steve
Member
Posts: 12,785
|
Post by steve on Dec 12, 2021 10:38:47 GMT
Attachment DeletedLabour leader Keir Starmer says Johnson quiz appears to have broken law Labour leader Keir Starmer has said that UK prime minister Boris Johnson appeared to have broken the law with an alleged Christmas quiz and that he must have known there were other groups taking part in other rooms. Asked on the BBC’s The Andrew Marr Show whether he was breaking the rules, Starmer said: Well it looks as though he was. And he must have known those other groups were in other rooms in his own building. And this is very important because he’s damaged his authority, he’s now so weak, his party’s so divided, he can’t deliver the leadership this country needs. Another nail in the Spaffer coffin Cummings who knows the inside of number 10/11 downing street far better than I do pointed out that Spaffer could only have accessed his flat while passing the door of the room where the Dec 18th party was taking place. So unless he was both blind and deaf he must have known about it at the time.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,785
|
Post by steve on Dec 12, 2021 10:47:53 GMT
Neil
Correct but you would need to have people seriously ill in hospital in anticipation,however those in hospital aren't generally as ill as in previous waves and are being discharged earlier.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 12, 2021 10:49:09 GMT
crossbat11 - thanks for your thoughts and idle musings, I've missed them! I agree with your outline about Johnson being a figure of ridicule, and how dangerous that can be, tho what I'd note on your comparisons to May and Major was that firstly May remained as PM for nearly two years after the shambolic conference speech, and secondly Major's affair with Currie didn't come out until years after he left office (and the leadership) so had no bearing on his departure - that was pretty directly down to him losing literally half his MPs in the election :-) Whether things are already fatal for Johnson, or soon will be, I'm less clear. The zipwire alone would have finished the ambitions of most contenders, as would being an oft-sacked charlatan or having so many offensive articles written under his name, but the next two words when discussing him always seem to be "and yet...". Of course, nothing lasts forever but when someone is a serial exception to normal rules than the 20th iteration of "surely *this* time..." needs some powerful framing to be convincing. My man, the Edge of Reason. How are you? An anecdote before I respond to your comments about Major and May. As you know, I'd more or less permanently retired from UKPR over 12 months ago but my return, very likely to be a short lived one I think, is probably down to you. Having ceased posting a year or so ago, I'd actually stopped even looking at the old site about 6 months ago. Then, via a convoluted network of friends, I was told UKPR was breathing its last. For old times sake, I dipped in last week to see Anthony's valediction. The very last post on the thread was yours inviting me to put my porridge spoon down and return!! You kindly posted a link to this new site too so, slightly against my better judgement, I thought I'd dally once again for a bit. So, here I am, not quite by popular demand maybe, but certainly borne by a failure to totally quit old habits. I have to say my last truly enjoyable time on here was discussing the 2020 US Presidential elections with fellow posters like you, James E, Somerjohn, Alec etc. I lost my mojo shortly thereafter. You may be right about the Major/Currie timeline but I think Major became a largely ludicrous political figure when his risible Back to Basics campaign died on various Tory misdemeanour crosses. His own hilarious transgression, as you suggest, probably came a bit later, but it certainly compounded the sense of facile silliness that embraced a lot of his premiership. May did linger on, and there were obviously more substantial reasons for her final defenestration, but she became a figure of fun during the 2019 election campaign and the Conference pratfalls played into a gathering narrative of haplessness. As I say, in politics, if you cease to be taken seriously, you're finished. The point about Johnson's slide is that the arch and confected silliness that initially surrounded him was part of his alleged charm and difference. Now, laced as the silliness is with hypocrisy and incompetence, what was once benign becomes malignant. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,598
|
Post by Danny on Dec 12, 2021 10:49:21 GMT
My understanding that deaths reported often lag by a week or more from the actual day of death, certainly the case in the UK and I cannot believe South Africa will be much different. ...So the death figures for yesterday, for example, will likely show a rise in a weeks time My view is that it is still too early to make a judgement, the figures look promising but even if the serious cases of Omicron are 50% of those of delta, if you have 3 times as many cases of omicron you are still in worse position I am certain if anyone had died from omicron it would have been immediate reported, not wait to go through usual channels. The evidence is suggesting mortality from omicron is a lot lower than 50% reduction. Currently it's 0% death rate. Based on actual observations of omicron there is no information inconsistent with it only being a very bad cold at worst. Don't forget replacing delta around the world with omicron could actually save lives because people won't die from omicron who will die if they get delta. It's a process called vaccination which was discovered by Jenner. He too had trouble persuading people it would save lives. Funny how pro vaccine people only believe in vaccination if you buy it from a profit making company. |
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Dec 12, 2021 11:02:18 GMT
crossbat11 - thanks for your thoughts and idle musings, I've missed them! I agree with your outline about Johnson being a figure of ridicule, and how dangerous that can be, tho what I'd note on your comparisons to May and Major was that firstly May remained as PM for nearly two years after the shambolic conference speech, and secondly Major's affair with Currie didn't come out until years after he left office (and the leadership) so had no bearing on his departure - that was pretty directly down to him losing literally half his MPs in the election :-) Whether things are already fatal for Johnson, or soon will be, I'm less clear. The zipwire alone would have finished the ambitions of most contenders, as would being an oft-sacked charlatan or having so many offensive articles written under his name, but the next two words when discussing him always seem to be "and yet...". Of course, nothing lasts forever but when someone is a serial exception to normal rules than the 20th iteration of "surely *this* time..." needs some powerful framing to be convincing. My man, the Edge of Reason. How are you? An anecdote before I respond to your comments about Major and May. As you know, I'd more or less permanently retired from UKPR over 12 months ago but my return, very likely to be a short lived one I think, is probably down to you. Having ceased posting a year or so ago, I'd actually stopped even looking at the old site about 6 months ago. Then, via a convoluted network of friends, I was told UKPR was breathing its last. For old times sake, I dipped in last week to see Anthony's valediction. The very last post on the thread was yours inviting me to put my porridge spoon down and return!! You kindly posted a link to this new site too so, slightly against my better judgement, I thought I'd dally once again for a bit. So, here I am, not quite by popular demand maybe, but certainly borne by a failure to totally quit old habits. I have to say my last truly enjoyable time on here was discussing the 2020 US Presidential elections with fellow posters like you, James E, Somerjohn, Alec etc. I lost my mojo shortly thereafter. You may be right about the Major/Currie timeline but I think Major became a largely ludicrous political figure when his risible Back to Basics campaign died on various Tory misdemeanour crosses. His own hilarious transgression, as you suggest, probably came a bit later, but it certainly compounded the sense of facile silliness that embraced a lot of his premiership. May did linger on, and there were obviously more substantial reasons for her final defenestration, but she became a figure of fun during the 2019 election campaign and the Conference pratfalls played into a gathering narrative of haplessness. As I say, in politics, if you cease to be taken seriously, you're finished. The point about Johnson's slide is that the arch and confected silliness that initially surrounded him was part of his alleged charm and difference. Now, laced as the silliness is with hypocrisy and incompetence, what was once benign becomes malignant. Along with many other UKPR2ers I hope that your mojo is restored, if that's what you do to mojo's and that your residence here continues. What I fail to understand is why the 'arch and confected silliness' was acceptable, indeed lauded' by the Tory membership and then Tory voters in the first place? The answer has to be Brexit and that Johnson was seen as the only way to 'get it done'. That then raises the question of how bad a policy must be if you have to anoint a character like Johnson to achieve it? |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 12, 2021 11:32:08 GMT
If the polls continue to show bad outcomes for the Tories over the next six months and if any by-elections confirm these bad results then Johnson is toast. It's still very much mid term but Johnson has no more than 6-9 months to recover Tory support before the men in grey suits come to call. I give him until September at the latest if things don't improve.
|
|
|
|
Post by t7g4 on Dec 12, 2021 11:34:16 GMT
Tg74 Little correction for you. Kier Starmer is the son of a nurse and a mechanic he went to a state grammar school in Surrey while he was there it became an independent school , like all the other students already in attendance Starmers family were not required to pay fees as this was a condition required of the institution. Starmer has inherited no wealth from his family his major asset other than his family home is some agricultural land that he's given to his mother to use as a donkey sanctuary! Starmer is wealthy, he's never denied it because he's a highly successful lawyer and until 2015 the most senior public prosecutor in England. Starmer took a £150,000 a year pay cut when he became an MP. Starmer's wife Victoria is also a lawyer which assists with their very comfortable lifestyle. You get to have your own opinion you don't get to have your personal facts. I wasn’t being critical with Starmer. One of the previous contributors mentioned the difficulties Sunak would have with the Tory working class and I stated it could well be the same issues he has with working class voters. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 12, 2021 11:38:37 GMT
My man, the Edge of Reason. How are you? An anecdote before I respond to your comments about Major and May. As you know, I'd more or less permanently retired from UKPR over 12 months ago but my return, very likely to be a short lived one I think, is probably down to you. Having ceased posting a year or so ago, I'd actually stopped even looking at the old site about 6 months ago. Then, via a convoluted network of friends, I was told UKPR was breathing its last. For old times sake, I dipped in last week to see Anthony's valediction. The very last post on the thread was yours inviting me to put my porridge spoon down and return!! You kindly posted a link to this new site too so, slightly against my better judgement, I thought I'd dally once again for a bit. So, here I am, not quite by popular demand maybe, but certainly borne by a failure to totally quit old habits. I have to say my last truly enjoyable time on here was discussing the 2020 US Presidential elections with fellow posters like you, James E, Somerjohn, Alec etc. I lost my mojo shortly thereafter. You may be right about the Major/Currie timeline but I think Major became a largely ludicrous political figure when his risible Back to Basics campaign died on various Tory misdemeanour crosses. His own hilarious transgression, as you suggest, probably came a bit later, but it certainly compounded the sense of facile silliness that embraced a lot of his premiership. May did linger on, and there were obviously more substantial reasons for her final defenestration, but she became a figure of fun during the 2019 election campaign and the Conference pratfalls played into a gathering narrative of haplessness. As I say, in politics, if you cease to be taken seriously, you're finished. The point about Johnson's slide is that the arch and confected silliness that initially surrounded him was part of his alleged charm and difference. Now, laced as the silliness is with hypocrisy and incompetence, what was once benign becomes malignant. Along with many other UKPR2ers I hope that your mojo is restored, if that's what you do to mojo's and that your residence here continues. What I fail to understand is why the 'arch and confected silliness' was acceptable, indeed lauded' by the Tory membership and then Tory voters in the first place? The answer has to be Brexit and that Johnson was seen as the only way to 'get it done'. That then raises the question of how bad a policy must be if you have to anoint a character like Johnson to achieve it? For me, Johnson was always the 'salesman' of Brexit, while Farage was the marketing manager and Cummings the operations director. Johnson worked well for the pro-Brexit lobby because his ability to connect with people got the message through better than they could have hoped. Farage also had a certain appeal but he wasn't a Tory, so he had no possibility to become PM. Once Johnson ceases to be useful he will be jettisoned, and that point is coming soon. |
|
|
|
Post by robert on Dec 12, 2021 11:41:06 GMT
Danny
"did no one see that drama set in the bbc in wartime where it was instructed exactly what to say? Nothing different now."
It called script. It's a feature of many dramas.
|
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 12, 2021 11:46:18 GMT
Tg74 Little correction for you. Kier Starmer is the son of a nurse and a mechanic he went to a state grammar school in Surrey while he was there it became an independent school , like all the other students already in attendance Starmers family were not required to pay fees as this was a condition required of the institution. Starmer has inherited no wealth from his family his major asset other than his family home is some agricultural land that he's given to his mother to use as a donkey sanctuary! Starmer is wealthy, he's never denied it because he's a highly successful lawyer and until 2015 the most senior public prosecutor in England. Starmer took a £150,000 a year pay cut when he became an MP. Starmer's wife Victoria is also a lawyer which assists with their very comfortable lifestyle. You get to have your own opinion you don't get to have your personal facts. I wasn’t being critical with Starmer. One of the previous contributors mentioned the difficulties Sunak would have with the Tory working class and I stated it could well be the same issues he has with working class voters. I was the previous contributor. I don't think Starmer can be compared with Sunak - Sunak has huge family wealth, not simply money he has earned. Starmer is very much a self-made man; his lack of a working class image or regional accent is irrelevant, my own parents worked in factories and yet had little in the way of an accent and I speak RP. My own situation is comfortable but mainly because of my university education and entry into IT industry at a time when this was becoming a relatively lucrative occupation. I inherited very little when my parents passed away and most of what I have is what I earned, yet most people who meet me for the first time imagine that I went to a public (private) school and/or Oxbridge. I did neither. |
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Dec 12, 2021 11:49:25 GMT
Crossbat: "I have to say my last truly enjoyable time on here was discussing the 2020 US Presidential elections with fellow posters like you, James E, Somerjohn, Alec etc. I lost my mojo shortly thereafter.
Let me add my pleasure at seeing your contributions again. We need them! I empathise with your absence as I've been going through a bit of mojo-loss myself lately: there comes a time when the political scene, and the nature of discussion on here, becomes dispiriting and tiresome. That's especially so, I think, when a few heavy-handed, humourless types come to dominate the board, having driven more entertaining folk away.
The continuing addition of new members, and return of some stalwarts like yourself and Crofty, holds out hope that things will improve and we can have some civilised, educational and entertaining discussions. The tip in the political see-saw has also, I think, taken the wind out of a few sails: we see almost no real attempts to defend the Johnson shambles or proclaim the triumphs of brexit (bar a bit of ineffectual flapping from Texas).
So please stay. I think contributions like yours and Crofty's can act as a magnet for other positive contributions and alter the tone and atmosphere of the site for the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 12, 2021 11:51:41 GMT
Cameron's gamble in calling the referendum was logical in the sense that he believed that the 'sensible majority' would accept EU membership as necessary and positive for the nation, but he hugely underestimated the effectiveness of the pro-Brexit campaign and the apathy of many 'sensible' people who chose not to vote in the expectation of a foregone conclusion. Cameron was forced into it. He made a 'cast-iron' guarantee of a referendum that he broke. Then UKIP became even stronger, taking many votes from the Tories and in (I think, because there's been so many GEs lately) 2015 UKIP finished 2nd in over 100 seats. He had no option. (N.B. Sorry about the multiple posts. On the old site it seemed to be easier to combine multiple answers into a single post in my intermittent visits. I expect I'll get the hang of it eventually.) Cameron could have simply ignored UKIP and forged a semi-permanent alliance with the LibDems to keep them out. UKIP was peaking in that period and would have waned once supporters became disillusioned that they would ever be allowed to be part of government. The problem is that the Tories have no genuine principles other than retain power on their own, and they will change with the direction of the wind in order to achieve this objective. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 12, 2021 11:55:13 GMT
Cameron was forced into it. He made a 'cast-iron' guarantee of a referendum that he broke. Then UKIP became even stronger, taking many votes from the Tories and in (I think, because there's been so many GEs lately) 2015 UKIP finished 2nd in over 100 seats. He had no option. (N.B. Sorry about the multiple posts. On the old site it seemed to be easier to combine multiple answers into a single post in my intermittent visits. I expect I'll get the hang of it eventually.) Cameron could have simply ignored UKIP and forged a semi-permanent alliance with the LibDems to keep them out. UKIP was peaking in that period and would have waned once supporters became disillusioned that they would ever be allowed to be part of government. The problem is that the Tories have no genuine principles other than retain power on their own, and they will change with the direction of the wind in order to achieve this objective. It must be wonderful to have such perfect knowledge of what 'would' have happened. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 12, 2021 11:55:51 GMT
Totally insane policy. How would the government raise essential revenue? We would be seeing the government deficit getting wider and wider and fall deeper and deeper in debt. That is assuming that the 'cake' remains the same size, which seems to be a common error amongst left-leaning people. I understand that the reasoning is that lower tax (on companies as well) will stimulate growth and reduce tax avoidance. This may or may not work, but it's a refreshingly different approach to the old ConLabLib consensus. This is the assumption of monetarist economists. It proved to be true, to a certain extent, in the USA during the Reagan years, but less true in the UK, with its completely different economy. Also, assuming that tax avoidance will be less if you keep taxes low is fallacious, given that the wealthy will always try to reduce their taxes to as close to zero as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 12, 2021 11:56:37 GMT
Cameron could have simply ignored UKIP and forged a semi-permanent alliance with the LibDems to keep them out. UKIP was peaking in that period and would have waned once supporters became disillusioned that they would ever be allowed to be part of government. The problem is that the Tories have no genuine principles other than retain power on their own, and they will change with the direction of the wind in order to achieve this objective. It must be wonderful to have such perfect knowledge of what 'would' have happened. Just my opinion - you can take it or leave it. |
|
|
|
Post by robert on Dec 12, 2021 12:01:26 GMT
Tg74 Little correction for you. Kier Starmer is the son of a nurse and a mechanic he went to a state grammar school in Surrey while he was there it became an independent school , like all the other students already in attendance Starmers family were not required to pay fees as this was a condition required of the institution. Starmer has inherited no wealth from his family his major asset other than his family home is some agricultural land that he's given to his mother to use as a donkey sanctuary! Starmer is wealthy, he's never denied it because he's a highly successful lawyer and until 2015 the most senior public prosecutor in England. Starmer took a £150,000 a year pay cut when he became an MP. Starmer's wife Victoria is also a lawyer which assists with their very comfortable lifestyle. You get to have your own opinion you don't get to have your personal facts. I wasn’t being critical with Starmer. One of the previous contributors mentioned the difficulties Sunak would have with the Tory working class and I stated it could well be the same issues he has with working class voters. Maybe Javid would be more acceptable then? Son of a bus driver although he does seem to have succeeded in life financially, so thats a black mark obviously. (No pun intended) As colin alluded to recently, there is clearly a wrong type and a right type of Asian. Sunak, despite his probable stronger credentials, is clearly deemed to be the wrong type. (By some). Incidentally did anyone else spot that their term BAME is now de rigour? The Lenny Henry media foundation has persuaded the main media channels to stop using it, as it regards it as racist to lump many different non white racial groups into one trite abbreviation just for convenience. [of white people] Things move fast in this area as it's not too long since I was criticised on the old site, for not using it. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Dec 12, 2021 12:05:25 GMT
If the polls continue to show bad outcomes for the Tories over the next six months and if any by-elections confirm these bad results then Johnson is toast. It's still very much mid term but Johnson has no more than 6-9 months to recover Tory support before the men in grey suits come to call. I give him until September at the latest if things don't improve. It's always difficult to predict by-elections, but the local elections across England in May will provide a pretty good indication of how people feel about the Johnson Government. If they go against the Tories then I think that the men in grey auits will come for him quickly. They will want to have a new leader in place for the Conference season in September, so there would need to be a leadership challenge by June. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 12, 2021 12:17:20 GMT
I wasn’t being critical with Starmer. One of the previous contributors mentioned the difficulties Sunak would have with the Tory working class and I stated it could well be the same issues he has with working class voters. Maybe Javid would be more acceptable then? Son of a bus driver although he does seem to have succeeded in life financially, so thats a black mark obviously. (No pun intended) As colin alluded to recently, there is clearly a wrong type and a right type of Asian. Sunak, despite his probable stronger credentials, is clearly deemed to be the wrong type. (By some). Incidentally did anyone else spot that their term BAME is now de rigour? The Lenny Henry media foundation has persuaded the main media channels to stop using it, as it regards it as racist to lump many different non white racial groups into one trite abbreviation just for convenience. [of white people] Things move fast in this area as it's not too long since I was criticised on the old site, for not using it. Javid is a contender, though I personally find him about as charismatic as a wet fish. I think Gove will make a bid, as will Sunak and possibly also Truss, though I would pick Steve Barclay as the dark horse than could win it. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Dec 12, 2021 12:28:01 GMT
Thanks, I've been forgetting to follow it. More wrapped up in Ashes. I'll look at the games - thanks. That's the most decisive WC match for many years I think.
Yes.
Magnus won four and lost zero. the last time that happened Capablanca beat Lasker (1921).
Although it hasn't been updated for the last game, the FiveThirtyEight site has a good article on the match. It's been over 50 years since I last played chess seriously so I no longer pretend to be able to play, but it's still good to see computer-based position analysis to 0.01 of a pawn: fivethirtyeight.com/features/brilliance-and-blunders-have-defined-the-world-chess-championship/ |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Dec 12, 2021 12:31:08 GMT
Afternoon all from a rather mild and overcast PSRL.
My own view on Johnson's survival is based on the extent to which his backers in the press stay with him. There has been some indication of disquiet amongst them, and if the polls do get to a ten point Labour lead that is sustained for some time that will be when he comes under pressure to go from all sections. I don't think he is the type to walk quietly out into the night, more of the fiddle while Rome burns type.
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Dec 12, 2021 12:32:01 GMT
Tories would be crazy to go with anyone other than Sunak. He's their star performer and comes across very well- a mixture of having a personality with the necessary seriousness. In many ways I'd worry about him more than I would about Johnson because Sunak seems to be old school austerity and tax cuts rather than Johnson's do whatever seems popular at the time (which might randomly see some mild leveling up), but I'm not their target voter and on presentation alone I think he can sell himself for one election at least. Plus the promise of austerity & tax cuts might not cut through to people who saw him handing out the sweeties in the pandemic. Most of all he neutralises any plus points Starmer has over Johnson while beating him hands down on personality and presentation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Dec 12, 2021 12:46:18 GMT
Re-the tory leadership, my guess is that it depends on the mood the membership is in. It's clearly not going to be a coronation, so, they'll get a choice once the parliamentry party have chosen the final two, as per tory party rules.
They picked Cameron for the same reason Labour picked Blair - they didn't particularly like him, but, thought he could win an election for them.
By the time Johnson got elected, he was both someone they could rely on to deliver a "true" brexit - and also a showman that could win votes. At that time, if Johnson hadn't stood, they would have picked someone from the ERG.
Now, brexit is "done" in the sense that we have have left the EU (although far from done as the negotiations will take years yet), so may be less of an issue - although I think it would be unwise to count on that.
If they want a true blue, small state tory, then Sunak would, politically, be the natural choice. His ethnicity may be a problem for some, though, along with 'state intervention' (eg. furlough), although the extreme circumstance of a global pandemic gives him cover on the latter and he's already revealed enough of his hand to let others know he's a small state tory at heart.
But, strange times...and nothing is set in stone. My own choice would be Hunt (although elements of the left would have a field day with his name), but, I speak as someone who, politically, is well to the left of Starmer's Labour (he [Hunt] is someone I see as at least fairly competent and the best of a bad bunch from my own political perspective) so, I'm not the demographic that a future tory leader would need to appeal to...that said, I don't think he stands a chance even if he made it to the final two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2021 13:00:30 GMT
So you're admitting you earn considerably more than £100k a year. Lucky for some. “Earn” is debatable, even from t7g4’s own testimony. Get paid is perhaps more accurate. That’s probably one of the great divides of ROC/LOC thinking. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2021 13:01:25 GMT
That is assuming that the 'cake' remains the same size, which seems to be a common error amongst left-leaning people. I understand that the reasoning is that lower tax (on companies as well) will stimulate growth and reduce tax avoidance. This may or may not work, but it's a refreshingly different approach to the old ConLabLib consensus. This is the assumption of monetarist economists. It proved to be true, to a certain extent, in the USA during the Reagan years, but less true in the UK, with its completely different economy. Also, assuming that tax avoidance will be less if you keep taxes low is fallacious, given that the wealthy will always try to reduce their taxes to as close to zero as possible. Strictly speaking it is not monetarist - that was only that the monetary base defines the economy, and hence the role of the central bank is decisive. While Thatcher kept on referring to it, her government abandoned it by 1982 (I would say 1981, but it is minor). The Reagan administration also abandoned it by 1984. The taxation and tax-base argument is from Hayek. Joan Robinson after a lecture by Hayek asked him: "so if I understood your theory well, if we leave and it is raining and I buy an umbrella, I cause unemployment." Hayek mused a bit, and then said "Yes." |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Dec 12, 2021 13:10:08 GMT
Tories would be crazy to go with anyone other than Sunak. He's their star performer and comes across very well- a mixture of having a personality with the necessary seriousness. In many ways I'd worry about him more than I would about Johnson because Sunak seems to be old school austerity and tax cuts rather than Johnson's do whatever seems popular at the time (which might randomly see some mild leveling up), but I'm not their target voter and on presentation alone I think he can sell himself for one election at least. Plus the promise of austerity & tax cuts might not cut through to people who saw him handing out the sweeties in the pandemic. Most of all he neutralises any plus points Starmer has over Johnson while beating him hands down on personality and presentation. I'm more sceptical of the ability of Sunak to translate any current popularity with the electorate to the next GE if he is leader. The last time popular Chancellor (Brown) took over from a PM who had a proven ability of appealing to voters who traditionally didn't vote for the party (Blair), the popularity soon melted away. Like you I suspect his policy platform would be much more 'trad' Tory with a focus on reducing govt spending balancing the books etc, so something similar to what happened to Labour 07-10 could happen to the Tories, especially if the economy does not perform well. |
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Dec 12, 2021 13:14:00 GMT
So you're admitting you earn considerably more than £100k a year. Lucky for some. “Earn” is debatable, even from t7g4’s own testimony. Get paid is perhaps more accurate. That’s probably one of the great divides of ROC/LOC thinking. Mysterious comment. So how does t7g4 makes his pile? Drug dealing? Does he have a massive property portfolio which gives him a huge return? |
|
|
|
Post by turk on Dec 12, 2021 13:21:04 GMT
I think non Tory voters need to get a bit of reality concerning Johnson’s premiership. The first thing I would point out is the Tory party went through a very bruising time when they disposed May and they won’t be queuing up to repeat the process. I would also point out that although the public mainly with the help of the media are angry with Johnson at the moment ,anger with year old office parties and the cost of wall paper are not going to occupy the thoughts of many come the New year.
I would think Johnson is perfectly safe in post at the moment, the upcoming by-election is already been factored in especially if they hang on (unlikely) ,losing yes it will make a headline for a couple of days but governments lose more by-elections than they win as a rule of thumb especially if they go into them with a bad press.
If there’s going to be a challenge to Johnson imo it’s going to be after the enquiry into the Pandemic, however that will depend how the public see the enquiry not the opposition. If they think yes mistakes were made in the early days but the Government did there best and got the vaccine roll out spectacularly right then Johnson will go on in post. If they don’t see it that way then Johnson will be there to take the blame and out he goes. But again imo he isn’t going to be removed by the party over year old Christmas parties or the price of wall paper but he will know that anymore damaging cock ups then all bets are off.
|
|
|
|
Post by thexterminatingdalek on Dec 12, 2021 13:27:08 GMT
Yvette Cooper is a long way from where I'd like to see the only party with any chance of defeating the Tories where I live, but she's sharp as a knife and the only one at the moment I can imagine performing well not only against Johnson, but also wherever succeeds him. Unfortunately, she seems to have no hunger for the role. I suspect the problem is more that after only getting 17% in 2015 she feels the party has no hunger for her. I'm not a Labour member, so couldn't comment on that, but, if I was, I'd see a woman (and heaven knows they need a female leader, even Doctor Who relented over that one) who is as clever as people think Starmer is, who can communicate, tear holes in her opponents without sounding as gobby as Rayner (who I think would lose more voters than people believe Corbyn did), or as odd as the one who ran against Starmer whose name escapes me. Rachel Reeves obviously wants it, but I don't think a few years as a shadow big beast will damage her prospects. Cooper, if I remember correctly, was damaged by association with her husband, but since he's now a national treasure rather than the evil genius behind Gordon Brown, that moment has passed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2021 13:29:15 GMT
Strictly speaking it is not monetarist - that was only that the monetary base defines the economy, and hence the role of the central bank is decisive. While Thatcher kept on referring to it, her government abandoned it by 1982 (I would say 1981, but it is minor). The Reagan administration also abandoned it by 1984. The taxation and tax-base argument is from Hayek. Joan Robinson after a lecture by Hayek asked him: "so if I understood your theory well, if we leave and it is raining and I buy an umbrella, I cause unemployment." Hayek mused a bit, and then said "Yes." Hi @lazlo. If memory serves the growth rate since 1979, in OECD nations at least, has been lower than between 1945 and 1979 when regulation was tighter and taxes on the wealthy generally higher. Also Piketty convincingly proved that returns on investment were now greater than the growth they created. These two points rather disproving the “rising tide lifts all boats” philosophy. Would you agree? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2021 13:35:34 GMT
So you're admitting you earn considerably more than £100k a year. Lucky for some. “Earn” is debatable, even from t7g4’s own testimony. Get paid is perhaps more accurate. That’s probably one of the great divides of ROC/LOC thinking. How is it mysterious? You are aware of the concept of unearned income presumably? If the extra income is derived from membership of an elite group rather than justifiable via increased productivity then it might be considered unearned. The debate to which the full costs of private income are paid is highly debatable. Has the private sector borrowed the furlough money for Covid? |
|
