C4 Conservative leader debate

[aggi]

I see that Boris has got Mark Fullbrook, a colleague of Lynton Crosby, running his campaign which isn't too surprising.

I think he ran Johnson's mayoral campaigns which were a bit of a gimme against Livingstone. However he also ran Goldsmith's campaign against Khan where they severely misjudged the public sentiment, ran a very negative (shading into racist) campaign and lost where Goldsmith would probably have had a good chance of winning with a better campaign.

From the position Johnson is in though it's mainly damage limitation to ensure that he doesn't lose too many votes.

[elwaclaret]

I see that Boris has got Mark Fullbrook, a colleague of Lynton Crosby, running his campaign which isn't too surprising.

I think he ran Johnson's mayoral campaigns which were a bit of a gimme against Livingstone. However he also ran Goldsmith's campaign against Khan where they severely misjudged the public sentiment, ran a very negative (shading into racist) campaign and lost where Goldsmith would probably have had a good chance of winning with a better campaign.

From the position Johnson is in though it's mainly damage limitation to ensure that he doesn't lose too many votes.

Doubt very much the conservatives had any chance in the mayor elections, there were riots and the wake up call of London not being bulletproof against terrorism. London citizens suddenly felt like the rest of the countries as austerity finally started to bite in the capitol.
We can only judge this campaign on the final result, but it seems to be going better anyone could have believed.

They even helped him by showing the pictures of the radio interview when he had been clearly caught out with the old picture. For me it was a mistake for him to try the quell the title tattle of the domestic. It would have been chip paper by now. As it is by showing him you could see his embarrassment rather than anger;embarrassed to be asked about it, embarrassed it happened, embarrassed that he’d grabbed the first lovey-Dovie picture on his phone... and cornered with no way of either admitting it and facing another 100 questions as to why etc. Or lying. He took the only option remaining... and said nowt. He showed sense picking that option.

I actually think it will do him more good than harm.

And I’m not particularly Tory leaning.

[aggi]

Doubt very much the conservatives had any chance in the mayor elections, there were riots and the wake up call of London not being bulletproof against terrorism. London citizens suddenly felt like the rest of the countries as austerity finally started to bite in the capitol.
We can only judge this campaign on the final result, but it seems to be going better anyone could have believed.

They even helped him by showing the pictures of the radio interview when he had been clearly caught out with the old picture. For me it was a mistake for him to try the quell the title tattle of the domestic. It would have been chip paper by now. As it is by showing him you could see his embarrassment rather than anger;embarrassed to be asked about it, embarrassed it happened, embarrassed that he’d grabbed the first lovey-Dovie picture on his phone... and cornered with no way of either admitting it and facing another 100 questions as to why etc. Or lying. He took the only option remaining... and said nowt. He showed sense picking that option.

I actually think it will do him more good than harm.

And I’m not particularly Tory leaning.

In the elections after the riots a Conservative (Johnson) won. Bear in mind that London is a lot bigger than just the Labour centre.

Some very early polls even had Goldsmith beating Khan, the polls generally worsened for Goldsmith as the campaign went on.

[martin_p]

I see that Boris has got Mark Fullbrook, a colleague of Lynton Crosby, running his campaign which isn't too surprising.

I think he ran Johnson's mayoral campaigns which were a bit of a gimme against Livingstone. However he also ran Goldsmith's campaign against Khan where they severely misjudged the public sentiment, ran a very negative (shading into racist) campaign and lost where Goldsmith would probably have had a good chance of winning with a better campaign.

From the position Johnson is in though it's mainly damage limitation to ensure that he doesn't lose too many votes.

You got to remember this is a very different electorate, mainly white and mainly pensioners. A bit of casual racism probably wouldn’t cause him many issues.

[Paul Waine]

Yes. Not sure what that has to do in relation to them having to move out due to threats.

I think there are a few things going on here.

The neighbours who went to Guardian are reported to have previously been "claiming bragging rights" for (I forget the phrase) "indicating" to Boris Johnson that they didn't support him. BJ was removing "not wanted here" (or somthing similar) messages on his car.

Pot and kettle comes to mind.

We should all learn to have a bit more care for each other, set and example that differences of opinion aren't that important.

[Imploding Turtle]

You got to remember this is a very different electorate, mainly white and mainly pensioners. A bit of casual racism probably wouldn’t cause him many issues.

He'd probably lose voters in this election if he condemned racism.

[claretonthecoast1882]

So you are basically saying that all screaming and shouting from nearby properties is completely private to those involved.

Ok then.

I am saying if 2 people are having an argument or just shouting things and you are next door, it is **** all to do with you. If you had genuine feelings that someone was in any danger would you ring the Guardian ? (actually forget that bit, you would)

[claretonthecoast1882]

If my neighbours are screaming and shouting at each other am I in violation of their privacy if i don't plug my ears, or if i don't turn up my music loud enough to drown our their potential domestic violence?

I imagine you would have a glass against the wall

[Bordeauxclaret]

I am saying if 2 people are having an argument or just shouting things and you are next door, it is **** all to do with you. If you had genuine feelings that someone was in any danger would you ring the Guardian ? (actually forget that bit, you would)

I’d ring the police. Like they did.

[claretonthecoast1882]

I’d ring the police. Like they did.

And then the newspaper for a payday ?

[Lancasterclaret]

I think there are a few things going on here.

The neighbours who went to Guardian are reported to have previously been "claiming bragging rights" for (I forget the phrase) "indicating" to Boris Johnson that they didn't support him. BJ was removing "not wanted here" (or somthing similar) messages on his car.

Pot and kettle comes to mind.

We should all learn to have a bit more care for each other, set and example that differences of opinion aren't that important.

And that involves making sure the neighbours lass is ok after a huge screaming match in which words where clearly used that suggest force, which does tend to mean calling the police.

[Lancasterclaret]

And then the newspaper for a payday ?

Up to them

I think you have a low opinion of journalists if you think this wouldn't have got into the papers anyway to be fair.

Its what they appear to exist for these days.

Certainly the majority don't actually report stuff that is important but boring (like the reality of a WTO Brexit)

[claretonthecoast1882]

Up to them

I think you have a low opinion of journalists if you think this wouldn't have got into the papers anyway to be fair.

Its what they appear to exist for these days.

Certainly the majority don't actually report stuff that is important but boring (like the reality of a WTO Brexit)

I think it is more than fair to have a low opinion of journalists. This would have made the papers regardless, 1 of the attending police would more than likely have tried flogging the story. I am just saying this couple being portrayed as concerned neighbours would have phoned the police and stopped there if their fears were genuine. Once they invite the press for a few quid they lose their right to ask for their privacy to be respected.

[Bordeauxclaret]

And then the newspaper for a payday ?

Are you furious about all things that are leaked to the papers?

[claretonthecoast1882]

Are you furious about all things that are leaked to the papers?

What in your mind makes you think I am furious, I couldn't care less what happens to Boris or the neighbours. Unlike you because it is about someone you don't like I don't think everything is fair game

[Bordeauxclaret]

You seem pretty furious about it.

If it’s because you hate anything being leaked to the press then it’s fair enough.

I suspect though it’s only because you don’t agree with their political views that this particular case is a problem though.

If this had been Ringo and Gina Miller I reckon you’d have been all for it.

[claretonthecoast1882]

Then you are wrong. No shock to see you bring ringo into your post you do seem to have a fascination with him, maybe I could describe you as furious you have spent a lot of time crying over brexit on here.

I will try and make it clear though the bit I object to (hopefully you will get it) If someone has real concerns for someones safety and rings the police then that is fine they are doing what is right, if at the same time the thought process gets them to hey lets ring a newspaper and make a few quid then this genuine concern isn't as genuine as people make out.

[Bordeauxclaret]

That’s because Ringo is the most entertaining person on the board. I’ve said it many times.

So real concerns = ringing police

Not real concerns = ringing the police and the papers.

Begs the question, why do you think they rang the police?

[tiger76]

Both candidates spending pledges not standing up to scrutiny from the IFS,what a shock.

Boris https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14212

Jeremy https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14213

This is what should be subject to discussion,not tittle-tattle.

[Lancasterclaret]

Both candidates spending pledges not standing up to scrutiny from the IFS,what a shock.

Boris https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14212

Jeremy https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14213

This is what should be subject to discussion,not tittle-tattle.

The IFS have been demolishing the case against Brexit for three years.

I admire your wish for the candidates to be more realistic about stuff though!

[taio]

Both candidates spending pledges not standing up to scrutiny from the IFS,what a shock.

Boris https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14212

Jeremy https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14213

This is what should be subject to discussion,not tittle-tattle.

Only looked at the first link. I don't follow the point about not standing up to scrutiny. The article just says how much the proposals would cost and who would be affected. It doesn't evidence or even say they wouldn't be deliverable.

[Lancasterclaret]

Only looked at the first link. I don't follow the point about not standing up to scrutiny. The article just says how much the proposals would cost and who would be affected. It doesn't evidence or even say they wouldn't be deliverable.

Anything is deliverable if you don't care about the costs.

[taio]

Anything is deliverable if you don't care about the costs.

Not necessarily. But clearly not my point in any case.

[aggi]

And then the newspaper for a payday ?

You keep referring to a payday. How much money did they get?

[dsr]

I reckon they felt that causing trouble for Boris Johnson was reward in itself. IT's a pretty scummy thing to do to your neighbours anyway, but surely they wouldn't be so very scummy as to take money for it?

[elwaclaret]

Suspect most of the stuff being spouted is for the members and blue rinse brigade, the Tory bedrock. I think it became pretty clear last night that there is little more than sound bites. Cutting higher rate tax in the current environment would be political suicide, even dressed as re-alignment. I have no problem increasing the tax thresholds, I have a big problem STARTING with those in least need.

The messing with NI is also long overdue.... but again they seem to be missing that as a % of earnings Serves the same section of society by definition. It will not hold water, it does not hold water, it can never hold water and will kill the Conservative party, despite Labour doing their level best to avoid getting into power.

[aggi]

I reckon they felt that causing trouble for Boris Johnson was reward in itself. IT's a pretty scummy thing to do to your neighbours anyway, but surely they wouldn't be so very scummy as to take money for it?

claretonthecoast1882 seems very definite about it and I'm sure he wouldn't have made it up.

[aggi]

I wonder why this random bio has appeared online today
https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/27/bip-ling ... -10081503/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Imploding Turtle]

Boris is managing to break his promises even before he's elected. https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-j ... ?r=US&IR=T" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No Islamophobia inquiry, despite promising one.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Both candidates spending pledges not standing up to scrutiny from the IFS,what a shock.

Boris https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14212

Jeremy https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14213

This is what should be subject to discussion,not tittle-tattle.

Looked at this and they don’t seem to be ripping them apart at all.

The line regarding Boris “Increasing the point at which people start to pay NICs is probably the best thing one can do through the tax system to help low earners”.

I tend to think that also helping the middle is important after years of being Osbornated. Frozen thresholds, dividend tax, tax relief......lots of stealth over the last 5 years, the Tories have forgotten they are meant to help entrepreneurs, so well done Boris (so far).

Paying for it all is a modern obsession (and the biggest weakness in the IFS). It is important of course, but a bit of “invest to earn” may pay back in spades in years to come despite raising the deficit short term.

[martin_p]

Paying for it all is a modern obsession (and the biggest weakness in the IFS). It is important of course, but a bit of “invest to earn” may pay back in spades in years to come despite raising the deficit short term.

It’s a Tory obsession when the money in question is to pay for public services. The IFS report notes that the most efficient way of helping out the lower paid is through the tax credit system. I’m sure there wouldn’t be such a relaxed attitude to paying for an increase in benefits, even though it’d cost less and be better targeted.

[Imploding Turtle]

...

Paying for it all is a modern obsession (and the biggest weakness in the IFS). It is important of course, but a bit of “invest to earn” may pay back in spades in years to come despite raising the deficit short term.

Any such growth funded spending will have to wait until after we've promised not to shoot our own credit rating in the face by refusing to obey our financial commitments to the EU.
No one's going to lend us money at a decent rate if we carry out the threats irresponsibly pushed by the far-right media and politicians.

[taio]

Any such growth funded spending will have to wait until after we've promised not to shoot our own credit rating in the face by refusing to obey our financial commitments to the EU.
No one's going to lend us money at a decent rate if we carry out the threats irresponsibly pushed by the far-right media and politicians.

From time to time I read utter shite on this board...and this is it.

[Imploding Turtle]

From time to time I read utter shite on this board...and this is it.

So does this mean that you are of the opinion that if we refuse to fulfil our financial commitments that lenders are just going to be perfectly fine lending to us as if nothing has happened?

What exactly is it about my post that you object to. You're very good at just saying that it's "utter shite" but you're apparently less good at actually explaining what it is you think is wrong about it, and why.

[nil_desperandum]

From time to time I read utter shite on this board...and this is it.

Very surprised you've posted this taio.
IT may have expressed his opinion v strongly, but what do you think is the likely outcome internationally if we renege on our financial commitments to the EU - the largest trading block and economy in the world?
(Clue: this is why responsible politicians such as Hammond have said that we will meet our obligations.)

[taio]

So does this mean that you are of the opinion that if we refuse to fulfil our financial commitments that lenders are just going to be perfectly fine lending to us as if nothing has happened?

What exactly is it about my post that you object to. You're very good at just saying that it's "utter shite" but you're apparently less good at actually explaining what it is you think is wrong about it, and why.

We won't end up not fulfilling our financial commitments. But even if we did it would invoke dispute resolution protocols rather than be classified as debt and a sovereign default by credit rating agencies.

I shouldn't have posted what I posted. You are right to point out I should've explained why I disagreed.

[taio]

Very surprised you've posted this taio.
IT may have expressed his opinion v strongly, but what do you think is the likely outcome internationally if we renege on our financial commitments to the EU - the largest trading block and economy in the world?
(Clue: this is why responsible politicians such as Hammond have said that we will meet our obligations.)

Are you saying credit rating agencies would regard it as a sovereign default?

[tiger76]

Boris is managing to break his promises even before he's elected. https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-j ... ?r=US&IR=T" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No Islamophobia inquiry, despite promising one.

That's a slap in the face for Sajid Javid after he got all the remaining candidates to pledge to such an inquiry on national TV.

If the Conservatives have nothing to hide why do they fear an independent audit of their party.

They are quick enough to point the finger at Labour over anti-semitism,but surprisingly reticent to put their own house in order.

[elwaclaret]

Then you would presume wrong but you are good at that. I said they have asked for privacy (if you read again) after ignoring someone else's privacy.
Hope this helps.

It does seem a little hypocrytical. But then again we seem to live in a world where the rules are different for remainers.... Just imagine if that was one of Farage's protesters at the Lib Dem conference.... They'd be cheering rhe MP for frog marching the protester..... Boris doesn't deserve privacy.... Yet they contact the newspaper and so put themselves in the firing line according to the same rules they use to justify sending / publishing it.

[nil_desperandum]

Are you saying credit rating agencies would regard it as a sovereign default?

I suspect that neither of us are an expert in this field, but Macron and others say it would be, and I would expect it to be regarded as such, but I guess that as usual it would be the lawyers who would make a lot of money out of this.
But it's perhaps not the potential legal implications that would be most important if we were to be judged by the world to be unreliable. If you're going in search of new trade deals it's hardly helpful. And of course the whole thrust from Boris and his team is that "no deal" doesn't really mean "no deal". It means "no deal" temporarily until a deal is negotiated. That's not going to happen until we agree to settle our commitments.

[taio]

I suspect that neither of us are an expert in this field, but Macron and others say it would be, and I would expect it to be regarded as such, but I guess that as usual it would be the lawyers who would make a lot of money out of this.
But it's perhaps not the potential legal implications that would be most important if we were to be judged by the world to be unreliable. If you're going in search of new trade deals it's hardly helpful. And of course the whole thrust from Boris and his team is that "no deal" doesn't really mean "no deal". It means "no deal" temporarily until a deal is negotiated. That's not going to happen until we agree to settle our commitments.

It's irrelevant what Macron says. Politicans say things to suit their position. Like when Johnson said we'd save £350m a week to put into the NHS. Or Osborne's emergency budget within days of Brexit result. Project fear.

Credit rating agencies determine ratings according to risk to private investors. Perhaps instead of referring to Macron you should explain why sovereign default would apply in such circumstances..

I would suggest honouring our commitments or a lengthy legal process through international courts would follow. If years and years of legal action occurred while UK withholds payment it's absurd to suggest we'd have a poor credit rating throughout that period.

[CrosspoolClarets]

It’s a Tory obsession when the money in question is to pay for public services. The IFS report notes that the most efficient way of helping out the lower paid is through the tax credit system. I’m sure there wouldn’t be such a relaxed attitude to paying for an increase in benefits, even though it’d cost less and be better targeted.

Yes Martin, that is the IFS weakness I referred to.

It would be the most efficient way if stimulating the economy was not a by-product of the tax package. You don’t encourage small business growth by tinkering with tax credits, and those small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy.

You say this money is to pay for public services - actually, it is fiscal headroom due to the booming economy, the public services have no more claim to it than we do. However, I have said often on here that a more balanced approach to government would be welcome with public services being appropriately funded. I won’t vote for a PM who strips them bare.

[nil_desperandum]

It's irrelevant what Macron says. .

I doubt that that will be be the case if we leave on WTO terms on Oct 31st. We have a deal now, but won't then. For the EU 27 it will be business as usual so it will be up to the Eu to determine on what terms we trade with them in the future. (I would imagine that Macron will have a significant say in this)

[taio]

I doubt that that will be be the case if we leave on WTO terms on Oct 31st. We have a deal now, but won't then. For the EU 27 it will be business as usual so it will be up to the Eu to determine on what terms we trade with them in the future. (I would imagine that Macron will have a significant say in this)

You know full well I was referring to how credit rating agencies determine ratings and risk. The above has nothing to do with what I posted.

[elwaclaret]

Yes Martin, that is the IFS weakness I referred to.

It would be the most efficient way if stimulating the economy was not a by-product of the tax package. You don’t encourage small business growth by tinkering with tax credits, and those small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy.

You say this money is to pay for public services - actually, it is fiscal headroom due to the booming economy, the public services have no more claim to it than we do. However, I have said often on here that a more balanced approach to government would be welcome with public services being appropriately funded. I won’t vote for a PM who strips them bare.

It’s certainly a million miles away from the Enterprise scheme set up by Thatcher to stimulate growth... Up to a year rent and rate free, a start up grant c/w allowance for peppercorn wage.... that was designed to help people into business not as employees but as potential bosses.... rather than potential zero hours contracts making the richest richer. Never thought I’d see the day when Thatcher offered most to the working class...

[dsr]

I doubt that that will be be the case if we leave on WTO terms on Oct 31st. We have a deal now, but won't then. For the EU 27 it will be business as usual so it will be up to the Eu to determine on what terms we trade with them in the future. (I would imagine that Macron will have a significant say in this)

Hardly business as usual. The total imports and exports that the EU trades with the UK is, by definition, the total imports and exports that we trade with them; and as has been frequently pointed out, they will in absolute terms suffer or not suffer the same as we will. The difference is they are bigger and so the damage they are willing to inflict on themselves will be relatively less than the damage they want to inflict on us.

Of course, we're risking a balance of payments deficit while they are playing with a balance of payments surplus; and we have the risks and opportunities of changing our relationships with the rest of the world in a way that they don't.

[nil_desperandum]

You know full well I was referring to how credit rating agencies determine ratings and risk. The above has nothing to do with what I posted.

Actually, as I said in an earlier post, I've no idea how credit ratings etc work. I'm only interested in what appears to be the reality of our position if we stupidly leave on WTO terms and fail to pay what we owe.

[Lancasterclaret]

There is a cracking analysis of the WTO effects by Peter Foster of the Telegraph today.

Well worth a read, though it is rather long (about 30+ consecutive tweets)

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/11 ... 6986811392" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndrewJB]

I think it is more than fair to have a low opinion of journalists. This would have made the papers regardless, 1 of the attending police would more than likely have tried flogging the story. I am just saying this couple being portrayed as concerned neighbours would have phoned the police and stopped there if their fears were genuine. Once they invite the press for a few quid they lose their right to ask for their privacy to be respected.

This is a good argument for continuing with Leveson 2. The papers have abused privacy all over the shop for years (phone hacking?), and Leveson 2 was supposed to investigate press collusion with the police. None of Leveson’s main initial recommendations have been taken up either. So much for the victims of press intrusion.

[Paul Waine]

Actually, as I said in an earlier post, I've no idea how credit ratings etc work. I'm only interested in what appears to be the reality of our position if we stupidly leave on WTO terms and fail to pay what we owe.

Hi nil_d. credit rating agencies look at the ability to pay debts when they become due. It's logical - and I think it has already happened - that the UK's rating has been placed on "watch" for possible downgrade as a result of the Brexit referendum. Whether there would be a bigger downgrade if we leave without a deal, I'd expect the rating agencies would decide at the time. If the UK didn't pay the £39bn on withdrawal, I'd expect that to be less certain to result in a downgrade. It would all depend on the legal obligations, i.e. what the EU Treaties say about a departing member having payment obligations to the EU. This is not the same as the political agreement to pay these amounts. And, it's easy for the rating agencies to separate the two. A "default" would result in a credit rating of "D." A downgrade would still leaving the UK (my estimate) in the A/AA range - which is still higher than many of the other EU member states (though not the largest ones).

And, yes, I do have a "little experience" of how credit rating agencies work.