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

124

Comments

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,622

    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.
    Lucky no one took 'Breaking Point' in earnest.


  • 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.
    Weren't all sides in N. Ireland targeting us or were the good guys only targeting the bad guys so that is okay?

    I've never quite understand this idea that the Catholics in N. Ireland aren't us... maybe it is the fact I am half English half Welsh and it is something of a more English attitude? (the other countries all have their own version of insular as well, none of us are perfect)

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,401

    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.
    I understand all those points. They don't help a Conservative partisan position or Jeremy Hunt's own reputation. Jeremy Hunt and his party have presided over a perceived worsening of medical care. The perceptions are simple; the root causes are possibly complex. The Tories are complicating their position further. Unless Hunt can say, I have sorted out social care and people can now get better access to hospital and GP treatments, it's not going to work for him
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,947
    edited January 10

    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.
    Weren't all sides in N. Ireland targeting us or were the good guys only targeting the bad guys so that is okay?

    I've never quite understand this idea that the Catholics in N. Ireland aren't us... maybe it is the fact I am half English half Welsh and it is something of a more English attitude? (the other countries all have their own version of insular as well, none of us are perfect)

    That doesn’t change the fact that the IRA were targeting the UK, and that Corbyn and McDonnell had a dubious relationship with some of their key members. Whether or not the loyalists were attacking the UK too has nothing to do with it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,084
    Good afternoon, everyone.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,421
    Not sure if already posted - NIESR estimating 2017 Q4 growth of 0.6%.

    If correct, excellent.

    NB. This is not the first estimate of ONS - due later this month.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/10/uk-manufacturing-output-rises-eighth-month-in-row
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,401
    edited January 10
    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.

    No-one voted for Brexit to increase ambulance wait times, obviously. In practice however, a vote for Brexit is a vote for austerity. In a way, the lack of a link in Leave voters' minds between Brexit and reduced public services and ultimately in the economy, will hurt the Conservatives. The public will see the worsening of public services and at the same time hear about money going to the EU and being spent on new customs systems and so on. They will blame the Conservatives rather than accept they voted for it, because it's a cost worth paying.

  • 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.
    .........................................

    He has condemned the abuse several times the only advantage to making him just do that repeatedly rather than concentrate on the issues the electorate care about and which helped him get a record for sometime swing to Labour is to his political opponents, those who haven't listened to his previous statements on it are hardly likely to have a magical conversion because he specifically did one more. Keeping on about the issue and linking it with himself when it is a far wider problem would only help those politically opposed to him.

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

    So when you say responsible for the abuse was he actually there barracking her or have people claimed he was responsible for it and so decided to Corbyn's embrace of him was direct support of the abuse, given the record of reporting on Corbyn I bet it is the latter.

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

    Labour had a problem with anti semitism before Corbyn as well, I guess all Labour leaders are part of the problem?

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

    Glad we can agree on that, all I would ask is for consistency, MPs should have some leeway in what they say, I don't think most believe Jess was actually talking about stabbing Corbyn but if we are going to view things in the worst possible light then she is calling for violence and the same with other MPs.

    I'd say the same with members of the public to an extent, any kind of rape or death threat is a massive no but people are I would say allowed to simply be angry at their representatives. Whether that is someone angry about Brexit one way or the other or one of a host of other emotional issues. Those that do step over the line and it goes to threats of violence or any kind of stalking nonsense or mentions of their family should be come down on as hard as possible.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,925
    Cyclefree said:

    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.
    Isn't that quite subjective? One could argue that British troops committed war crimes in Iraq in the name of conquest.

    I find this argument quite disingenuous. It's one rule for some and one rule for others...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,664
    MikeL said:

    Not sure if already posted - NIESR estimating 2017 Q4 growth of 0.6%.

    If correct, excellent.

    NB. This is not the first estimate of ONS - due later this month.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/10/uk-manufacturing-output-rises-eighth-month-in-row

    Despite Brexit....
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,196
    I see we are re-running the red-terrorists under the bed scare that worked so well (or not at all) in GE2017. We can get too bound up with what we obsessives think voters ought to care about, despite ballot box evidence that they don't.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,143
    murali_s said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
    Isn't that quite subjective? One could argue that British troops committed war crimes in Iraq in the name of conquest.

    I find this argument quite disingenuous. It's one rule for some and one rule for others...
    I think @Cyclefree 's point is that it's one rule for some (the army) and *no* rule for others (terrorists)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,664

    I see we are re-running the red-terrorists under the bed scare that worked so well (or not at all) in GE2017. We can get too bound up with what we obsessives think voters ought to care about, despite ballot box evidence that they don't.

    Just because the public didn't care, it doesn't make it wrong to point out the truth.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 737
    edited January 10
    National insurance.

    It is illustrating to read the annual report of the national insurance fund. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652655/National_Insurance_Fund_Accounts__Great_Britain__-_2016_to_2017.pdf

    Historically all NICs were paid into the Fund and used to fund primarily state pensions and unemployment benefit. NICs rates went up and down each year depending on the actuarial funding requirement of the Fund.

    Then Tony Blair decided to commit to raising the level of NHS funding to the European average and Gordon Brown funded this commitment by raising NICs and routing some of the contributions to the NHS. As a consequence the rates of NIC do not change actuarial each year, but rather the NHS precept changes so that the NI Fund has the right level of funding.

    In 2016/17 the NHS precept was £23.4 billion with the remaining £95.9 billion NICs going into the Fund.

    Pension payments constitute £91.7 billion and employment and support allowances are £4.7 billion.

    There is a separate Fund for Northern Ireland.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,084
    Mr. Urquhart, I agree. Next thrust of the manifesto should be the economy, though. May's idiocy in not bothering to campaign on the Conservatives' strongest point is somewhat neglected (beside the dementia tax failure) but was another very stupid own goal.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,196

    I see we are re-running the red-terrorists under the bed scare that worked so well (or not at all) in GE2017. We can get too bound up with what we obsessives think voters ought to care about, despite ballot box evidence that they don't.

    Just because the public didn't care, it doesn't make it wrong to point out the truth.
    It makes the whole debate pointless.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 1,651
    murali_s said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
    Isn't that quite subjective? One could argue that British troops committed war crimes in Iraq in the name of conquest.

    I find this argument quite disingenuous. It's one rule for some and one rule for others...
    I think the wording is "you could try".
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,622
    edited January 10

    I see we are re-running the red-terrorists under the bed scare that worked so well (or not at all) in GE2017. We can get too bound up with what we obsessives think voters ought to care about, despite ballot box evidence that they don't.

    A dog can only look longingly at a tasty pile of its own vomit for so long before giving in to temptation.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,664
    edited January 10

    Mr. Urquhart, I agree. Next thrust of the manifesto should be the economy, though. May's idiocy in not bothering to campaign on the Conservatives' strongest point is somewhat neglected (beside the dementia tax failure) but was another very stupid own goal.

    The no-campaign campaign was just utterly unbelievable. It was only the last week they deployed the Jezza is a terrorist sympathizer and that was after the only other time they opened their mouth before that they managed to suggest a dementia tax.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,664
    edited January 10

    I see we are re-running the red-terrorists under the bed scare that worked so well (or not at all) in GE2017. We can get too bound up with what we obsessives think voters ought to care about, despite ballot box evidence that they don't.

    Just because the public didn't care, it doesn't make it wrong to point out the truth.
    It makes the whole debate pointless.
    If we only posted things on PB that they public was interested in the threads would be rather empty.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,084
    Mr. Verulamius, interesting. I was just thinking about National Insurance (got my own in the post this morning, so that'll be a fun bill to pay). Gone up £10 year-on-year, which, as a percentage, is something like fourfold the train fare increase. I'm eagerly anticipating the media domination of this much sharper rise.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,278
    edited January 10

    Mr. Urquhart, I agree. Next thrust of the manifesto should be the economy, though. May's idiocy in not bothering to campaign on the Conservatives' strongest point is somewhat neglected (beside the dementia tax failure) but was another very stupid own goal.

    Remember that the 'long-term economic plan' was abandoned soon after the referendum result and the Tories hadn't (and indeed haven't) worked out their post-Brexit economic policy. Coupled with a manifesto devoid of costings, they were simply unable to campaign on the economy in the way of previous elections.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,084
    Mr. B2, let us assume for the sake of argument you're correct: one more reason calling a needless snap election was dumb.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,278
    FF43 said:

    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.

    No-one voted for Brexit to increase ambulance wait times, obviously. In practice however, a vote for Brexit is a vote for austerity. In a way, the lack of a link in Leave voters' minds between Brexit and reduced public services and ultimately in the economy, will hurt the Conservatives. The public will see the worsening of public services and at the same time hear about money going to the EU and being spent on new customs systems and so on. They will blame the Conservatives rather than accept they voted for it, because it's a cost worth paying.

    The hospital shown in that Leave Referendum broadcast barely had any patients in it, those who were there apparently outnumbered by the smiling caring medical staff. They never said this was because all the other patients were stuck at home waiting for an ambulance?

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,291
    edited January 10
    JonathanD said:

    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.
    It's complete nonsense. It was Gordon Brown who introduced the free bus passes and winter fuel payments. The triple lock was a LibDem policy (actually a good one for a while, because the state pension had fallen too far behind earnings). It was Labour which committed to keeping the triple lock at the last election, and the Conservatives who wanted to end it and limit the winter fuel allowance to poorer pensioners.

    Luckily for us well-off oldies, the youngsters' support for Corbyn has locked in our freebies for the foreseeable future. It was very generous of them, and I raised a toast to them with the champagne they'd bought for us.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,664

    JonathanD said:

    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.
    It's complete nonsense. It was Gordon Brown who introduced the free bus passes and winter fuel payments. The triple lock was a LibDem policy (actually a good one for a while, because the state pension had fallen too far behind earnings). It was Labour which committed to keeping the triple lock at the last election, and the Conservatives who wanted to end it and limit the winter fuel allowance to poorer pensioners.

    Luckily for us well-off oldies, the youngsters' support for Corbyn has locked in our freebies for the foreseeable future. It was very generous of them, and I raised a toast to them with the champagne they'd bought for us.
    While they have to drink Prosecco....

    Prosecco pops champagne's bubble: Sales of the sparkling wine outstrip French fizz by ten to one over Christmas

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5252703/Prosecco-popular-CHampagne-Christmas.html

    I feel very much like part of the out of touch elite after reading this news!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 25,278
    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

    Corbyn will ensure the Tories have a great chance of winning next time. It's the election after that which is likely to lay them very low indeed and probably for a fair amount of time.

  • RobD said:

    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.
    Weren't all sides in N. Ireland targeting us or were the good guys only targeting the bad guys so that is okay?

    I've never quite understand this idea that the Catholics in N. Ireland aren't us... maybe it is the fact I am half English half Welsh and it is something of a more English attitude? (the other countries all have their own version of insular as well, none of us are perfect)

    That doesn’t change the fact that the IRA were targeting the UK, and that Corbyn and McDonnell had a dubious relationship with some of their key members. Whether or not the loyalists were attacking the UK too has nothing to do with it.
    The person I was replying too said about attacking the UK making that everything to do with it.

    Almost everyone who got involved with the N. Ireland situation had relationships with dubious characters who were targeting us, it is sort of expected when both sides have extremists using violence. We could have refused to work with any of them on that basis, but that would have just caused more us more death from both sides.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 10,735
    edited January 10

    JonathanD said:

    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.
    It's complete nonsense. It was Gordon Brown who introduced the free bus passes and winter fuel payments. The triple lock was a LibDem policy (actually a good one for a while, because the state pension had fallen too far behind earnings). It was Labour which committed to keeping the triple lock at the last election, and the Conservatives who wanted to end it and limit the winter fuel allowance to poorer pensioners.

    Luckily for us well-off oldies, the youngsters' support for Corbyn has locked in our freebies for the foreseeable future. It was very generous of them, and I raised a toast to them with the champagne they'd bought for us.
    And our £200 Xmas donation plus the extra one off £10 each in December
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,890
    @bbckamal: I'm hearing @johnmcdonnellMP is going to attend @WEF at Davos - where bankers like to walk around in furry hats. He will be there with @realDonaldTrump Into the lions den and all that . . .
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116



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

    Labour had a problem with anti semitism before Corbyn as well

    No: it did not have a problem with anti-semitism before Corbyn, certainly not to the extent as now. If anything, Labour was seen as the natural party for many Jews, one reason why so many of them feel so bewildered at what has happened to the party they thought of as their natural political home. I suggest you listen to the whole of that programme I referred you to. Both illuminating and depressing.

    The fact that you even state (in one of your earlier posts) that maybe Corbyn should not talk so much about anti-semitism because it might give succour to his political opponents is a measure of the mess Labour is in on this topic. If those at the top of the party had spoken about this strongly right from the start and taken effective action things might not have come to this pass. But they haven't.

    Some of those who defend Corbyn claim that too much is made of his associations, that this is unfair, that he can't be blamed if he is in the same room as some other bad guy, etc. Even assuming this to be true - and in many cases what is being criticised are actions and words of Corbyn himself, not him being in the same building as somebody - it is interesting that when he was first running for Labour leader Corbyn himself sought to defend himself by association. Apparently, the charge of anti-Semitism could not be levelled at him because his mother had fought at Cable Street against Mosley and campaigned against him. Well, good for her. But if he can claim virtue by association, why not vice? It's double standards.

    Political considerations shouldn't really come into this. Parts of the Left, the Left from which Corbyn and McDonnell come, have got themselves into a very bad position on the whole issue of anti-Semitism. They seem not to care or not care enough, though always willing to shriek about racism against other groups, or not willing to get themselves out of it. Perhaps it is a cynical calculation that it does not matter because there are not many votes in it. And in this they may be right. But it is morally reprehensible. And it puts some people (me, for instance, and possibly only me) right off.

    And acting in a morally reprehensible way does matter, regardless of how many votes or not there are in it.

    @AlistairMeeks has faced a lot of stick on here for his complaint that the xenophobic lies (his phrase) underpinning the Leave campaign have tainted its victory and tainted the country in some way. Whether you agree with him or not, he's right that the moral underpinnings of political parties and political campaigns and politicians do matter.

    A Labour leader once claimed that Labour is a "moral crusade or it is nothing". Well, if it does not understand the harm done to its reputation by this issue, its claim to be a moral crusade is nothing.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 25,664
    edited January 10
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/10/nhs-nurse-denied-visa-entry-uk

    Another story where the headline sounds terrible, but when you read the small print, combination of not following the rules, not providing the required information which everybody else had to do and some unknown facts that have warning bells going off.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628

    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.
    Weren't all sides in N. Ireland targeting us or were the good guys only targeting the bad guys so that is okay?

    I've never quite understand this idea that the Catholics in N. Ireland aren't us... maybe it is the fact I am half English half Welsh and it is something of a more English attitude? (the other countries all have their own version of insular as well, none of us are perfect)

    So don't understand what was happening in NI at all, then.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 4,238
    edited January 10
    Cyclefree said:


    No: it did not have a problem with anti-semitism before Corbyn, certainly not to the extent as now. If anything, Labour was seen as the natural party for many Jews, one reason why so many of them feel so bewildered at what has happened to the party they thought of as their natural political home. I suggest you listen to the whole of that programme I referred you to. Both illuminating and depressing.

    SNIP TO SAVE SPACE
    Political considerations shouldn't really come into this. Parts of the Left, the Left from which Corbyn and McDonnell come, have got themselves into a very bad position on the whole issue of anti-Semitism. They seem not to care or not care enough, though always willing to shriek about racism against other groups, or not willing to get themselves out of it. Perhaps it is a cynical calculation that it does not matter because there are not many votes in it. And in this they may be right. But it is morally reprehensible. And it puts some people (me, for instance, and possibly only me) right off.

    And acting in a morally reprehensible way does matter, regardless of how many votes or not there are in it.

    @AlistairMeeks has faced a lot of stick on here for his complaint that the xenophobic lies (his phrase) underpinning the Leave campaign have tainted its victory and tainted the country in some way. Whether you agree with him or not, he's right that the moral underpinnings of political parties and political campaigns and politicians do matter.

    A Labour leader once claimed that Labour is a "moral crusade or it is nothing". Well, if it does not understand the harm done to its reputation by this issue, its claim to be a moral crusade is nothing.

    It is by no means the case that the lies in question a. were lies, b. were xenophobic or c. underpinned the Leave campaign. What really poisons political life is a two year shriek of outraged hissy fit to the effect that 52% of the electorate must be the most evil people in the world because they had the temerity to vote in a referendum in slightly greater numbers than your side did.
  • No: it did not have a problem with anti-semitism before Corbyn, certainly not to the extent as now. If anything, Labour was seen as the natural party for many Jews, one reason why so many of them feel so bewildered at what has happened to the party they thought of as their natural political home. I suggest you listen to the whole of that programme I referred you to. Both illuminating and depressing.
    .............................................................

    That is incorrect. Jewish voters stopped voting Labour (in general obviously some still do now) before Corbyn become leader.

    https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/labour-support-just-13-per-cent-among-uk-jews-1.439325

    Also there were incidents of anti semitism in Labour prior to Corbyn or are they okay but now they are not?

    ________________________________________________________
    Just 13 per cent of British Jews plan to vote for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party next week, an exclusive JC poll has revealed.

    Ahead of the 2015 general election, 18 per cent of the community pledged support for Labour under Ed Miliband’s leadership. Asked this week, 14 per cent of British Jews said they had gone ahead and voted for the party two years ago, with the Tories receiving 67 per cent of the community’s votes.
    _____________________________________________________


    ..................................................................
    The fact that you even state (in one of your earlier posts) that maybe Corbyn should not talk so much about anti-semitism because it might give succour to his political opponents is a measure of the mess Labour is in on this topic. If those at the top of the party had spoken about this strongly right from the start and taken effective action things might not have come to this pass. But they haven't.
    .................................................................

    He has critcised it as he rightly should do, what he shouldn't do is ignore the issues of the electorate to concentrate only on talking about it.

    ...............................................................
    Some of those who defend Corbyn claim that too much is made of his associations, that this is unfair, that he can't be blamed if he is in the same room as some other bad guy, etc. Even assuming this to be true - and in many cases what is being criticised are actions and words of Corbyn himself, not him being in the same building as somebody -
    .............................................................

    Those that thing just supporting the Palestinian cause as Corbyn does make him anti semitic are wrong and play a dangerous game with real anti semitism by conflating the two.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952
    There is highly unlikely to be an alternative to something which can be described, fairly or unfairly, as a dementia tax, since I suspect there’s no reasonable alternative, save a significant increase in taxation across the board, to asking people in their 70’s (like me) to set something aside for continuing care. At the moment my wife and I are sitting on our capital and funding expensive items, such as holidays out of income (our pensions). However, if one or other of use needs car the charges are likely to be of the order of £1000 per week, looking at a couple of local homes.
    And while there is support from the state towards the cost of homes, that still leaves a lot to be found.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:


    No: it did not have a problem with anti-semitism before Corbyn, certainly not to the extent as now. If anything, Labour was seen as the natural party for many Jews, one reason why so many of them feel so bewildered at what has happened to the party they thought of as their natural political home. I suggest you listen to the whole of that programme I referred you to. Both illuminating and depressing.

    SNIP TO SAVE SPACE
    Political considerations shouldn't really come into this. Parts of the Left, the Left from which Corbyn and McDonnell come, have got themselves into a very bad position on the whole issue of anti-Semitism. They seem not to care or not care enough, though always willing to shriek about racism against other groups, or not willing to get themselves out of it. Perhaps it is a cynical calculation that it does not matter because there are not many votes in it. And in this they may be right. But it is morally reprehensible. And it puts some people (me, for instance, and possibly only me) right off.

    And acting in a morally reprehensible way does matter, regardless of how many votes or not there are in it.

    @AlistairMeeks has faced a lot of stick on here for his complaint that the xenophobic lies (his phrase) underpinning the Leave campaign have tainted its victory and tainted the country in some way. Whether you agree with him or not, he's right that the moral underpinnings of political parties and political campaigns and politicians do matter.

    A Labour leader once claimed that Labour is a "moral crusade or it is nothing". Well, if it does not understand the harm done to its reputation by this issue, its claim to be a moral crusade is nothing.

    It is by no means the case that the lies in question a. were lies, b. were xenophobic or c. underpinned the Leave campaign. What really poisons political life is a two year shriek of outraged hissy fit to the effect that 52% of the electorate must be the most evil people in the world because they had the temerity to vote in a referendum in slightly greater numbers than your side did.
    I think you're missing the point that both Mr Meeks and I are making. But I have to work now so till later.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,890
    @faisalislam: BArnier appreciated the Brexit hamper, his adviser tells us that the cheese had EU origin protection mark, marmalade the EU organic mark twitter.com/stefaanderynck…
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,032
    Emil Kirkegaard is surely a bit of an odd person for Toby Young to be following on twitter is he not?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 10,735
    edited January 10

    There is highly unlikely to be an alternative to something which can be described, fairly or unfairly, as a dementia tax, since I suspect there’s no reasonable alternative, save a significant increase in taxation across the board, to asking people in their 70’s (like me) to set something aside for continuing care. At the moment my wife and I are sitting on our capital and funding expensive items, such as holidays out of income (our pensions). However, if one or other of use needs car the charges are likely to be of the order of £1000 per week, looking at a couple of local homes.
    And while there is support from the state towards the cost of homes, that still leaves a lot to be found.

    And you identify the real problem. My late sister had two and a half years in a nursing home under the Wales NHS continuing care scheme at a cost of nearly £90,000. She received this care because she had terminal cancer but if dementia it would have seen her lose her flat and only to be left with £23,000 in her estate and also the horror of losing her home. ( even to the end she hoped to go home)

    There has to very long term thinking involving Insurance Companies and the Government together with some personal contributions
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116


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

    He has critcised it as he rightly should do, what he shouldn't do is ignore the issues of the electorate to concentrate only on talking about it.

    ...............................................................
    Some of those who defend Corbyn claim that too much is made of his associations, that this is unfair, that he can't be blamed if he is in the same room as some other bad guy, etc. Even assuming this to be true - and in many cases what is being criticised are actions and words of Corbyn himself, not him being in the same building as somebody -
    .............................................................

    Those that thing just supporting the Palestinian cause as Corbyn does make him anti semitic are wrong and play a dangerous game with real anti semitism by conflating the two.

    To support the Palestinian cause does not require you to travel to Syria to visit President Assad with a group which denies that the Holocaust happened. To support the Palestinian cause does not require you to invite to Parliament a man convicted of the ancient blood libel against Jews and say that his is a voice which must be heard.

    And for the record I have never conflated support for the Palestinians with being anti-Semitic. You raised this issue. It is possible to support the claims of the Palestinians and be against anti-semitism. But if you do the former by allying yourself with those who are anti-semitic then you do your cause no favours at all. Read the Thornberry speech: she understands the problem - that too many people seek to disguise their anti-semitism by claiming it is merely anti-zionism. She understands the problem. Her leader, I'm afraid, doesn't.

    And I don't think he should only talk about this issue. But he should do more if he really wants to deal with it. It is only going to fester and continue and get worse if he does not.

    Anyway, thanks for the debate. Stuff to do now.

    Bye.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 757
    I have always thought that the estimates from the ONS on Construction growth were absolutely nonsense. I always wondered where they got their information from as it did not reflect the real world. I
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,066

    There is highly unlikely to be an alternative to something which can be described, fairly or unfairly, as a dementia tax, since I suspect there’s no reasonable alternative, save a significant increase in taxation across the board, to asking people in their 70’s (like me) to set something aside for continuing care. At the moment my wife and I are sitting on our capital and funding expensive items, such as holidays out of income (our pensions). However, if one or other of use needs car the charges are likely to be of the order of £1000 per week, looking at a couple of local homes.
    And while there is support from the state towards the cost of homes, that still leaves a lot to be found.

    And you identify the real problem. My late sister had two and a half years in a nursing home under the Wales NHS continuing care scheme at a cost of nearly £90,000. She received this care because she had terminal cancer but if dementia it would have seen her lose her flat and only to be left with £23,000 in her estate and also the horror of losing her home. ( even to the end she hoped to go home)

    There has to very long term thinking involving Insurance Companies and the Government together with some personal contributions
    It's hard enough to get young people to save for when they're old and creaky. Trying to get them to provide for a time when they might be senile and doubly incontinent is almost impossible.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 4,238
    Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:


    No: it did not have a problem with anti-semitism before Corbyn, certainly not to the extent as now. If anything, Labour was seen as the natural party for many Jews, one reason why so many of them feel so bewildered at what has happened to the party they thought of as their natural political home. I suggest you listen to the whole of that programme I referred you to. Both illuminating and depressing.

    SNIP TO SAVE SPACE
    Political considerations shouldn't really come into this. Parts of the Left, the Left from which Corbyn and McDonnell come, have got themselves into a very bad position on the whole issue of anti-Semitism. They seem not to care or not care enough, though always willing to shriek about racism against other groups, or not willing to get themselves out of it. Perhaps it is a cynical calculation that it does not matter because there are not many votes in it. And in this they may be right. But it is morally reprehensible. And it puts some people (me, for instance, and possibly only me) right off.

    And acting in a morally reprehensible way does matter, regardless of how many votes or not there are in it.

    @AlistairMeeks has faced a lot of stick on here for his complaint that the xenophobic lies (his phrase) underpinning the Leave campaign have tainted its victory and tainted the country in some way. Whether you agree with him or not, he's right that the moral underpinnings of political parties and political campaigns and politicians do matter.

    A Labour leader once claimed that Labour is a "moral crusade or it is nothing". Well, if it does not understand the harm done to its reputation by this issue, its claim to be a moral crusade is nothing.

    It is by no means the case that the lies in question a. were lies, b. were xenophobic or c. underpinned the Leave campaign. What really poisons political life is a two year shriek of outraged hissy fit to the effect that 52% of the electorate must be the most evil people in the world because they had the temerity to vote in a referendum in slightly greater numbers than your side did.
    I think you're missing the point that both Mr Meeks and I are making. But I have to work now so till later.
    No, you are missing the point. If you want to complain about lies, you are obliged to test your claims about lies to ensure that they are not in themselves lies. In this case they pretty clearly are.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952
    edited January 10

    There is highly unlikely to be an alternative to something which can be described, fairly or unfairly, as a dementia tax, since I suspect there’s no reasonable alternative, save a significant increase in taxation across the board, to asking people in their 70’s (like me) to set something aside for continuing care. At the moment my wife and I are sitting on our capital and funding expensive items, such as holidays out of income (our pensions). However, if one or other of use needs car the charges are likely to be of the order of £1000 per week, looking at a couple of local homes.
    And while there is support from the state towards the cost of homes, that still leaves a lot to be found.

    And you identify the real problem. My late sister had two and a half years in a nursing home under the Wales NHS continuing care scheme at a cost of nearly £90,000. She received this care because she had terminal cancer but if dementia it would have seen her lose her flat and only to be left with £23,000 in her estate and also the horror of losing her home. ( even to the end she hoped to go home)

    There has to very long term thinking involving Insurance Companies and the Government together with some personal contributions
    My in-laws were in a similar position. My mother in law had a severe stroke which left her totally imobile and father in law was demented. We fought for some State support, and won. This was in England, though.
    I fail to see why dementia isn’t an ‘illness’ when cancer is, and I certainl;y feel that some who becomes unable to carry out life’s normal activities, as for example, the result of a stroke is equally as ‘ill’ as someone with life limiting cancer.

    I can well imagine though there being a lot of critical editorials around the words Granny Tax or similar.
  • There is highly unlikely to be an alternative to something which can be described, fairly or unfairly, as a dementia tax, since I suspect there’s no reasonable alternative, save a significant increase in taxation across the board, to asking people in their 70’s (like me) to set something aside for continuing care. At the moment my wife and I are sitting on our capital and funding expensive items, such as holidays out of income (our pensions). However, if one or other of use needs car the charges are likely to be of the order of £1000 per week, looking at a couple of local homes.
    And while there is support from the state towards the cost of homes, that still leaves a lot to be found.

    And you identify the real problem. My late sister had two and a half years in a nursing home under the Wales NHS continuing care scheme at a cost of nearly £90,000. She received this care because she had terminal cancer but if dementia it would have seen her lose her flat and only to be left with £23,000 in her estate and also the horror of losing her home. ( even to the end she hoped to go home)

    There has to very long term thinking involving Insurance Companies and the Government together with some personal contributions
    It's hard enough to get young people to save for when they're old and creaky. Trying to get them to provide for a time when they might be senile and doubly incontinent is almost impossible.
    I am not suggesting young people should save early but there has to come a point when everyone takes some responsibilty for their care and as in all Insurance schemes not everyone who contributes will benefit.


  • ........................................................
    Political considerations shouldn't really come into this. Parts of the Left, the Left from which Corbyn and McDonnell come, have got themselves into a very bad position on the whole issue of anti-Semitism. They seem not to care or not care enough, though always willing to shriek about racism against other groups, or not willing to get themselves out of it. Perhaps it is a cynical calculation that it does not matter because there are not many votes in it. And in this they may be right. But it is morally reprehensible. And it puts some people (me, for instance, and possibly only me) right off.
    .....................................................

    I'm not sure they really have, there were incidents before and there are incidents now. There does seem to be a lot more press attention but then the left have attracted a lot of negative attention in the media in almost every other department so I don't see any reason to believe the media would strengthen their reporting of other negative areas but not that?

    Admittedly Labour has more members so you might expect more people more trouble but other than the increased abuse of social media that has happend in general I haven't seen any evidence of a big increase in anti Semitism as Labour. Lets not forget Ken Livingstone (if he is evidence of the anti Semites) was in Labour for years and years before Corbyn became leader.

    Wouldn't it be logical that Labours worsening press coverage on almost every aspect of it would include any anti Semitism rather than deliberately exclude it. You often see issues or decisions brought up from before Corbyn was even leader or that he has no power over used as further proof of this. Some were the incidents or decisions didn't seem to be complained about nearly as much at the time.

    You can't help but feel there is a certain bias that if you support Israel then obviously some racist idiot making an anti Semitic remark is nothing to do with you but if you don't support Israel's policies then any idiot making a remark is your fault. I'd argue Brexit has more to do with racism than Corbyn's Palestinian policies have to do with anti Semitism but there is undoubtedly an element of people pushing that agenda.

    If anything Corbyn can only help the situation by causing the press to shine such an intense light on it. With the recent rule change Corbyn approved any found to be making anti Semitic statements will be kicked out. Those who want to make political mileage out of the situation will.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 61
    edited January 10
    Last post got a bit long splitting it.

    .............
    ..............................................
    it is interesting that when he was first running for Labour leader Corbyn himself sought to defend himself by association. Apparently, the charge of anti-Semitism could not be levelled at him because his mother had fought at Cable Street against Mosley and campaigned against him. Well, good for her. But if he can claim virtue by association, why not vice? It's double standards.
    ....................................................

    Well surely he was playing the game the others brought to him, they said you are racist because of x connections he said he wasn't because of y connections, whose wrong there? where do your double standards come into this?

    I'd say don't judge him on his connections, judge him on him, show me Corbyn being anti Semitic and i'll agree he's anti Semitic with you or do you go for the connections angle? in which case Corbyn is both anti Semitic and anti anti Semitic I guess?

    Didn't see you were leaving thanks for the debate.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 25,278
    edited January 10

    Last post got a bit long splitting it.

    .............
    ..............................................
    it is interesting that when he was first running for Labour leader Corbyn himself sought to defend himself by association. Apparently, the charge of anti-Semitism could not be levelled at him because his mother had fought at Cable Street against Mosley and campaigned against him. Well, good for her. But if he can claim virtue by association, why not vice? It's double standards.
    ....................................................

    Well surely he was playing the game the others brought to him, they said you are racist because of x connections he said he wasn't because of y connections, whose wrong there? where do your double standards come into this?

    I'd say don't judge him on his connections, judge him on him, show me Corbyn being anti Semitic and i'll agree he's anti Semitic with you or do you go for the connections angle? in which case Corbyn is both anti Semitic and anti anti Semitic I guess?

    Corbyn has retained serial Jew-baiter Chris Williamson on his front bench; he has appointed apologists for Stalinism, Maoism and Islamism to his leadership team. His actions clearly demonstrate a tolerance of - if not an active support for - anti-Semitism and any kind of oppressive, violent cause or regime as long as it is anti-western generally or anti-UK, anti-US and/or anti-Israel specifically. But people know all this and enough of them are repelled enough by Mrs May and her hopeless, hapless government, and the version of Brexit they offer, to hold their noses - not to vote for Jeremy, but to vote against the Conservatives. Attacks on him are not going to work.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,116

    Last post got a bit long splitting it.

    .............
    ..............................................
    it is interesting that when he was first running for Labour leader Corbyn himself sought to defend himself by association. Apparently, the charge of anti-Semitism could not be levelled at him because his mother had fought at Cable Street against Mosley and campaigned against him. Well, good for her. But if he can claim virtue by association, why not vice? It's double standards.
    ....................................................

    Well surely he was playing the game the others brought to him, they said you are racist because of x connections he said he wasn't because of y connections, whose wrong there? where do your double standards come into this?

    I'd say don't judge him on his connections, judge him on him, show me Corbyn being anti Semitic and i'll agree he's anti Semitic with you or do you go for the connections angle? in which case Corbyn is both anti Semitic and anti anti Semitic I guess?

    Didn't see you were leaving thanks for the debate.

    I have never said that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. And I don't. That is a very serious charge and I would not make it without clear evidence. Let me be clear. I criticise him for not doing enough to root out the anti-semitism of others in his party, for turning a blind eye. But the recent rule change is welcome.

    And now I really am off. Thanks to you too. :)
  • 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 e dementia tax policy and hammer Corbyn on tax, especially IHT

    Corbyn will ensure the Tories have a great chance of winning next time. It's the election after that which is likely to lay them very low indeed and probably for a fair amount of time.

    As I have said previously longer term a Corbyn government without a working majority would probably be a better bet for the Tories than winning next time (though it would certainly be worse for the country).

    After beating Kinnock narrowly in 1992, the Tories did not win another general election for 23 years.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628
    edited January 10
    I don't think Jezza is an anti-semite (some of his best friends, I'm sure...).

    But he is virulently anti-imperialist and he believes that Israel is an Imperial power oppressing the indigenous Palestinian peoples.

    That he may have an ability to make what at times can be a wafer-think distinction between taking a position against Israel for its perceived injustices, and a general anti-semitic position, is one that his followers don't always possess.

    In short, the Left has never forgiven Israel and the Jews for becoming strong and no longer in need of saving (cf. working class RTB beneficiaries who now have become part of the Capitalist Running PigDog Class).
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,314
    HYUFD said:

    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
    My point was how unwise it is to put too much faith in polls.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,084
    Mr. Observer, may change if the Conservatives get a better leader.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,604
    Scott_P said:

    @faisalislam: BArnier appreciated the Brexit hamper, his adviser tells us that the cheese had EU origin protection mark, marmalade the EU organic mark twitter.com/stefaanderynck…

    Well, err, yeah. We're still in the EU.

    Still, even I think this was a rather silly thing to do.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,604

    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.

    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
    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

    Corbyn will ensure the Tories have a great chance of winning next time. It's the election after that which is likely to lay them very low indeed and probably for a fair amount of time.

    I'm kind of ok with that. In GE2027 the Tories will have been in power for 17 years. It's healthy for democracy for there to be a change and for the Tories to think about renewing themselves in opposition.

    I just hope it's opposition for only 5 years, rather than another 13 or more ;-)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555
    edited January 10

    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.

    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
    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

    Corbyn will ensure the Tories have a great chance of winning next time. It's the election after that which is likely to lay them very low indeed and probably for a fair amount of time.

    I'm kind of ok with that. In GE2027 the Tories will have been in power for 17 years. It's healthy for democracy for there to be a change and for the Tories to think about renewing themselves in opposition.

    I just hope it's opposition for only 5 years, rather than another 13 or more ;-)
    If the Tories win next time the odds are they will lose heavily in 2027 and be out for at least a decade.

    If the Tories narrowly lose next time against Corbyn they could be back in power in 5 years
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,604
    IanB2 said:

    Mr. Urquhart, I agree. Next thrust of the manifesto should be the economy, though. May's idiocy in not bothering to campaign on the Conservatives' strongest point is somewhat neglected (beside the dementia tax failure) but was another very stupid own goal.

    Remember that the 'long-term economic plan' was abandoned soon after the referendum result and the Tories hadn't (and indeed haven't) worked out their post-Brexit economic policy. Coupled with a manifesto devoid of costings, they were simply unable to campaign on the economy in the way of previous elections.
    Dunno. May still could have pulled Cameron's "no money left" letter trick in the televised Q&A, and the attack on the Garden Tax in the last 10 days was effective.

    In reality the economy didn't feature because Timothy and Hill locked Hammond up.
  • To support the Palestinian cause does not require travel to Syria to visit President Assad with a group which denies the Holocaust To support the Palestinian cause does not require you to invite to Parliament a man convicted of the ancient blood libel against Jews and say voice which must be heard.
    ___________

    To support a cause could involve as little as giving a few pound to charity every month, to actually hope to support it in any meaningful way would probably involve meeting with many of the local players. Who generally in the Middle East are going to be bad people.

    Just meeting with people in and of itself isn't evil, if Corbyn is going there with the mission to promote Holocaust denial or to encourage Assad to kill people or other bad things then that is definitely wrong, I can't say that I believe he is though.

    We refused to work with, or would only in limited ways work with the PLO for many years because they were beyond the pale, because we refused to deal with the issues that caused the PLO or the PLO itself they went to another extreme, for a number of reasons in fairness (corruption in PLO and Hamas would run welfare programs) but their greater extremism was an element of it. We can continue to stick our fingers in our ears and refuse to deal with the actual situation because we are too morally pure to talk to these people or we can deal with reality.

    __________
    Read the Thornberry speech: she understands the problem
    __________

    There are anti zionists who aren't anti Semitic and those who are... personally I just avoid the whole Zionism label and any other labels, say like socialism, that people tend to argue about it, I've seen some people give definitions that I doubt many people at all would support, or to put it onto slightly less controversial territory I avoided calling myself a socialist after a couple of arguments regarding North Korea, I'd rather hear the individuals actual view than the label wars both sides engage in....

    ________
    And I don't think he should only talk about this issue. But he should do more if he really wants to deal with it. It is only going to fester and continue and get worse if he does not.
    ________

    He has condemned abuse of women MPs, or racism and all other kinds of abuse quite a few times, wouldn't be surprised if it is more then Theresa May has done. What is the number he hasn't met that others seemingly have? He has passed rule changes recently that (I think) the Jewish Labour Movement came up with. I don't really know of any anti hate rules he has stopped. Unless the something he should do he should also think up...? and presumably all the other leaders have already done this and that is why they escape your ire?

    Dianne Abbot is not being abused by Corbyn fans and has suffered far more abuse than any other MP (non leader) so I presume you are just as annoyed at all the other political parties and ideologies for their encouragement of this racism and sexism?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,731
    edited January 10
    I suspect the message on Corbyn/Labour will be refined by 2022. Focus grouping will work out what resonates - I wonder if the appearances on / payments from TV stations of foreign states might be the way forward. Russia, Iran etc.

    Of course, events might lead to his views/those he supports resonating more next time.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,622
    edited January 10
    An even longer journey.

    marmite
    noun
    An earthenware cooking container.
    Origin
    Early 19th century: French, from Old French marmite ‘hypocritical’, with reference to the hidden contents of the lidded pot, from marmotter ‘to mutter’ + mite ‘cat’.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,604
    Sean_F 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
    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.
    Corbyn will come unstuck (eventually) because unlike his most fanatical supporters most people (even the very young) aren't motivated today by class conflict, or steeped in Trade Union traditions, and expect consumer choice and the chance to own their home.

    They (or at least a large number of them) are interested in internationalism and progressive causes on identity politics, the environment and animal rights, but his core socialist ideology is a minority taste and what support for it that exists is generally based on the belief he will offer more spending and free-stuff at no-cost to them.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,084
    Mr. Mortimer, only if May or her successor actually learn the lessons (to use a cliche) from her 2017 campaign failure.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,278

    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 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
    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

    Corbyn will ensure the Tories have a great chance of winning next time. It's the election after that which is likely to lay them very low indeed and probably for a fair amount of time.

    I'm kind of ok with that. In GE2027 the Tories will have been in power for 17 years. It's healthy for democracy for there to be a change and for the Tories to think about renewing themselves in opposition.

    I just hope it's opposition for only 5 years, rather than another 13 or more ;-)
    I'm not so sure; it could easily be the other way around. Losing again under Corbyn would hit Labour hard, and another spell in opposition could very easily start a sequence of events that leads to a re-shaping of politics on the centre left. Whereas if Corbyn wins, particularly if narrowly, so that his wackier ideas are constrained by the SNP or LDs, the Tories could easily be out of office for some time - particularly if their Brexit is very obviously going sour.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,813
    edited January 10
    I have not seen the number posted. Labour had something like 30% of the vote in 2010 - neck and neck with the Tories.

    http://www.brin.ac.uk/2010/political-leanings-of-britains-jews/

    There have been antisemitic ginger groups around in Labour for a fair old time - and significant overlapping or associating with groups where Corbyn has been or is still a lynchpin. PSC and STW are two such, if you scratch the surface; Corbyn has been up to his neck in both for a very long time.

    David Collier wrote a detailed blog post and well-researched report on the PSC in 2017.
    http://david-collier.com/psc-riddled-antisemitism/

    I don't know enough about Corbyn's personal views to make an assessment, but his associations make him a useful idiot at the least imo.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,604
    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.
    Some people just very rarely engage with opposing viewpoints.

    A close friend of mine (who works in the same industry as me, and is very clever, but very much lives in Islington, both figuratively and literally) posted an interview from Sky News on Facebook the other night from a Left-wing attack channel where the interviewee (Met Police, sound familiar?) argued the Tories had racism at the core of their administration. She said that whilst she agreed the Tories weren't directly racist, they were institutionally racist.

    Through private dialogue with her she eventually conceded this was unfounded, and toxifying the debate, and decided to take the post down - at her own instigation, I did not ask her to.

    The root cause at heart, basically, was her frustration over austerity.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,555
    edited January 10
    IanB2 said:

    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 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
    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 lmost 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

    Corbyn will ensure the Tories have a great chance of winning next time. It's the election after that which is likely to lay them very low indeed and probably for a fair amount of time.

    I'm kind of ok with that. In GE2027 the Tories will have been in power for 17 years. It's healthy for democracy for there to be a change and for the Tories to think about renewing themselves in opposition.

    I just hope it's opposition for only 5 years, rather than another 13 or more ;-)
    I'm not so sure; it could easily be the other way around. Losing again under Corbyn would hit Labour hard, and another spell in opposition could very easily start a sequence of events that leads to a re-shaping of politics on the centre left. Whereas if Corbyn wins, particularly if narrowly, so that his wackier ideas are constrained by the SNP or LDs, the Tories could easily be out of office for some time - particularly if their Brexit is very obviously going sour.
    The opposite. If Corbyn loses again Labour is more likely to move back to the centre again and the mood for a change strong.

    If Corbyn narrowly wins the economy will head south, inflation will soar as will taxes and union militancy and the UK will still be out of the single market. The Tory opposition would see a quicker revival than Lazarus
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,849
    Origin
    Early 19th century: French, from Old French marmite ‘hypocritical’, with reference to the hidden contents of the lidded pot, from marmotter ‘to mutter’ + mite ‘cat’.

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/marmite

    Saw something on Twitter, and have just looked it up.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 5,973
    edited January 10
    I don't believe in a 1,000 year Tory reich, despite being right of centre (what does even mean any longer? Call me a social wet/fiscal dry). This government seems as tired and out of ideas as Major's.

    Given that debt servicing is now the fourth largest line item in the public accounts, any Conservative argument about running a sound economy rings increasingly hollow.

    The tragedy for the country is that the alternative is a Corbyn-led administration. However, it might, in the medium term, do us good to see what that looks like in practice.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,925

    murali_s said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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.
    Isn't that quite subjective? One could argue that British troops committed war crimes in Iraq in the name of conquest.

    I find this argument quite disingenuous. It's one rule for some and one rule for others...
    I think @Cyclefree 's point is that it's one rule for some (the army) and *no* rule for others (terrorists)
    One man terrorist is one man's freedom fighter. Twas always such...
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,849
    @Theuniondivvie You beat me too it!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,627
    DavidL said:

    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.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-08/u-k-consumer-pullback-sees-worst-year-for-spending-since-2012
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,926
    John_M said:

    I don't believe in a 1,000 year Tory reich, despite being right of centre (what does even mean any longer? Call me a social wet/fiscal dry). This government seems as tired and out of ideas as Major's.

    Given that debt servicing is now the fourth largest line item in the public accounts, any Conservative argument about running a sound economy rings increasingly hollow.

    The tragedy for the country is that the alternative is a Corbyn-led administration. However, it might, in the medium term, does us good to see what that looks like in practice.

    I think you underestimate the fragility of our position. We have not recovered from the last Labour government. They ran a trade deficit throughout its entire existence. It didn't matter apparently. Now we find the difference between GDP and GNP growing as the profits generated in this country are repatriated to their owners.

    The structural deficit run up by Brown is diminished but the consequences of that deficit in terms of accumulated debt will be with us for another 20 years. We need to at least eliminate the deficit and then grow the economy so that the debt/GDP ratio improves dramatically. The exact opposite would happen if we had a Labour government again.

    We have an economy that is still dangerously indebted. That is partly a result of the factors already mentioned, the lack of focus on production, the casual disregard of the need to export and the excessive consumption encouraged by too loose a monetary policy but it makes us incredibly vulnerable to a downturn.

    2017 is looking like a year where growth came from production rather than consumption. It was not particularly pleasant or popular but we need more of it, much more.

    Those who think that Labour could not do very serious damage to our economy, our public services and our standard of living in a short time are underestimating the underlying weaknesses in our economy to a dangerous extent.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 25,278
    The really interesting thing about that utterly cringe-worthy hamper was how few products were representing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As such it was a fine example of the English nationalism that drives so many right-wing Brexiteers.

  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 61
    edited January 10
    ....................................
    I have not seen the number posted. Labour had something like 30% of the vote in 2010 - neck and neck with the Tories.
    ................................

    Then the number dramatically dropped under Ed Miliband who presumably people don't think encourages anti Semitism in the same way Corbyn does. Ed did start to move the Labour party policy more in the direction of a neutral position between Israel and Palestine rather than a pro Israel one. Maybe for some Jewish voters the vote change is about Israel policy rather than Antisemitism unless we are accusing Ed of the same things Corbyn is being accused of?

    I'd imagine something involving Palestine would naturally draw people in who are anti Semitic even if you try and avoid it, just as an immigration debate would draw in people with racist views.

    If they do things such as Farage with the poster then that can be worthy of criticism but should topics such as Palestine and immigration be avoided because of the obvious attractions of racists?

    Many of those figures on the left (older ones anyway) were similarly involved in anti apartheid struggles there can be an argument made that there are similarities between the two situations, so you have to ask couldn't it be a case of disliking injustice rather than something more sinister, presumably some of these same people weren't so against apartheid because of their racist views.

    .........
    In short, the Left has never forgiven Israel and the Jews for becoming strong and no longer in need of saving (cf. working class RTB beneficiaries who now have become part of the Capitalist Running PigDog Class).
    .......

    Doesn't that make sense though, you support those who need it you legislate against those who victimise others.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,419
    John_M said:

    I don't believe in a 1,000 year Tory reich, despite being right of centre (what does even mean any longer? Call me a social wet/fiscal dry). This government seems as tired and out of ideas as Major's.

    Given that debt servicing is now the fourth largest line item in the public accounts, any Conservative argument about running a sound economy rings increasingly hollow.

    The tragedy for the country is that the alternative is a Corbyn-led administration. However, it might, in the medium term, do us good to see what that looks like in practice.

    A lot of kids losing jobs. No prospects for kids coming through education.

    House price slump. Interest rates rise. Hello, negative equity.

    Flight of capital. Inward investment way down. Reduced tax receipts. Middle class getting hit "til the pips squeak".

    Pension pots crashing. Pension age rising.

    NHS in England worse than Wales.

    I'm not sure how that would "do us good" in anything but the very long term.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 26,236

    The really interesting thing about that utterly cringe-worthy hamper was how few products were representing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As such it was a fine example of the English nationalism that drives so many right-wing Brexiteers.

    Hendricks is distilled in Scotland.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,329
    edited January 10
    Left/right, it doesn't matter , everyone is screwed bar the wealthy.. and the man to blame is Gordon Brown.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 25,278

    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.

    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
    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

    Corbyn will ensure the Tories have a great chance of winning next time. It's the election after that which is likely to lay them very low indeed and probably for a fair amount of time.

    I'm kind of ok with that. In GE2027 the Tories will have been in power for 17 years. It's healthy for democracy for there to be a change and for the Tories to think about renewing themselves in opposition.

    I just hope it's opposition for only 5 years, rather than another 13 or more ;-)

    I suspect it will be for a lot longer than five years. The Tories are already tired and out of ideas. Another seven years in office will exhaust them completely - and give Labour a built-in Tory Brexit excuse for everything that goes wrong on their watch. If I am still alive in 2027, I expect that I will have seen my last Tory government (I'll be 64).

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628

    ....................................
    I have not seen the number posted. Labour had something like 30% of the vote in 2010 - neck and neck with the Tories.
    ................................

    Then the number dramatically dropped under Ed Miliband who presumably people don't think encourages anti Semitism in the same way Corbyn does. Ed did start to move the Labour party policy more in the direction of a neutral position between Israel and Palestine rather than a pro Israel one. Maybe for some Jewish voters the vote change is about Israel policy rather than Antisemitism unless we are accusing Ed of the same things Corbyn is being accused of?

    I'd imagine something involving Palestine would naturally draw people in who are anti Semitic even if you try and avoid it, just as an immigration debate would draw in people with racist views.

    If they do things such as Farage with the poster then that can be worthy of criticism but should topics such as Palestine and immigration be avoided because of the obvious attractions of racists?

    Many of those figures on the left (older ones anyway) were similarly involved in anti apartheid struggles there can be an argument made that there are similarities between the two situations, so you have to ask couldn't it be a case of disliking injustice rather than something more sinister, presumably some of these same people weren't so against apartheid because of their racist views.

    As mentioned upthread - add imperialism to the mix. Israel is perceived as an Imperialist Power and UK Jews are perceived as supporting that Imperialist Power and hence they get the flak (together with, as you say, the racists who may be attracted in).

    Plenty of Socialists supported Israel when it was a plucky little country being attacked by its neighbours (immediately after UN Resolution 181, for example). Once that country asserted its power and influence then it stopped being a poster child for the left and sympathies switched to the Palestinians.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,926
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:
    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.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-08/u-k-consumer-pullback-sees-worst-year-for-spending-since-2012
    Curiously, I preferred this one: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/10/uk-manufacturing-output-rises-eighth-month-in-row

    0.6% and you've lost. It's going to be close.

    I reprinted my 2017 forecasts earlier. Whilst I got a few things right I was far too optimistic about growth, wage growth and inflation (the last because I didn't anticipate such a fall in sterling). I also printed my 2018 forecasts. I like to see where I am going wrong and learn.

    In 2017 I was expecting fairly rapid growth at the start and then diminishing growth as the year went on. It has turned out the opposite. Q1 was a real surprise. Once again we seem to have a strong end to the year. Will we see a repeat in Q1 2018?
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 5,973

    John_M said:

    I don't believe in a 1,000 year Tory reich, despite being right of centre (what does even mean any longer? Call me a social wet/fiscal dry). This government seems as tired and out of ideas as Major's.

    Given that debt servicing is now the fourth largest line item in the public accounts, any Conservative argument about running a sound economy rings increasingly hollow.

    The tragedy for the country is that the alternative is a Corbyn-led administration. However, it might, in the medium term, do us good to see what that looks like in practice.

    A lot of kids losing jobs. No prospects for kids coming through education.

    House price slump. Interest rates rise. Hello, negative equity.

    Flight of capital. Inward investment way down. Reduced tax receipts. Middle class getting hit "til the pips squeak".

    Pension pots crashing. Pension age rising.

    NHS in England worse than Wales.

    I'm not sure how that would "do us good" in anything but the very long term.
    Isn't this just a given post-Brexit? What's one more drop of water to a drowning man?

    More seriously, I'm in my late fifties. I remember the days of Militant and unions out of control. Younger folk clearly don't. The tree of Conservatism must be refreshed from time to time by the economic policies of a Socialist government. Or something.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,325
    edited January 10

    Sean_F 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.

    nt).

    er
    Tbe much clearer
    The biggest might.
    It is over for the old guard and for Boris and Davis.

    No it is not, 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


    Corbyn will come unstuck (eventually) because unlike his most fanatical supporters most people (even the very young) aren't motivated today by class conflict, or steeped in Trade Union traditions, and expect consumer choice and the chance to own their home.

    They (or at least a large number of them) are interested in internationalism and progressive causes on identity politics, the environment and animal rights, but his core socialist ideology is a minority taste and what support for it that exists is generally based on the belief he will offer more spending and free-stuff at no-cost to them.
    While don’t know about Corbyn getting unstuck (a lot of people are determined to project a certain image onto him) you are absolutely right re your second paragraph. It’s reflected in Curtice’s observation that Labour attracted most of all, not left wing voters but socially liberal voters. I suspect Corbyn knows that young people who voted for him care more about issues concerning identity politics/progressive causes than his particular brand of socialism that’s why he’s framing his ideology in terms of issues concerning austerity and home ownership.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 25,278

    The really interesting thing about that utterly cringe-worthy hamper was how few products were representing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As such it was a fine example of the English nationalism that drives so many right-wing Brexiteers.

    Hendricks is distilled in Scotland.

    Hence my use of the term "how few". Of course, the obvious Scottish product was not gin! I wonder whether the hamper was the result of a raid on Digby Jones's cupboards and bookshelves that took place before the bold English Brexiteers headed off on their trip.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 943
    Interesting, so much anti-Corbyn comment on this thread, all the old stories and themes, most of which have been already dismissed as fake previously. Why, it is almost as if some are predicting an early election and want to control the conversation as they are scared that they are going to be well and truly, humped. But, no, such a thing would never happen in this forum...
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,291
    DavidL said:

    [snip]

    Those who think that Labour could not do very serious damage to our economy, our public services and our standard of living in a short time are underestimating the underlying weaknesses in our economy to a dangerous extent.

    Exactly right. And we're not talking about a reasonably sensible potential Labour Chancellor along the lines of Alastair Darling or Ed Balls, who might spend more than is wise but who are not totally out with the fairies. We are talking about Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, egged on by Seamas Milne and Jon Lansman. That is another league of destructiveness altogether.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,813
    TOPPING said:

    ....................................
    I have not seen the number posted. Labour had something like 30% of the vote in 2010 - neck and neck with the Tories.
    ................................

    Then the number dramatically dropped under Ed Miliband who presumably people don't think encourages anti Semitism in the same way Corbyn does. Ed did start to move the Labour party policy more in the direction of a neutral position between Israel and Palestine rather than a pro Israel one. Maybe for some Jewish voters the vote change is about Israel policy rather than Antisemitism unless we are accusing Ed of the same things Corbyn is being accused of?

    I'd imagine something involving Palestine would naturally draw people in who are anti Semitic even if you try and avoid it, just as an immigration debate would draw in people with racist views.

    If they do things such as Farage with the poster then that can be worthy of criticism but should topics such as Palestine and immigration be avoided because of the obvious attractions of racists?

    Many of those figures on the left (older ones anyway) were similarly involved in anti apartheid struggles there can be an argument made that there are similarities between the two situations, so you have to ask couldn't it be a case of disliking injustice rather than something more sinister, presumably some of these same people weren't so against apartheid because of their racist views.

    As mentioned upthread - add imperialism to the mix. Israel is perceived as an Imperialist Power and UK Jews are perceived as supporting that Imperialist Power and hence they get the flak (together with, as you say, the racists who may be attracted in).

    Plenty of Socialists supported Israel when it was a plucky little country being attacked by its neighbours (immediately after UN Resolution 181, for example). Once that country asserted its power and influence then it stopped being a poster child for the left and sympathies switched to the Palestinians.
    (Speculating) For the 2010-2015 period, there may be an association with Ken Livingstone contrversies, and Finchley & Golders' Green and similar being London contituencies with a significant proprtion of the UK Jewish community. Plus of course the underlying swings in 2010.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,291
    John_M said:

    John_M said:

    I don't believe in a 1,000 year Tory reich, despite being right of centre (what does even mean any longer? Call me a social wet/fiscal dry). This government seems as tired and out of ideas as Major's.

    Given that debt servicing is now the fourth largest line item in the public accounts, any Conservative argument about running a sound economy rings increasingly hollow.

    The tragedy for the country is that the alternative is a Corbyn-led administration. However, it might, in the medium term, do us good to see what that looks like in practice.

    A lot of kids losing jobs. No prospects for kids coming through education.

    House price slump. Interest rates rise. Hello, negative equity.

    Flight of capital. Inward investment way down. Reduced tax receipts. Middle class getting hit "til the pips squeak".

    Pension pots crashing. Pension age rising.

    NHS in England worse than Wales.

    I'm not sure how that would "do us good" in anything but the very long term.
    Isn't this just a given post-Brexit? What's one more drop of water to a drowning man?

    More seriously, I'm in my late fifties. I remember the days of Militant and unions out of control. Younger folk clearly don't. The tree of Conservatism must be refreshed from time to time by the economic policies of a Socialist government. Or something.
    Militant didn't end up running the country then, although the same people are back hoping to do so soon.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,066

    DavidL said:

    [snip]

    Those who think that Labour could not do very serious damage to our economy, our public services and our standard of living in a short time are underestimating the underlying weaknesses in our economy to a dangerous extent.

    Exactly right. And we're not talking about a reasonably sensible potential Labour Chancellor along the lines of Alastair Darling or Ed Balls, who might spend more than is wise but who are not totally out with the fairies. We are talking about Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, egged on by Seamas Milne and Jon Lansman. That is another league of destructiveness altogether.
    I'm struggling to see how Labour's policies could be more malign than Brexit.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,291
    edited January 10

    DavidL said:

    [snip]

    Those who think that Labour could not do very serious damage to our economy, our public services and our standard of living in a short time are underestimating the underlying weaknesses in our economy to a dangerous extent.

    Exactly right. And we're not talking about a reasonably sensible potential Labour Chancellor along the lines of Alastair Darling or Ed Balls, who might spend more than is wise but who are not totally out with the fairies. We are talking about Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, egged on by Seamas Milne and Jon Lansman. That is another league of destructiveness altogether.
    I'm struggling to see how Labour's policies could be more malign than Brexit.
    I sincerely hope you don't have to find out the hard way. In any case they are not either/or, but cumulative.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,947
    OchEye said:

    Interesting, so much anti-Corbyn comment on this thread, all the old stories and themes, most of which have been already dismissed as fake previously. Why, it is almost as if some are predicting an early election and want to control the conversation as they are scared that they are going to be well and truly, humped. But, no, such a thing would never happen in this forum...

    I think you may be over-analysing it.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,066

    DavidL said:

    [snip]

    Those who think that Labour could not do very serious damage to our economy, our public services and our standard of living in a short time are underestimating the underlying weaknesses in our economy to a dangerous extent.

    Exactly right. And we're not talking about a reasonably sensible potential Labour Chancellor along the lines of Alastair Darling or Ed Balls, who might spend more than is wise but who are not totally out with the fairies. We are talking about Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, egged on by Seamas Milne and Jon Lansman. That is another league of destructiveness altogether.
    I'm struggling to see how Labour's policies could be more malign than Brexit.
    I sincerely hope you don't have to find out the hard way.
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Corbynite. But dedicated Conservatives seem determined to underestimate just how much damage they are doing to the country at present. So throwing up their hands in horror at the prospect of a Labour government isn't the slam dunk they think it is.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628
    MattW said:

    TOPPING said:

    ....................................
    I have not seen the number posted. Labour had something like 30% of the vote in 2010 - neck and neck with the Tories.
    ................................

    Then the number dramatically dropped under Ed Miliband who presumably people don't think encourages anti Semitism in the same way Corbyn does. Ed did start to move the Labour party policy more in the direction of a neutral position between Israel and Palestine rather than a pro Israel one. Maybe for some Jewish voters the vote change is about Israel policy rather than Antisemitism unless we are accusing Ed of the same things Corbyn is being accused of?

    I'd imagine something involving Palestine would naturally draw people in who are anti Semitic even if you try and avoid it, just as an immigration debate would draw in people with racist views.

    If they do things such as Farage with the poster then that can be worthy of criticism but should topics such as Palestine and immigration be avoided because of the obvious attractions of racists?

    Many of those figures on the left (older ones anyway) were similarly involved in anti apartheid struggles there can be an argument made that there are similarities between the two situations, so you have to ask couldn't it be a case of disliking injustice rather than something more sinister, presumably some of these same people weren't so against apartheid because of their racist views.

    As mentioned upthread - add imperialism to the mix. Israel is perceived as an Imperialist Power and UK Jews are perceived as supporting that Imperialist Power and hence they get the flak (together with, as you say, the racists who may be attracted in).

    Plenty of Socialists supported Israel when it was a plucky little country being attacked by its neighbours (immediately after UN Resolution 181, for example). Once that country asserted its power and influence then it stopped being a poster child for the left and sympathies switched to the Palestinians.
    (Speculating) For the 2010-2015 period, there may be an association with Ken Livingstone contrversies, and Finchley & Golders' Green and similar being London contituencies with a significant proprtion of the UK Jewish community. Plus of course the underlying swings in 2010.
    Yes. Canvassing in NW London for Boris (god help me) it was an easy pitch.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 349

    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.

    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
    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
    specially IHT

    Corbyn will ensure the Tories have a great chance of winning next time. It's the election after that which is likely to lay them very low indeed and probably for a fair amount of time.

    more ;-)

    I suspect it will be for a lot longer than five years. The Tories are already tired and out of ideas. Another seven years in office will exhaust them completely - and give Labour a built-in Tory Brexit excuse for everything that goes wrong on their watch. If I am still alive in 2027, I expect that I will have seen my last Tory government (I'll be 64).

    When I was at university circa 1995, a now forgotten Major cabinet minister Roger Freeman MP came to address the student Tories. In private conversation he said how defeat in 97 wouldn't be so bad as Blair would quickly lose popularity and the Tories would reinvigorate in opposition and be back in power a few years later. Didnt quite work out way did it, and Freeman clearly didnt expect to lose his own seat.

    The electorate naturally fluctuates between being angry with Labour for messing up the economy, and being angry with the Tories for messing up public services. When Labour do next get in, they'll be in for a fair while.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,291

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Corbynite. But dedicated Conservatives seem determined to underestimate just how much damage they are doing to the country at present. So throwing up their hands in horror at the prospect of a Labour government isn't the slam dunk they think it is.

    Any damage done to the economy will be as a result of the referendum result. It's damage which voters wanted, mistakenly in my view, but there we go. It would be catastrophic to double up and add Corbynomics to the mix.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,947
    HHemmelig said:



    When I was at university circa 1995, a now forgotten Major cabinet minister Roger Freeman MP came to address the student Tories. In private conversation he said how defeat in 97 wouldn't be so bad as Blair would quickly lose popularity and the Tories would reinvigorate in opposition and be back in power a few years later. Didnt quite work out way did it, and Freeman clearly didnt expect to lose his own seat.

    The electorate naturally fluctuates between being angry with Labour for messing up the economy, and being angry with the Tories for messing up public services. When Labour do next get in, they'll be in for a fair while.

    A bit ironic, given the previous paragraph. :p
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,066

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Corbynite. But dedicated Conservatives seem determined to underestimate just how much damage they are doing to the country at present. So throwing up their hands in horror at the prospect of a Labour government isn't the slam dunk they think it is.

    Any damage done to the economy will be as a result of the referendum result. It's damage which voters wanted, mistakenly in my view, but there we go. It would be catastrophic to double up and add Corbynomics to the mix.
    The Argentinification of Britain awaits.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,291
    Personally I don't think I can forecast the result of the next election, let alone the next few! We should always remember that the slammest of all recent dunks was Theresa May to get a huge majority, just a few weeks before she humiliatingly lost the majority she'd inherited.
This discussion has been closed.