Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.

[Butts]

That actually surprised me as I think she would have half a chance if she did stand for it. There is a lot of "Labour hasn't changed anything" feeling in the area, and certainly in terms of local councillors and Leanne herself as the AM, Plaid are seem as a potential way of getting change. Of course, Brexit may through that out of the window. Also from a purely local point of view (it being the constituency I grew up in) it would be interesting to see what would have happened!

She would have had to give up the PC Leadership under their rules I believe.

Although I am a Tory, I like Chris Bryant the sitting Labour Member.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

. There is a lot of "Labour hasn't changed anything" feeling in the area, !

.. just when there may be the possibility of actually having socialists retake the Labour Party from the tory infiltrators of the past two decades... divide and rule squawk among yourselves and vote turkey-(or even Turkey)like for the party that has never done anything for the working man but exploit him and his situation.

 

[Butts]

.. just when there may be the possibility of actually having socialists retake the Labour Party from the tory infiltrators of the past two decades... divide and rule squawk among yourselves and vote turkey-(or even Turkey)like for the party that has never done anything for the working man but exploit him and his situation.

Blimey, calm down Comrade

 

[WelshBluebird]

.. just when there may be the possibility of actually having socialists retake the Labour Party from the tory infiltrators of the past two decades... divide and rule squawk among yourselves and vote turkey-(or even Turkey)like for the party that has never done anything for the working man but exploit him and his situation.

I don't agree with the "Labour haven't changed anything" feeling (its actually very similar reasoning to why the area voted for Brexit too, but that was with added racism aswell), but I can certainly see why it may come about. The reality is of course that regardless of what Labours record is locally, the Tories would certainly not be any better.

She would have had to give up the PC Leadership under their rules I believe.

Although I am a Tory, I like Chris Bryant the sitting Labour Member.

Would she have had to give it up to run, or only in the event she won? Seems a wasted chance if she could have run and only had to deal with anything if she did win.

Being honest, as I moved away for university when I turned 18 and haven't lived back there since, I don't think I'm best placed to make a judgement. Certainly it appears that he prioritises the Labour party over the constituents, and himself over the party - but I guess you can say the same thing about post politicians these days. At least among the people I know back home, the feeling towards him there is fairly mixed.

 

[tspaul26]

I feel it was going to be an enormous victory for Tories until they started dropping a few potential bombshells. The whole issue of the Tory leadership not willing to pledge taxes on ordinary working people won't rise hasn't gone down well. There certainly seems to be the feeling that taxes will go up to pay for Brexit, if May is PM. The way May, Hammond and Fallon have refused to say taxes won't increase clearly shows that they must be planning future rises. Pensions are another thing for the chop as well. I think May is that confident of a victory she is almost given herself free reign in the next parliament. We will only find out on June 8th whether people will put their trust in her. I doubt many working people will want their taxes to go up to pay for a Brexit downturn or to pay for tax giveaways to big companies.

That being said, the manifestos have not yet been published, so it may be that they are testing public reaction at this stage (as well as seeing what the other parties put out).

They can always then come up with a big tax pledge (perhaps another freeze on VAT, NI and income tax or even an increase in the income tax personal allowance) later on in order to get positive headlines closer to election day.

 

[tspaul26]

It has just occurred to me just how many holidays we'd have if St George's Day was a holiday this year. Last week was Easter, presumably today would be St George's Day (observed), and next Monday would be the May Day holiday. We'd have four four-day weeks in a row. Whilst there may be benefit from a rest day every now and then, surely the economy would suffer from having so many in such a short space of time?

One way to try to avoid this degree of bunching would be to replace most of the existing fixed bank holidays and instead use the older Quarter Days and Cross-Quarter Days. One of these falls roughly every six or seven weeks.

This would give the eight fixed holidays listed in the attached PDF, together with St Stephen's Day on 26 Dec and Circumcision on 1 Jan by tradition. This could also be complemented by two 'national' holidays each year in the appropriate country (I see no reason why every bank holiday must be the same in every part of the United Kingdom).

The attached PDF shows how many bank holidays each nation would have each year, giving an average across the full cycle of the calendar of 8.57 fixed holidays per annum plus two moveable bank holidays on Good Friday and Easter Monday UK-wide.

This 'par' rate of holidays relies on an end to the practice of lieu days fixed by proclamation i.e. if a bank holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday, a holiday in lieu would not be proclaimed for the following Monday.

Obviously, if one of the moveable bank holidays falls on the same day as a fixed holiday then only one holiday would be observed on that day in that year. This would not affect the 'par' rate as the two moveable holidays are added on top of the ten fixed holidays.

Would it be possible for Easter to fall near St George's Day, and if so would we then have a five-day weekend? In 2038, Easter falls on the 25th of April, so St George's Day is on Good Friday. Ultimately, after the Easter weekend, we'd then presumably have St George's Day (observed) on the next Tuesday.

Liturgically speaking, in these circumstances the impeded feast would be transferred to the next available day after Quasimodo Sunday. Depending on which calendar you use, this would lead to St George's feast being celebrated either on Monday 3 May (1960 'extraordinary' calendar) or on Wednesday 5 May (2002 'ordinary' calendar)*.

The problem of transferring holidays is avoided if the dates are fixed in the calendar and the practice of proclaiming days in lieu discontinued.

*This is because the external celebration is impeded by Ss. Philip and James on 3 May and the English Martyrs on 4 May, both of which take precedence.

 

[DarloRich]

There is a very real risk ( according to the biased MSM polls) that Labour will now lose their grip on Wales under the leadership of the glorious Corbyn. Since 1922 Labour have held the majority of the parliamentary seats in Wales and that is at risk.

The most recent biased MSM poll showed that the Conservative Party (!) are on course to win the majority of the seats in Wales. They are polling at 40% against the 30% for Labour. The Tories. In Wales. Wales of coal and steel and iron decimated by the Tories. Christ on a bike Aneurin Bevan must be spinning. Oh how the great Corbyn leads us to victory. Look how he leads vast swathes of the country to vote blue. FFS.

http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2017-04-24/draft-not-for-publication-the-end-of-labour-wales/

BIASED MSM ITV POLL: 'Sensational' poll suggests Tories could end Labour majority in Wales

 

[backontrack]

Clucking bell.

 

[gareth950]

This may seem like a stupid question, so sorry but what does 'MSM' stand for please?

 

[DarloRich]

This may seem like a stupid question, so sorry but what does 'MSM' stand for please?

not sure but Corbyn supporters use it to describe any form of media outlet that doesn't genuflect towards their hero and dares to suggest he might be a bit crap. I think it stands for Main Stream Media as opposed to clown stream media offered by the likes of the Canary who slavish parrot the greatness of the sainted Corbyn.

 

[gg1]

Labour have made an announcement re their Brexit plan today, two of the key points are:

Guarantee the legal status of the three million EU nationals living in the UK on its first day in office

Perfectly reasonable, I have no issue with that but they then state:

Press for a reciprocal guarantee for the 1.2 million Britons living on the continen

What??? Point A absolutely must be conditional on point B, to guarantee maintaining full rights to EU citizens currently in the UK without necessarily having a reciprocal arrangement for UK citizens in the EU is insane.

 

[DarloRich]

Labour have made an announcement re their Brexit plan today, two of the key points are:

Guarantee the legal status of the three million EU nationals living in the UK on its first day in office

Perfectly reasonable, I have no issue with that but they then state:

Press for a reciprocal guarantee for the 1.2 million Britons living on the continen

What??? Point A absolutely must be conditional on point B, to guarantee maintaining full rights to EU citizens currently in the UK without necessarily having a reciprocal arrangement for UK citizens in the EU is insane.

but of course. there cant be any suggestion of one without the other surely?

 

[Barn]

Labour have made an announcement re their Brexit plan today, two of the key points are:

Guarantee the legal status of the three million EU nationals living in the UK on its first day in office

Perfectly reasonable, I have no issue with that but they then state:

Press for a reciprocal guarantee for the 1.2 million Britons living on the continen

What??? Point A absolutely must be conditional on point B, to guarantee maintaining full rights to EU citizens currently in the UK without necessarily having a reciprocal arrangement for UK citizens in the EU is insane.

The House of Lords voted precisely to create that unilateral situation. That's partly why Theresa May feels that she needs an election - she is concerned that, without a manifesto, her EU negotiating counterparts might feel that they needn't take her seriously and can bluff with her in the hope and expectation that Parliament will overrule her. Because of the Salisbury convention, I think the manifesto is actually just as important to her as increasing the Commons majority.

 

[Howardh]

R/e Bank Holidays;
I would prefer a system like this;
Xmas
B-day
NYD
GF
EM
End of May
End of August
End of October
+ Each country has it's Saints day
+ A UK national celebration holiday similar to Holland's Kings Day, preferably in summer; possibly the Friday before the August holiday so the tourist industry gets a late-summer boost.

That makes 10 and puts us in line with most of the EU.

 

[WelshBluebird]

to guarantee maintaining full rights to EU citizens currently in the UK without necessarily having a reciprocal arrangement for UK citizens in the EU is insane.

Why exactly? Why must we use people as pawns in this?

 

[backontrack]

B-day

Is that the Queen's birthday? Or is it that you get a bank holiday on your birthday?

 

[Howardh]

Question for all the voters; it looks like the Tory manfesto will omit the "no tax rises" policy.

If it were a simple choice, if the Tories said "Brexit but with significant tax rises; or no Brexit but no tax rises", would that make a difference to your vote?

In other words, how much would you give out of your own pocket to ensure Brexit goes ahead?

 

[Howardh]

Is that the Queen's birthday? Or is it that you get a bank holiday on your birthday?

Bidet = Boxing Day.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is that the Queen's birthday? Or is it that you get a bank holiday on your birthday?

B Day, I imagine, is Boxing Day.

 

[backontrack]

Bidet = Boxing Day.

Oh, I see.

 

[Barn]

Why exactly? Why must we use people as pawns in this?

The UK has been transparently clear throughout that it wants an early agreement providing for continued rights. This could already have been put to bed. Why do so many people always assume that we are the bad guys?

 

[WelshBluebird]

The UK has been transparently clear throughout that it wants an early agreement providing for continued rights. This could already have been put to bed. Why do so many people always assume that we are the bad guys?

I think with this particular issue, both parties are currently being the bad guys. Either side could simply say they are guaranteeing the others citizens rights. The main difference is that it is easier for us to do it than the EU, because we are just one country rather than a large number of countries that all have to agree!

 

[Dave1987]

Question for all the voters; it looks like the Tory manfesto will omit the "no tax rises" policy.

If it were a simple choice, if the Tories said "Brexit but with significant tax rises; or no Brexit but no tax rises", would that make a difference to your vote?

In other words, how much would you give out of your own pocket to ensure Brexit goes ahead?

That is the uncomfortable question the hard line Brexit Tory MPs don't want to be asked or admit to. Brexit is going to cost the economy lots of money. The Tories are never going to put up taxes on Business or very very rich people. In fact I highly suspect post Brexit taxes on Business will plummet, and ordinary Joe Public will pick up the tab. The chancellor wasn't very happy that he was forced to u-turn on his NI increase, so you can bet if the Tories are returned with a large majority taxes will be going up!

 

[Barn]

Question for all the voters; it looks like the Tory manfesto will omit the "no tax rises" policy.

If it were a simple choice, if the Tories said "Brexit but with significant tax rises; or no Brexit but no tax rises", would that make a difference to your vote?

In other words, how much would you give out of your own pocket to ensure Brexit goes ahead?

"No tax rises" is a bit of a silly policy, and especially so the statutory lock invented by Cameron. No Chancellor should have his/her hands tied in this way and be left unable to respond fiscally to new developments, whether connected with Brexit or not.

I think the decision just has to be made based on overall attitudes to tax. The Conservatives believe in a lower tax burden overall, although I do think that (despite being accused by some of being hard right) Theresa May is much more of a state interventionist than Cameron / Osborne were. Nevertheless, the tax burden on someone like me would be less under May than it would be under Corbyn, that's for certain.

I'm not sure that the natural Tory reaction to a faltering economy would be tax rises in any event.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If it were a simple choice, if the Tories said "Brexit but with significant tax rises; or no Brexit but no tax rises", would that make a difference to your vote?

In other words, how much would you give out of your own pocket to ensure Brexit goes ahead?

If the Tories promised no Brexit and no tax rises even I'd vote for them.

I'd give precisely £0.00 to ensure Brexit goes ahead, because I don't think it should. Politicians should have the courage to say balls to the referendum.

It's clear that the Tories are planning steep tax rises if they win again. They're reliant on people believing that tax would go up even higher under Corbyn. I don't actually think it would, at least for plebs like me who have to pay under PAYE. If anything, us plebs are going to be stung even harder by May because she won't dare enforce tax bills against the hedge fund fraudsters who bankroll her party.

If I were a tax-dodging trustafarian I'd be more worried about Corbyn.

 

[Howardh]

That is the uncomfortable question the hard line Brexit Tory MPs don't want to be asked or admit to. Brexit is going to cost the economy lots of money. The Tories are never going to put up taxes on Business or very very rich people. In fact I highly suspect post Brexit taxes on Business will plummet, and ordinary Joe Public will pick up the tab. The chancellor wasn't very happy that he was forced to u-turn on his NI increase, so you can bet if the Tories are returned with a large majority taxes will be going up!

"No tax rises" is a bit of a silly policy, and especially so the statutory lock invented by Cameron. No Chancellor should have his/her hands tied in this way and be left unable to respond fiscally to new developments, whether connected with Brexit or not.

I think the decision just has to be made based on overall attitudes to tax. The Conservatives believe in a lower tax burden overall, although I do think that (despite being accused by some of being hard right) Theresa May is much more of a state interventionist than Cameron / Osborne were. Nevertheless, the tax burden on someone like me would be less under May than it would be under Corbyn, that's for certain.

I'm not sure that the natural Tory reaction to a faltering economy would be tax rises in any event.

We all know the Tories are *low tax* but one of the key arguments is the NHS and paying for it. Can the NHS be sustained at today's levels? Probably not, so somewhere along the line it's gonna have to be funded - and that will mean more tax, Tory or not.

If the rich (what, £300k p.a.+??) are hounded for tax, they are wealthy enough to leave; and end up paying nothing to us. The middle-classes on middle incomes are the Tory safe ground, can the Tories risk ailienating them?

So that leaves the poorest being asked to pay proportionately more in tax, possibly through increased VAT.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If the rich (what, £300k p.a.+??) are hounded for tax, they are wealthy enough to leave; and end up paying nothing to us.

The simple solution to that is to revoke non-domiciliary rules. If they want to move their money to Bermuda then fine, they can go live there with their money. Tax it at 90% if they try and bring it back into the country, in any form.

Of course they won't do that, the hedge fund fraudsters would never agree to paying as much tax as their cleaner. So that puts the burden on us plebs. I see my council tax had gone up by 6% this year to pay for the "adult social care precept" that Generation Parasite should be paying for.

 

[AM9]

The simple solution to that is to revoke non-domiciliary rules. If they want to move their money to Bermuda then fine, they can go live there with their money. Tax it at 90% if they try and bring it back into the country, in any form.

Of course they won't do that, the hedge fund fraudsters would never agree to paying as much tax as their cleaner. So that puts the burden on us plebs. I see my council tax had gone up by 6% this year to pay for the "adult social care precept" that Generation Parasite should be paying for.

If 'Generation Parasite' means people in their later years then you really do have a problem.

 

[gg1]

Why exactly? Why must we use people as pawns in this?

Fairness. If EU citizens currently living in the UK are to continue to have the right to live and work in the UK post Brexit, why should the reverse not also apply?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Labour have made an announcement re their Brexit plan today, two of the key points are:

Guarantee the legal status of the three million EU nationals living in the UK on its first day in office

Perfectly reasonable, I have no issue with that but they then state:

Press for a reciprocal guarantee for the 1.2 million Britons living on the continen

What??? Point A absolutely must be conditional on point B, to guarantee maintaining full rights to EU citizens currently in the UK without necessarily having a reciprocal arrangement for UK citizens in the EU is insane.

Clearly, on any decent ethical grounds, it's vitally important that EU citizens in both the UK and the rest of the EU who are resident outside their home country do not suddenly have their rights to live in their homes taken away.

But the trouble with saying that you won't guarantee rights to EU citizens in the UK unless the EU meets conditions first is that it amounts to using people's lives as political bargaining chips. It's not the fault of the EU citizens in the UK that we are Brexiting - they after all were quite deliberately denied a vote on the matter (incidentally itself making a mockery of the idea that the referendum vote was truly democratic.) Theresa May's current attitude basically amounts to saying, we'll wreck these innocent people's lives unless we get what we want. It is utterly unethical, and is most definitely not the attitude of a Government that cares about the people it is supposed to be governing (And for what it's worth, it wouldn't be the first time that Theresa May has shown herself willing to destroy innocent people's lives for the sake of her political career - something that I think anyone considering voting Tory in June really ought to think about).

As far as protecting the lives of UK citizens in the EU - yes, we need to absolutely prioritise that, but it looks perfectly clear to me that main EU Governments involved have no desire to expel UK citizens. And besides, despite Brexit politicians tendency to paint the EU in the worst light they can, the EU and its Governments do on the whole care a reasonable about publicity. It's really not plausible that, if EU citizens in the UK are guaranteed residency rights, the EU will then suddenly turn around and deny those same rights to UK citizens in the EU. It's therefore not plausible that guaranteeing rights to EU citizens now is going to significantly damage the interests of UK citizens abroad. Rather, it's likely to get negotiations off to a better, more trusting, start on at least this issue.

One other point. There's a common assumption here that the situation is symmetrical between EU and UK citizens. That's not really the case because, by European standards, the UK has an exceptionally tough immigration system, much more so than many EU countries (certainly the ones in Western Europe where the vast majority of UK citizens abroad live, I'm not so sure about some of the Eastern European countries). We've already seen that in the numerous reports of EU citizens applying for formal UK residency having a much more complex system to apply, and often getting refused because of arcane technicalities in immigration regulations, in a way that doesn't seem to be happening to any great extent elsewhere in Europe. To that extent there is actually some case for arguing that the situation of EU citizens in the UK is more serious than that of UK citizens in Europe.

It may also be worth bearing in mind that Francois Hollande is already on record as having made a unilateral commitment to guarantee the rights of UK citizens in France - so we wouldn't really be the first country moving in that direction, although given Hollande won't be president much longer, it's not clear how much that promise is really worth.