirely correctly.

    Every other western nation has a social insurance payment deducted from wages to cover unemployment benefits, state pensions, state healthcare and social care and we must ensure National Insurance is exactly the same
    and in exactly the same way which Income Tax is as well....

    But fundamentally there is NO 'National Insurance' pot where its used for X/Y/Z, it's just general taxation. If it were then maybe people could see what it was used on.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,278

    The Office of National Statistics reports today on Household disposable income and inequality.

    It says
    "There has been a small decline in income inequality in the last 10 years."

    See https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/householddisposableincomeandinequalityfinancialyearending2017

    Missing the point that the issue is the yawning gap in wealth that has widened hugely since 2008.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 624
    Worst reshuffle in history? We are forgetting perhaps Corbyn's in 2016 when he ran out of people willing to serve, and appointed and then sacked an MP who was being treated for cancer without telling her.

    Yes this reshuffle is the equivalent of "running though fields of wheat", and has failed to reinvigorate the cabinet. Yes Theresa May will continue through to the 2020s but I cannot see the Tories allowing her to continue through to the election -they are a ruthless party and will not permit her to screw up a second election campaign.

    If the Tories are to succeed in winning a majority -they are pretty much guaranteed to be the biggest party while Corbyn is Labour leader-they will need someone young and fresh. not Trump lookalikes, or any member of the stale Old Gang.

    The most obvious replacement as far as I am concerned, the one that looks most prime ministerial, the one who is most likely to win a majority is Gavin Williamson. But there needs to be others too.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,664
    edited January 10
    McDonnell knows what he is doing. His "I'm only repeating what other people said, that's all" stuff is as believable as I didn't see that 6ft tall Hammer and Sickle banner right next to me, and I'm not a Marxist even though you have me on video saying it.

    It is why he is far more dangerous than Jezza.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,401
    edited January 10

    In other News, the pope is Catholic, and Farron is about as Liberal as the KKK.
    If I think gay sex is a sin but what you do is between you and your conscience, that's a perfectly liberal view to take*.

    * Is that actually Farron's view?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116

    Cyclefree said:

    I did not know that about Jess Phillips. That is wrong of her.

    IIRC, she was asked if she would "stab Corbyn in the back" at some point in the future, and she replied that "no, I would stab him in the front."

    It's practically the oldest political metaphor there is (with apologies to Julius Caesar, for whom it was a touch more literal). The story has been used as pure whataboutery by those trying to excuse McDonnell and others.

    I didn't know that either.

    In any case, I think the problem is not just with McDonnell but with Corbyn, for the reasons set out in my long email below. He sets the tone. A fish rots from the head. He is the head and we need to stop excusing what is happening in his party just because he looks like a kindly grandad and speaks softly. Inaction can be as deadly and wrong as action.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,731
    Cyclefree said:

    Kinder gentler politics....

    Jeremy Corbyn accused of fostering hate as Esther McVey faces renewed abuse

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/10/jeremy-corbyn-accused-fostering-hate-esther-mcvey-faces-renewed/

    Is McVey a kinder or gentler type of figure

    Makes Toby Young look like an Angel
    I'm going to call you out on this. Whether McVey is kind or gentle is irrelevant.

    No-one should face this kind of abuse. Threats of violence against an MP, a female MP are wrong.

    A female MP was murdered in 2016 as a result of people fostering a climate of hate. Just because the MP on the receiving end now is a Tory does not justify it. You should be ashamed of implying it, even as a joke.
    Indeed.

    I don't understand this need to 'hate' anyone in politics. Women seem to get a particularly rough ride.

    Similarly I don't understand why the term 'phobe' is added as a criticism when someone happens to have different viewpoints.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 4,238
    Pulpstar said:
    I assume that saying gay sex is not a sin, is a sin, and that poor old timmy will burn in hell. Oh dear, what a shame, never mind.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    Mike says that May may like to continue to the next election but I cannot see how this would work.

    She will either fight or not fight the next election. If she doesn`t fight it then she will have to step down well before the next election for a successor to establish him/herself.

    So she either goes well before 2022 or she stays to fight the next election as leader.

    My guess is that she will stay on past the next election (and I`m on Jeremy Hunt to (eventually) be the next leader - he`s playing his cards well at the moment).

    She will go certainly by the end of the transition period most likely replaced by Davis or Boris with Gove also a contender if he does not back the latter
    To be honest they are the past. Listening to Hunt on the NHS in the house today he was very impressive. This last few days has finished the chances of the old guard and there are some really good prospects coming into view. Give it 6 months and the position will be much clearer
    The biggest swing from the Tories in the polls since the general election has not been to Labour but to UKIP, Hunt is not going to win them back, Boris or Davis might.
    It is over for the old guard and for Boris and Davis.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,278
    HYUFD said:

    JonathanD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    T.
    Agree it’s worth having.
    20k gross income seems too high to me - especially given the number of part time workers.
    The numbers working aged 65+ are going to increase, so tax would earn more over time.

    I can imagine this policy would go down badly with those over 65 who are a reliable voting block and go Tory - that’s probably why this hasn’t happened. “I’ve paid in all my life and now they move the goalposts etcetc”
    Yeah, £20K might be too high. On the other hand some under-65 women are also past retirement age, which would boost the numbers. Probably somewhere between £1bn and £1.5bn at a rough estimate.

    You are right about the politics, but compared with other ways of raising new revenue I'd have thought this was pretty uncontroversial.
    If we're going to do that, we might as well scrap National Insurance and merge it with income tax and put the basic/higher rates up to 22% and 42% respectively. It would have the added advantage in effectively acting as a tax cut for the lowest paid because the IT threshold is significantly higher than the NI threshold.

    You then have an employment insurance tax just for employers on top, but I'd like to see that cut in the long term to around 10% (rather than 13.9% or whatever it is).

    Will never happen of course, like many sensible HM Treasury reforms, because of the political optics.
    No, we should be returning NI to insurance principles as social insurance for pensions, unemployment and healthcare not ending it
    Hypothecated taxes are lazy dishonesty. Keep tax simple.
    The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

    Most other nations use social insurance properly for pensions, welfare, social care and healthcare as should we
    Even by your standards this is just nonsense. Not least because the demand is coming from older people, relatively few of whom pay any NI at all.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,926
    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    As predicted by Sean Fear there were big upward revisions of past construction output:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/bulletins/constructionoutputingreatbritain/november2017#latest-revisions

    It looks like construction output will be 5% higher in 2017 than in 2016, which was itself 4% higher than in 2015.

    It seems that the "there seems to be a lot of construction work happening near me" annecdotes were correct.

    I just love to say I told you so. Because the chance comes around so rarely.
    Are you going to win your bet?
    Depends on Q4. I need more than 1.5% GDP. At the end of Q3 GDP growth was 1.7%. I basically need Q4 2017 to be not more than 0.1% less than Q4 2016. Touch and go.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    Mike says that May may like to continue to the next election but I cannot see how this would work.

    She will either fight or not fight the next election. If she doesn`t fight it then she will have to step down well before the next election for a successor to establish him/herself.

    So she either goes well before 2022 or she stays to fight the next election as leader.

    My guess is that she will stay on past the next election (and I`m on Jeremy Hunt to (eventually) be the next leader - he`s playing his cards well at the moment).

    She will go certainly by the end of the transition period most likely replaced by Davis or Boris with Gove also a contender if he does not back the latter
    To be honest they are the past. Listening to Hunt on the NHS in the house today he was very impressive. This last few days has finished the chances of the old guard and there are some really good prospects coming into view. Give it 6 months and the position will be much clearer
    The biggest swing from the Tories in the polls since the general election has not been to Labour but to UKIP, Hunt is not going to win them back, Boris or Davis might.
    It is over for the old guard and for Boris and Davis.

    No it is not, as I said Boris is no more 'old guard' than Hunt and it is Tory to UKIP voters the Tories need to focus on, those who voted for Corbyn in June will almost all certainly vote for him again next time regardless of the Tory leader.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 564
    stodge said:


    Just like a rebalancing of the sectors of the economy, but also we need this to change...Where more and more people go from 40hrs a week to 30,20,10hrs a week, rather than the vast majority going 40->0 overnight.

    There's a lot to be said for a "gradual" retirement along the lines you suggest and some larger organisations are implementing this "pre retirement" strategy.

    I have a friend who is over pension age and is still employed because, frankly, he likes to work and I wonder how he would cope with retirement. That being said, he gets his pension, free travel (he's in London) and pays no NI and that doesn't sit well with me.

    If you want to work, fine, no one should stop you but this is a Boris-esque notion of having your cake and eating it. If you are in work you should be treated the same - we are still fighting to get equal pay across the genders, we should have equal pay across the ages too.

    As a corollary, another rationale for older people working in London is the cost of living in London. We talk a lot about younger people being priced out of London - older people are trapped in London and forced to continue working to pay for their prison.
    I understand that here in the US you can defer drawing social security (old age pension) when you reach eligibility and get it at a higher rate when you decide to do so. I believe it's also the case that you can start taking a reduced rate social security before the normal retirement age, but you will never get the "full" rate if you do that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:


    The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

    Utter rot.
    No, entirely correct and entirely in accordance with what most western nations do ie have a proper system of hypothecated social insurance
    Tosh, it's just an employment tax... that ONLY applies to income derived from labour that clobbers regular workers.
    It is deducted from salary exactly as pension payments are and entirely correctly.

    Every other western nation has a social insurance payment deducted from wages to cover unemployment benefits, state pensions, state healthcare and social care and we must ensure National Insurance is exactly the same
    and in exactly the same way which Income Tax is as well....

    But fundamentally there is NO 'National Insurance' pot where its used for X/Y/Z, it's just general taxation. If it were then maybe people could see what it was used on.
    No. National Insurance should be properly hypothecated for social and welfare costs, leaving income tax to fund defence, police, education, culture etc.

    Then we can properly check both are spent for what they are supposed to be
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 1,898
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    JonathanD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    T.
    Agree it’s worth having.
    20k gross income seems too high to me - especially given the number of part time workers.
    The numbers working aged 65+ are going to increase, so tax would earn more over time.

    I can imagine this policy would go down badly with those over 65 who are a reliable voting block and go Tory - that’s probably why this hasn’t happened. “I’ve paid in all my life and now they move the goalposts etcetc”
    Yeah, £20K might be too high. On the other hand some under-65 women are also past retirement age, which would boost the numbers. Probably somewhere between £1bn and £1.5bn at a rough estimate.

    You are right about the politics, but compared with other ways of raising new revenue I'd have thought this was pretty uncontroversial.
    If we're going to do that, we might as well scrap National Insurance and merge it with income tax and put the basic/higher rates up to 22% and 42% respectively. It would have the added advantage in effectively acting as a tax cut for the lowest paid because the IT threshold is significantly higher than the NI threshold.

    You then have an employment insurance tax just for employers on top, but I'd like to see that cut in the long term to around 10% (rather than 13.9% or whatever it is).

    Will never happen of course, like many sensible HM Treasury reforms, because of the political optics.
    No, we should be returning NI to insurance principles as social insurance for pensions, unemployment and healthcare not ending it
    Hypothecated taxes are lazy dishonesty. Keep tax simple.
    The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

    Most other nations use social insurance properly for pensions, welfare, social care and healthcare as should we
    Even by your standards this is just nonsense. Not least because the demand is coming from older people, relatively few of whom pay any NI at all.
    We'll all be old one day
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 10,735
    edited January 10
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    Mike says that May may like to continue to the next election but I cannot see how this would work.

    She will either fight or not fight the next election. If she doesn`t fight it then she will have to step down well before the next election for a successor to establish him/herself.

    So she either goes well before 2022 or she stays to fight the next election as leader.

    My guess is that she will stay on past the next election (and I`m on Jeremy Hunt to (eventually) be the next leader - he`s playing his cards well at the moment).

    She will go certainly by the end of the transition period most likely replaced by Davis or Boris with Gove also a contender if he does not back the latter
    To be honest they are the past. Listening to Hunt on the NHS in the house today he was very impressive. This last few days has finished the chances of the old guard and there are some really good prospects coming into view. Give it 6 months and the position will be much clearer
    The biggest swing from the Tories in the polls since the general election has not been to Labour but to UKIP, Hunt is not going to win them back, Boris or Davis might.
    It is over for the old guard and for Boris and Davis.

    No it is not, as I said Boris is no more 'old guard' than Hunt and it is Tory to UKIP voters the Tories need to focus on, those who voted for Corbyn in June will almost all certainly vote for him again next time regardless of the Tory leader.
    The need for the new leader post Brexit is to regain the remainers, UKIP is dying and will be gone by summer 2019
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    JonathanD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    How much would continuing NI payments past the retirement age bring in?

    It would be a start.

    T.
    Agree it’s worth having.
    20k gross income seems too high to me - especially given the number of part time workers.
    The numbers working aged 65+ are going to increase, so tax would earn more over time.

    I can imagine this policy would go down badly with those over 65 who are a reliable voting block and go Tory - that’s probably why this hasn’t happened. “I’ve paid in all my life and now they move the goalposts etcetc”
    Yeah, £20K might be too high. On the other hand some under-65 women are also past retirement age, which would boost the numbers. Probably somewhere between £1bn and £1.5bn at a rough estimate.

    You are right about the politics, but compared with other ways of raising new revenue I'd have thought this was pretty uncontroversial.
    If we're going to do that, we might as well scrap National Insurance and merge it with income tax and put the basic/higher rates up to 22% and 42% respectively. It would have the added advantage in effectively acting as a tax cut for the lowest paid because the IT threshold is significantly higher than the NI threshold.

    You then have an employment insurance tax just for employers on top, but I'd like to see that cut in the long term to around 10% (rather than 13.9% or whatever it is).

    Will never happen of course, like many sensible HM Treasury reforms, because of the political optics.
    No, we should be returning NI to insurance principles as social insurance for pensions, unemployment and healthcare not ending it
    Hypothecated taxes are lazy dishonesty. Keep tax simple.
    The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

    Most other nations use social insurance properly for pensions, welfare, social care and healthcare as should we
    Even by your standards this is just nonsense. Not least because the demand is coming from older people, relatively few of whom pay any NI at all.
    As I said earlier the increase in NI should be focused on over 50s who will soon most need health and social care
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,401

    JonathanD said:

    stodge said:


    Hunt may just have played a blinder by getting TM to include Social care under health. If he can take the green paper through Parliament and emerge successfully he will at a stroke demolish labour's weaponising of the NHS and give the conservatives a much better chance of winning the next GE.

    I heard some time ago that he had said that Health would be his last job in government and that seems to be the case, maybe other than leader

    No, the "problem" is social care is local Government responsibility and the money just isn't there to cope with the rising demands. If left-wing Marxist authorities like Surrey County Council can complain they haven't money to adequately fund social care provision, you can be sure many other Councils are suffering.

    It will of course be disproportionate - those areas with a higher percentage of elderly people are likely to be facing the worst of the problems.

    Is Hunt genuinely proposing to take Social Care provision out of local authority hands into those of central Government ? Does that mean the funding goes as well - what about the assessment process ? Of course, many Councils, such as Surrey, would face huge re-organisation if Social Care provision was transferred back into the NHS but there might be more money for it as well.

    Will there be a network of national Care Homes perhaps clustered around hospitals, GPs and other Health provision ? It's an interesting idea and worthy of consideration - organising dementia care services at a national level to properly allocate resources and provide appropriate premises (often the biggest problem) would be a challenge but a positive step.
    The funding for social care must come from a new model and so must the adminstration. This is the big question and hopefully the green paper that Hunt will bring forward will be a start
    Over 65s can start paying National Insurance. Funding problem solved.
    I have no problem with anyone in employment irrespective of age paying NI
    Might be a technical problem with someone over 68 both receiving the old age pension and making NI contributions which increase the rate of old age pension they receive.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116
    Mortimer said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Kinder gentler politics....

    Jeremy Corbyn accused of fostering hate as Esther McVey faces renewed abuse

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/10/jeremy-corbyn-accused-fostering-hate-esther-mcvey-faces-renewed/

    Is McVey a kinder or gentler type of figure

    Makes Toby Young look like an Angel
    I'm going to call you out on this. Whether McVey is kind or gentle is irrelevant.

    No-one should face this kind of abuse. Threats of violence against an MP, a female MP are wrong.

    A female MP was murdered in 2016 as a result of people fostering a climate of hate. Just because the MP on the receiving end now is a Tory does not justify it. You should be ashamed of implying it, even as a joke.
    Indeed.

    I don't understand this need to 'hate' anyone in politics. Women seem to get a particularly rough ride.

    Similarly I don't understand why the term 'phobe' is added as a criticism when someone happens to have different viewpoints.
    "Phobe" is added because it's a way of implying that your disagreement is somehow unjustified and evidence of some mental imbalance eg people who have phobias about harmless English spiders. It makes the argument about you and your reaction rather than about the issue.

    So to take an obvious example - Islamophobia. If someone says that they have a problem with the level of violence seemingly justified by certain aspects of Islam, by describing someone as phobic, the debate - rather than being about whether there might be such an issue and how to deal with it - has conveniently moved onto the person's reaction and how unjustified it is. Because most phobias are unjustified. It's a way of shutting down or avoiding debate on difficult questions.

    In some cases using the word phobia may be justified: some people may indeed have a phobia about gay people. But generally it should be used hardly at all and with much much greater care than it is.

    It won't be. So I'm pissing in the wind, really. I'd have more chance of persuading you all to only drink cappuccino without chocolate before 10 am.......
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,721
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:


    The biggest increase in government spending in future decades will be for the NHS and social care, using National Insurance rises to cover it is the easiest and fairest way and the 'insurance' element of the title also sounds fairer and clearer than just increasing income tax.

    Utter rot.
    No, entirely correct and entirely in accordance with what most western nations do ie have a proper system of hypothecated social insurance
    Tosh, it's just an employment tax... that ONLY applies to income derived from labour that clobbers regular workers.
    It is deducted from salary exactly as pension payments are and entirely correctly.

    Every other western nation has a social insurance payment deducted from wages to cover unemployment benefits, state pensions, state healthcare and social care and we must ensure National Insurance is exactly the same
    and in exactly the same way which Income Tax is as well....

    But fundamentally there is NO 'National Insurance' pot where its used for X/Y/Z, it's just general taxation. If it were then maybe people could see what it was used on.
    No. National Insurance should be properly hypothecated for social and welfare costs, leaving income tax to fund defence, police, education, culture etc.

    Then we can properly check both are spent for what they are supposed to be
    'should' be... maybe, but it's not at the moment.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,948
    Got to give some credit to the devious little Gavin Williamson...
    the rather synthetic kerfuffle over the 'be the best' slogan has guaranteed a great deal more media coverage for the army's recruitment campaign than it might otherwise have received.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,926

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:
    What do we want? the #Matt Private Members Bill. When do we want it? Now.

    The comparison between that pathetic effort and Matt's cartoon about not asking the dog to move from the seat because, when he failed to do so it would undermine his authority is painful. One is funny, the other,...just isn't.
    Like the New European, Osborne and his team are too dogmatic to know how to be funny.
    On the contrary, Osborne can be extremely funny. His cartoonist, not so much.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,721

    JonathanD said:

    stodge said:


    Hunt may just have played a blinder by getting TM to include Social care under health. If he can take the green paper through Parliament and emerge successfully he will at a stroke demolish labour's weaponising of the NHS and give the conservatives a much better chance of winning the next GE.

    I heard some time ago that he had said that Health would be his last job in government and that seems to be the case, maybe other than leader

    No, the "problem" is social care is local Government responsibility and the money just isn't there to cope with the rising demands. If left-wing Marxist authorities like Surrey County Council can complain they haven't money to adequately fund social care provision, you can be sure many other Councils are suffering.

    It will of course be disproportionate - those areas with a higher percentage of elderly people are likely to be facing the worst of the problems.

    Is Hunt genuinely proposing to take Social Care provision out of local authority hands into those of central Government ? Does that mean the funding goes as well - what about the assessment process ? Of course, many Councils, such as Surrey, would face huge re-organisation if Social Care provision was transferred back into the NHS but there might be more money for it as well.

    Will there be a network of national Care Homes perhaps clustered around hospitals, GPs and other Health provision ? It's an interesting idea and worthy of consideration - organising dementia care services at a national level to properly allocate resources and provide appropriate premises (often the biggest problem) would be a challenge but a positive step.
    The funding for social care must come from a new model and so must the adminstration. This is the big question and hopefully the green paper that Hunt will bring forward will be a start
    Over 65s can start paying National Insurance. Funding problem solved.
    I have no problem with anyone in employment irrespective of age paying NI
    Might be a technical problem with someone over 68 both receiving the old age pension and making NI contributions which increase the rate of old age pension they receive.
    Just to point out there's also Employers NI, which is paid regardless of age, and which does nothing for any pension contribuitions.

    (as does class 4 NI for self-employed people, it doesn't effect pensions at all).
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116

    McDonnell knows what he is doing. His "I'm only repeating what other people said, that's all" stuff is as believable as I didn't see that 6ft tall Hammer and Sickle banner right next to me, and I'm not a Marxist even though you have me on video saying it.

    It is why he is far more dangerous than Jezza.

    Jezza appointed him. He knew what he was doing. He should not be allowed to evade his responsibility.
  • One of the reasons people focus on Corbyn is because he and McDonnell have a long history of associating with people who do think that violence in the pursuit of political ends is justified.
    ..............................................................................

    You could make that argument about anyone who supports the armed forces in a roundabout way as well, in many places an armed struggle already exists, to ignore that would ignore the problems the place faces.

    ...........................................................................
    Corbyn talks a good talk on this (no personal abuse etc). But I am a bit cynical about this. He seems to think that it is enough for him to say that violent language is wrong but he does not criticise let alone discipline those on his side who do it. This sends out mixed signals, at best.
    ........................................................................

    He has called out abuse of MPs and other political figures and people found to be breaking the rules have been barred from the party. Corbyn isn't actually (or wasn't anyway) of the suspension/discipline committee for banning members and such so that wouldn't be him unless we are specifically talking about Labour party MPs?

    He hasn't really had full control of the party also the comments McDonnell is criticised for happened before he became leader. Is it Ed's fault?

    .........................................................................

    And when he was very specifically asked by one of his MPs, Ruth Smeeth, to condemn in the clearest possible terms, the anti-Semitic abuse she was getting from people who claimed to be doing it on behalf of Jeremy Corbyn, he did not do so. Listen to the start of this programme where she explains what she faced and Corbyn's inaction - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09fj3xk.
    .......................................................................

    Corbyn has come out and condemned abuse, anti semitic or otherwise a few times. Spending every day talking about it would certainly benefit the politics of his opponents as it would have probably not resulted in Labour getting their result they did. I suppose the argument is how often should Corbyn come out and condemn it, how often is enough?

    I think he has condemned it more often than I have seen condemnations about abuse of Dianne Abbot from her opponents. Are non left wing MPs more deserving of protection from racism and sexism or should it be a universal thing regardless of your political views?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116

    Cyclefree said:

    I did not know that about Jess Phillips. That is wrong of her.

    IIRC, she was asked if she would "stab Corbyn in the back" at some point in the future, and she replied that "no, I would stab him in the front."

    It's practically the oldest political metaphor there is (with apologies to Julius Caesar, for whom it was a touch more literal). The story has been used as pure whataboutery by those trying to excuse McDonnell and others.
    If people can call for McDonnell to be sacked for repeating comments It would seem fairly consistent that they would criticse Jess for her own violent calls, she could have easily have used a different metaphor or put it a different way as could have many others who have been criticised for their language. If we really want to stamp out that kind of talk we have to ask for it from those who we like the political aims of as well as those we dislike otherwise it becomes just about partisanship rather than the thing it is about to start with.
    Well, perhaps we can look forward to Corbyn condemning what happened to his MP by people who claimed to be acting "for Jeremy".

    After all, as you put it - "we have to ask for it from those who we like the political aims of".

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555
    edited January 10

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    Mike says that May may like to continue to the next election but I cannot see how this would work.

    She will either fight or not fight the next election. If she doesn`t fight it then she will have to step down well before the next election for a successor to establish him/herself.

    So she either goes well before 2022 or she stays to fight the next election as leader.

    My guess is that she will stay on past the next election (and I`m on Jeremy Hunt to (eventually) be the next leader - he`s playing his cards well at the moment).

    She will go certainly by the end of the transition period most likely replaced by Davis or Boris with Gove also a contender if he does not back the latter
    To be honest they are the past. Listening to Hunt on the NHS in the house today he was very impressive. This last few days has finished the chances of the old guard and there are some really good prospects coming into view. Give it 6 months and the position will be much clearer
    The biggest swing from the Tories in the polls since the general election has not been to Labour but to UKIP, Hunt is not going to win them back, Boris or Davis might.
    It is over for the old guard and for Boris and Davis.

    No it is not, as I said Boris is no more 'old guard' than Hunt and it is Tory to UKIP voters the Tories need to focus on, those who voted for Corbyn in June will almost all certainly vote for him again next time regardless of the Tory leader.
    The need for the new leader post Brexit is to regain the remainers, UKIP is dying and will be gone by summer 2019
    No it is not. Remainers are not suddenly going to switch to a Brexit backing Tory Party, especially if they have already voted for Corbyn. The only switchers from Labour to Tory likely are those angered by the dementia tax.

    The only chance the Tories have next time of a 4th successive government is to refight the 1992 general election ie where Major held almost all the 1987 Tory vote and scrapped the poll tax ie hold all the 2017 Tory vote and scrap the dementia tax policy and hammer Corbyn on tax, especially IHT
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,291
    rpjs said:

    I understand that here in the US you can defer drawing social security (old age pension) when you reach eligibility and get it at a higher rate when you decide to do so. ..

    So you can in the UK. The increment you got for deferment used to be fantastically generous for those who could afford to defer. Sadly for me, but correctly, Osborne changed the rates with effect from 1 April 2016 and it's now not worth doing for most people.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116

    One of the reasons people focus on Corbyn is because he and McDonnell have a long history of associating with people who do think that violence in the pursuit of political ends is justified.
    ..............................................................................

    You could make that argument about anyone who supports the armed forces in a roundabout way as well, in many places an armed struggle already exists, to ignore that would ignore the problems the place faces.


    The army has to act within the law. Terrorists don't. There is a difference between the two. For the Opposition Leader not to understand that, if that is what you are saying, is frankly alarming.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,401
    FF43 said:

    I think Jeremy Hunt taking on social care is likely to be a mistake. There is certainly a need to coordinate social care and health care. Devising the wonkish social care policy that addresses all interests is a different job from ensuring there are doctors to see patients. Hunt has been in charge of the seeing the doctor bit while the service has got worse. The (very high) risk is that Hunt gets bogged down in social care policy while medical care deteriorates further. It would be better for Hunt to focus on whatever deliverables are seen as important while someone else, who talks to him, tries to take some of the pressure off through social care policy.

    Some social care costs are specifically for health, such as the nursing care element of nursing home costs. These should come from the NHS budget not from Council Tax.

    Hunt should be able to arrange this in his new role and thereby free up the social care budget to take old people and others out of hospital and into social care much sooner.

    Some of the delay in getting people out of hospital is the reluctance of people to pay for their own residential or nursing care from their own funds (when they have more than the minimum assets of £20,000 odd.) Again Hunt can sort this.

    Plus there is a need for better social care to prevent older people having to go into hospital. Again Hunt can sort this.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116


    ...........................................................................
    Corbyn talks a good talk on this (no personal abuse etc). But I am a bit cynical about this. He seems to think that it is enough for him to say that violent language is wrong but he does not criticise let alone discipline those on his side who do it. This sends out mixed signals, at best.
    ........................................................................

    He has called out abuse of MPs and other political figures and people found to be breaking the rules have been barred from the party. Corbyn isn't actually (or wasn't anyway) of the suspension/discipline committee for banning members and such so that wouldn't be him unless we are specifically talking about Labour party MPs?

    He hasn't really had full control of the party also the comments McDonnell is criticised for happened before he became leader. Is it Ed's fault?


    No - they have not all been barred from the party. Livingstone should, IMO, have been expelled but hasn't been.

    But this is an argument that Corbyn is too weak to control his party on this issue. Really? Would there really have been opposition from his opponents to him taking strong action on this?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,291

    One of the reasons people focus on Corbyn is because he and McDonnell have a long history of associating with people who do think that violence in the pursuit of political ends is justified.
    ..............................................................................

    You could make that argument about anyone who supports the armed forces in a roundabout way as well, in many places an armed struggle already exists, to ignore that would ignore the problems the place faces....

    In addition to the point @Cyclefree has just made, you seem to have missed the fact that some of the terrorists Corbyn and McDonnnell supported were targeting us.
  • McDonnell knows what he is doing. His "I'm only repeating what other people said, that's all" stuff is as believable as I didn't see that 6ft tall Hammer and Sickle banner right next to me, and I'm not a Marxist even though you have me on video saying it.

    It is why he is far more dangerous than Jezza.

    So we should fire ministers (or shadow cabinet ministers in this case) because they cleverly say bad stuff they really mean whilst sort of not saying it...

    How far should we go with this thought policing... and should we only apply it to politicians that don't sit with our political views?

    The defence of not really meaning it applied to Jess Phillips by people who like her would equally be applied by those who like Corbyn, or Farage, or McDonnell to them. The trick is to come up with a consistent rule which doesn't take into account if they are a 'goody' or a 'baddy'
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,519

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    Mike says that May may like to continue to the next election but I cannot see how this would work.

    She will either fight or not fight the next election. If she doesn`t fight it then she will have to step down well before the next election for a successor to establish him/herself.

    So she either goes well before 2022 or she stays to fight the next election as leader.

    My guess is that she will stay on past the next election (and I`m on Jeremy Hunt to (eventually) be the next leader - he`s playing his cards well at the moment).

    She will go certainly by the end of the transition period most likely replaced by Davis or Boris with Gove also a contender if he does not back the latter
    To be honest they are the past. Listening to Hunt on the NHS in the house today he was very impressive. This last few days has finished the chances of the old guard and there are some really good prospects coming into view. Give it 6 months and the position will be much clearer
    The biggest swing from the Tories in the polls since the general election has not been to Labour but to UKIP, Hunt is not going to win them back, Boris or Davis might.
    It is over for the old guard and for Boris and Davis.

    No it is not, as I said Boris is no more 'old guard' than Hunt and it is Tory to UKIP voters the Tories need to focus on, those who voted for Corbyn in June will almost all certainly vote for him again next time regardless of the Tory leader.
    The need for the new leader post Brexit is to regain the remainers, UKIP is dying and will be gone by summer 2019
    IMHO, people who feel so strongly about Brexit that they're willing to vote for Jeremy Corbyn aren't likely to be won back any time soon, by the Conservatives.

    However, they do have quite a big lead over Labour in terms of trust on the economy, and the economic outlook does seem to be increasingly benign. That's what they need to focus on.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    Mike says that May may like to continue to the next election but I cannot see how this would work.

    She will either fight or not fight the next election. If she doesn`t fight it then she will have to step down well before the next election for a successor to establish him/herself.

    So she either goes well before 2022 or she stays to fight the next election as leader.

    My guess is that she will stay on past the next election (and I`m on Jeremy Hunt to (eventually) be the next leader - he`s playing his cards well at the moment).

    She will go certainly by the end of the transition period most likely replaced by Davis or Boris with Gove also a contender if he does not back the latter
    To be honest they are the past. Listening to Hunt on the NHS in the house today he was very impressive. This last few days has finished the chances of the old guard and there are some really good prospects coming into view. Give it 6 months and the position will be much clearer
    The biggest swing from the Tories in the polls since the general election has not been to Labour but to UKIP, Hunt is not going to win them back, Boris or Davis might.
    It is over for the old guard and for Boris and Davis.

    No it is not, as I said Boris is no more 'old guard' than Hunt and it is Tory to UKIP voters the Tories need to focus on, those who voted for Corbyn in June will almost all certainly vote for him again next time regardless of the Tory leader.
    The need for the new leader post Brexit is to regain the remainers, UKIP is dying and will be gone by summer 2019
    No it is not. Remainers are not suddenly going to switch to a Brexit backing Tory Party, especially if they have already voted for Corbyn. The only switchers from Labour to Tory likely are those angered by the dementia tax.

    The only chance the Tories have next time of a 4th successive government is to refight the 1992 general election ie where Major held almost all the 1987 Tory vote and scrapped the poll tax ie hold all the 2017 Tory vote and scrap the dementia tax policy and hammer Corbyn on tax, especially IHT
    We are not going to agree on next leader but as a voting member I will not be voting for Boris, Davis, or any of the tired old guard
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,926

    Pulpstar said:
    They didn't quite succeed
    LOL
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,947

    rpjs said:

    I understand that here in the US you can defer drawing social security (old age pension) when you reach eligibility and get it at a higher rate when you decide to do so. ..

    So you can in the UK. The increment you got for deferment used to be fantastically generous for those who could afford to defer. Sadly for me, but correctly, Osborne changed the rates with effect from 1 April 2016 and it's now not worth doing for most people.
    The US scheme is also surprisingly generous to those who pay in the most.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    Mike says that May may like to continue to the next election but I cannot see how this would work.

    She will either fight or not fight the next election. If she doesn`t fight it then she will have to step down well before the next election for a successor to establish him/herself.

    So she either goes well before 2022 or she stays to fight the next election as leader.

    My guess is that she will stay on past the next election (and I`m on Jeremy Hunt to (eventually) be the next leader - he`s playing his cards well at the moment).

    She will go certainly by the end of the transition period most likely replaced by Davis or Boris with Gove also a contender if he does not back the latter
    To be honest they are the past. Listening to Hunt on the NHS in the house today he was very impressive. This last few days has finished the chances of the old guard and there are some really good prospects coming into view. Give it 6 months and the position will be much clearer
    The biggest swing from the Tories in the polls since the general election has not been to Labour but to UKIP, Hunt is not going to win them back, Boris or Davis might.
    It is over for the old guard and for Boris and Davis.

    No it is not, as I said Boris is no more 'old guard' than Hunt and it is Tory to UKIP voters the Tories need to focus on, those who voted for Corbyn in June will almost all certainly vote for him again next time regardless of the Tory leader.
    The need for the new leader post Brexit is to regain the remainers, UKIP is dying and will be gone by summer 2019
    No it is not. Remainers are not suddenly going to switch to a Brexit backing Tory Party, especially if they have already voted for Corbyn. The only switchers from Labour to Tory likely are those angered by the dementia tax.

    The only chance the Tories have next time of a 4th successive government is to refight the 1992 general election ie where Major held almost all the 1987 Tory vote and scrapped the poll tax ie hold all the 2017 Tory vote and scrap the dementia tax policy and hammer Corbyn on tax, especially IHT
    We are not going to agree on next leader but as a voting member I will not be voting for Boris, Davis, or any of the tired old guard
    OK we will have to disagree on the next leader but the strategy I suggested should be the same regardless of who succeeds May
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,664
    edited January 10

    McDonnell knows what he is doing. His "I'm only repeating what other people said, that's all" stuff is as believable as I didn't see that 6ft tall Hammer and Sickle banner right next to me, and I'm not a Marxist even though you have me on video saying it.

    It is why he is far more dangerous than Jezza.

    So we should fire ministers (or shadow cabinet ministers in this case) because they cleverly say bad stuff they really mean whilst sort of not saying it...

    How far should we go with this thought policing... and should we only apply it to politicians that don't sit with our political views?

    The defence of not really meaning it applied to Jess Phillips by people who like her would equally be applied by those who like Corbyn, or Farage, or McDonnell to them. The trick is to come up with a consistent rule which doesn't take into account if they are a 'goody' or a 'baddy'
    Never said anything about sacking. However, McIRA has been caught on camera and written many many times things which back up this acceptance / promotion for the use of violence to get the ends which he wishes. It isn't a one off. As I say, he knows what he is doing.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,519

    McDonnell knows what he is doing. His "I'm only repeating what other people said, that's all" stuff is as believable as I didn't see that 6ft tall Hammer and Sickle banner right next to me, and I'm not a Marxist even though you have me on video saying it.

    It is why he is far more dangerous than Jezza.

    So we should fire ministers (or shadow cabinet ministers in this case) because they cleverly say bad stuff they really mean whilst sort of not saying it...

    How far should we go with this thought policing... and should we only apply it to politicians that don't sit with our political views?

    The defence of not really meaning it applied to Jess Phillips by people who like her would equally be applied by those who like Corbyn, or Farage, or McDonnell to them. The trick is to come up with a consistent rule which doesn't take into account if they are a 'goody' or a 'baddy'
    Actually, I think McDonnell does mean it. He is a piece of work.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116
    edited January 10



    .........................................................................

    And when he was very specifically asked by one of his MPs, Ruth Smeeth, to condemn in the clearest possible terms, the anti-Semitic abuse she was getting from people who claimed to be doing it on behalf of Jeremy Corbyn, he did not do so. Listen to the start of this programme where she explains what she faced and Corbyn's inaction - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09fj3xk.
    .......................................................................

    Corbyn has come out and condemned abuse, anti semitic or otherwise a few times. Spending every day talking about it would certainly benefit the politics of his opponents as it would have probably not resulted in Labour getting their result they did. I suppose the argument is how often should Corbyn come out and condemn it, how often is enough?

    I think he has condemned it more often than I have seen condemnations about abuse of Dianne Abbot from her opponents. Are non left wing MPs more deserving of protection from racism and sexism or should it be a universal thing regardless of your political views?

    He was specifically asked by his MP to condemn what was happening to her. He did not do so. I think that is quite wrong. When one of your own MPs asks for help in this way, the responsible, the moral thing to do is to respond not turn away.

    Ruth Smeeth, BTW, was so horribly barracked and abused at the press conference held to present the Chakrabarti report on anti-semitism that she was driven away in tears. And the man who was responsible for much of the abuse was then seen being embraced by Corbyn.

    Labour clearly has a problem with anti-semitism and Corbyn has simply not done enough to really deal with the problem. There comes a point when Corbyn's failure is not just not dealing with it but part of the problem itself.

    As to your last point, violent abuse against MPs is wrong regardless of their political views. If someone threatened to kill McDonnell or his family I would condemn that in the same terms.
  • Cyclefree said:


    ...........................................................................
    Corbyn talks a good talk on this (no personal abuse etc). But I am a bit cynical about this. He seems to think that it is enough for him to say that violent language is wrong but he does not criticise let alone discipline those on his side who do it. This sends out mixed signals, at best.
    ........................................................................

    He has called out abuse of MPs and other political figures and people found to be breaking the rules have been barred from the party. Corbyn isn't actually (or wasn't anyway) of the suspension/discipline committee for banning members and such so that wouldn't be him unless we are specifically talking about Labour party MPs?

    He hasn't really had full control of the party also the comments McDonnell is criticised for happened before he became leader. Is it Ed's fault?


    No - they have not all been barred from the party. Livingstone should, IMO, have been expelled but hasn't been.

    But this is an argument that Corbyn is too weak to control his party on this issue. Really? Would there really have been opposition from his opponents to him taking strong action on this?
    Guido has an interview with Andrew Neil and Debbie Abrahams that should be compulsory viewing over labour's double standards and John .McDonnell s abuse of Esther McVey. This will not go away for McDonnell
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,463
    Sean_F said:


    IMHO, people who feel so strongly about Brexit that they're willing to vote for Jeremy Corbyn aren't likely to be won back any time soon, by the Conservatives.

    However, they do have quite a big lead over Labour in terms of trust on the economy, and the economic outlook does seem to be increasingly benign. That's what they need to focus on.

    Perversely, a sound economy didn't help Major in 1997.

    When things are going well, the view will be for more public spending and people will think the country can afford a Labour Government.

  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 1,928

    rpjs said:

    I understand that here in the US you can defer drawing social security (old age pension) when you reach eligibility and get it at a higher rate when you decide to do so. ..

    So you can in the UK. The increment you got for deferment used to be fantastically generous for those who could afford to defer. Sadly for me, but correctly, Osborne changed the rates with effect from 1 April 2016 and it's now not worth doing for most people.
    Between that change and the Granny Tax of 2012, the idea that the Tories were hyper protective of the OAP vote is a bit suspect.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 61
    edited January 10

    Cyclefree said:

    If people can call for McDonnell to be sacked for repeating comments It would seem fairly consistent that they would criticse Jess for her own violent calls, she could have easily have used a different metaphor or put it a different way as could have many others who have been criticised for their language. If we really want to stamp out that kind of talk we have to ask for it from those who we like the political aims of as well as those we dislike otherwise it becomes just about partisanship rather than the thing it is about to start with.
    Well, perhaps we can look forward to Corbyn condemning what happened to his MP by people who claimed to be acting "for Jeremy".

    After all, as you put it - "we have to ask for it from those who we like the political aims of".

    Corbyn has already you'll be delighted to hear.
    Cyclefree said:



    You could make that argument about anyone who supports the armed forces in a roundabout way as well, in many places an armed struggle already exists, to ignore that would ignore the problems the place faces.


    The army has to act within the law. Terrorists don't. There is a difference between the two. For the Opposition Leader not to understand that, if that is what you are saying, is frankly alarming.
    Armies are almost always preferable but the law is what the state decides, just being part of an army doesn't make you morally correct. In fact history probably has many examples of the opposition (who could often be called terrorists) are morally right rather than the army they fight. But this is a massive side point to what we are arguing.
    Cyclefree said:


    He hasn't really had full control of the party also the comments McDonnell is criticised for happened before he became leader. Is it Ed's fault?


    No - they have not all been barred from the party. Livingstone should, IMO, have been expelled but hasn't been.

    But this is an argument that Corbyn is too weak to control his party on this issue. Really? Would there really have been opposition from his opponents to him taking strong action on this?
    So your problem with Corbyn is a committee Corbyn doesn't control chose to suspend rather than bar Livingstone?

    Seems fair.

    I personally would like Corbyn to have stronger control over the party, but given his attempts to give members more say have been met with cries of Stalinist coup (what could be more Stalinist than more voting powers for members) I can't imagine what him actually throwing his weight around would do...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,664
    Hi Seamus....
This discussion has been closed.