1,010 comments posted · 10 followers · following 88

1 day ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Annunziata Rees-Mogg a... · 0 replies · +1 points

"... But with Boris it wasn’t ideological at all but driven by ambition - Tim knew his man. Boris had principles, but if you didn’t like them he had others. ..."
--Too true. And it reminds me of one of my favourite political slogans, allegedly from the 1968 French students' "revolt" (possibly by
 situationists): "Je suis marxiste, tendence Groucho."

3 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - What you may have miss... · 1 reply · +1 points

You mean left-wingers like Ann Widdecombe and the late Alan Clarke?

But I admit that in the UK - but perhaps not elsewhere, for example maybe in France or Russia? - opposition to hunting may be more likely to be (radical?) left-wingers than right-wingers.

For myself, I was and am on balance in favour of the ban, but when the bill was under discussion I tended to favour the opposite to whatever was being advocated by the most recent letter I had read in the Daily Telegraph, because the arguments for, and against, were often rubbish. From Max Hastings's (who was very much against the ban) article:
"... Both sides of the debate have impaled themselves on arguments about the merits of hunting as a means of controlling foxes. In reality, no sane farmer who had a serious fox problem would send for the Quorn or the Pytchley to deal with it. A lot of smart hunts go for weeks without catching anything. They are in the same business as the RSPCA, if either side could bear to admit it. In hunting countries, foxes are religiously preserved. Elsewhere, they are ruthlessly shot, gassed or trapped, as of course they will be across the countryside if hunting is banned. ..."</>

3 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Annabel Denham: Don't ... · 0 replies · +1 points

From a brief non-exhaustive perusal of past comments by @lewee4671 I think SNP "troll" might be nearer the mark?

But if you're basing "LABOUR TROLL" on the content of the post, then support for employers being allowed to recruit without restrictions based on nationality is hardly an exclusively Labour Party - or left wing in general - policy, if, indeed, that actually is a Labour Party policy, or is even proposed by large numbers of Labour Party supporters.

I suggest that as worded, that policy is rather more likely to be advocated by a particular type of right-winger, for example libertarians.

For example, the Adam Smith Institute (a pity they've hijacked the name of a great economist and moral philosopher, whose views were rather more nuanced than theirs? - but I digress):

or - somewhat less enthusiastically? - the Institute of Economic Affairs:

neither of which could conceivably be called left-wing, or even centrists.

(In case I too may be dismissed as a Labour troll, whilst I will not be voting Conservative - especially with its current leader, TBP Ltd, or UKIP in the 2019 General Election, nor will I be voting for the Labour Party with its current leader. I live in a very safe majority Conservative Party seat in England, so I can indulge myself: I had intended to vote Liberal Democrat, but find its leader unconvincing, so while I think it a bit of a cult, and has some policies - for example opposition to nuclear power - which may be less than optimal for the environment, I am reluctantly inclined to vote for the Green Party.)

3 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - May deserves better th... · 0 replies · +1 points

This is a bit late, but well spotted.

4 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - No party is covering i... · 7 replies · +1 points

"Boris Johnson published a useful Twitter thread yesterday which set out the background to the Khan case.  It was more impressive than the Government’s policy response."

A reason it was "useful" and "more impressive" might be that - allegedly - it was plagiarised without attribution (I suppose plagiarism is always without attribution?) from this:
which was written by an actual criminal law barrister.

The evidence that it was plagiarised are in these Twitter threads.
Of course, instead of trusting @BarristerSecret's view (personally I would, based (i) on their reputation, and (ii) Boris Johnson's - or should that be "Team Johnson's"? - reputation), people, including those at ConservativeHome, can read the blog post, and compare it with "Boris Johnson's" Twitter thread, and make their own judgment.

An ending thought: even if it wasn't plagiarised from @BarristerSecret, how likely is it that, despite his well known great attention to detail, even one word of his Twitter thread on this was actually written by Boris Johnson, rather than by one of his staffers, in which case it would be plagiarism by - presumably - consent.

4 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - "A massive bias of und... · 1 reply · +1 points

The link just worked for me. The article is dated 8 Oct 2019, and begins:

Government on course to break its fiscal mandate while almost matching Labour 2017 offer on total day-to-day public service spending next year

Carl Emmerson, Christine Farquharson and Paul Johnson

08 Oct 2019

Government borrowing is set to be over £50 billion next year (2.3% of national income), more than double what the OBR forecast in March. This results mainly from a combination of spending increases, a (welcome) change in the accounting treatment of student loans, a correction to corporation tax revenues and a weakening economy. Borrowing of this level would breach the 2% of national income ceiling imposed by the government’s own fiscal mandate, with which the chancellor has said he is complying.

Even a relatively benign no-deal Brexit would likely lead to borrowing approaching £100 billion, or 4% of national income. Under such a scenario, a temporary fiscal stimulus could help to smooth the path of growth. But it would also add to government debt, which would be on course to breach the government’s sustainable debt rule. Debt would climb to almost 90% of national income for the first time since the mid 1960s.

In those circumstances, next year’s mini-boom in public spending would likely be followed by another bust as the government struggled to deal with the consequences of a smaller economy and higher debt for funding public services.

The government is in practice operating with no effective fiscal rules at present. It has –probably rightly – abandoned its manifesto commitment to get to budget balance in the mid 2020s. Given the massive uncertainty over the direction of the economy and public finances, it is hard to conceive of a set of fiscal rules in the short term that would be appropriately constraining and give the chancellor flexibility to respond to bad economic news. A commitment not to legislate further permanent net tax cuts or day-to-day spending increases might for now be the best way to manage that uncertainty as the Treasury prepares for this year’s Budget and next year’s Spending Review. This is not the time to be implementing substantial and permanent net tax cuts.


6 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Are Labour closing the... · 1 reply · +1 points

I've only just seen this so what follows may be redundant.

What you describe has happened to me on several occasions. I think what's happening is that when someone posts a comment on an article ConservativeHome/IntenseDebate refreshes the article's web page to include the new comment, and that act of refreshing (mostly) drops the text of comments being made but not yet posted. Or something like that.

So - when I remember - I draft comments in an offline editor on my laptop/tablet, and when I've finished the draft I copy its text, then press the reply button, paste the text into the reply box, and then press the submit comment button. (That's how I did this reply.) An alternative is similar to that, but instead of an offline editor use a web-based email account, and draft the comment as a draft email.

At the bottom of this in the "BEWARE" section is a slightly longer version of that, together with another reason for drafting comments offline or in email. (I wrote this for another ConservativeHome commenter who wanted to use italics in comments.)

11 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Henry Hill: Belief tha... · 1 reply · +1 points

Henry Hill writes: "... any annexation of Northern Ireland by the Republic ..."
* annexation NOUN The action of annexing something, especially territory.
* annex VERB ... 2 Add (territory) to one's own territory by appropriation. ...

On what grounds - especially in view of the "Good Friday Agreement" - is Henry Hill using "annexation" even remotely appopriate? The linked article in The Irish Sun (not, as Henry Hill writes, The Sun) uses the terms "reunification", "unification", and "united Ireland". Why doesn't Henry Hill use one of those?

12 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - "The landing zone" · 0 replies · +1 points

Mostly true, but maybe Napoleon's invasion of Russia is an exception?

12 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Jonathan Clark: Brexit... · 0 replies · +1 points

Can you cite a reference for one million EU non-UK citizens who are resident in the UK being registered to vote in UK General Elections?

There is no mention here of EU non-UK citizens being eligible to vote in UK General Elections.
General Elections (elections to the UK Parliament) usually take place every 5 years.
To vote in a General Election you must:
* be registered to vote
* be 18 or over on the day of the election (‘polling day’)
* be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen
* be resident at an address in the UK (or a British citizen living abroad who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years)
* not be legally excluded from voting

However EU non-UK citizens resident in the UK can register for and vote in:
* Local Elections
* devolved government - Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland - elections, if they reside in the relevant country
* EU Parliament elections - they can vote in their
I assume - but haven't checked - that similar rules to these apply to all or most UK citizens residing in the EU but not in the UK.