Well Rory Stewart wants to bring Nigel Farage into the EU negotiations, I’d love to see the lefties put a positive spin on this one 
OVLOV JAY:
Well Rory Stewart wants to bring Nigel Farage into the EU negotiations, I’d love to see the lefties put a positive spin on this one
As a UK Parliamentary candidate who was rejected by the electorate five times, what would Farage`s role be for the UK Gov?
Commissioner? 
OVLOV JAY:
Well Rory Stewart wants to bring Nigel Farage into the EU negotiations, I’d love to see the lefties put a positive spin on this one
Farage and BoJo should have taken charge of Brexit from day one, with Cameron staying he had the Tory cabinet behind him, throwing his teddy in the corner and stropping off only split the party, but he did and the helm was handed to May, literally handed to her too.
May should never have called a GE, and in doing so she opened up the rift within the party and raised the question as to her leadership qualities, if it wasn’t for the DUP the Tories would have fell on their arse!
Stewart bringing in Farage will put the backs up of the DUP and possibly lose their support in the house, something the Tories really need.
I’m not sure how coalitions work, but if the DUP withdraw from the coalition does that not lead to a possible GE as the Tories lose the house majority ?
OVLOV JAY:
Remain mps used underhanded but legal tactics to try and scupper Brexit, if Johnson does the same by suspending parliament to push through a result the majority voted for, he gets my backing.
And mine also.
Boris is preparing if voted in, to lay out some genuine contingency plans for a No Deal scenario, thus sending out a message to the EU that he is prepared to go with it, and that a mutual interest deal is their call.
So basically he will not be ■■■■ ed about by them, unlike the last pathetic shower of ■■■■ who just went through the motions of getting a deal in order to leave, …whilst in reality they had zero desire to do so on both counts.
The EU is ■■■■■■■■ their kecks over this despite what the official line is, because if a precedent is set for a successful exit by the UK, Holland will definitely be next in the queue (according to my Dutch origin Mrs) then whoever else who is ■■■■■■ off with this corrupt arse feeding organisation that you lot are so fond of.
If Boris can convince the Remainers that he isn’t really that hot on Brexit after all - then they’ll let him win it.
If the Remainers thought for one minute that Boris would go about a no deal brexit before putting moving his stuff into Number 10 - then they’ll all rally around a “politically correct” candidate choice, such as Javid for “Coronation” PM.
If the vote goes to the people though, the Tory grass roots… Is there going to be any element of “Entryism” that’ll pick Javid over Boris in any run-off between the two?
Word has it, that Leadsom got torpedoed the other day having been backed into 8-1 to WIN it - because she was thought to be going into the final round, and then giving way like she did last time around, and the Tories do NOT want another “Coronation” here.
Quite frankly I’m amazed that Javid is as big a price as he is, when he’s the only person who can both stop Boris AND get plenty of votes from the newbie Tory members, should it go to a run-off that we’ve been told is what the party wants at this point.
I’ve now backed Javid to win a grand, despite not supporting him. I backed Corbyn to win 250-299 seats in the 2017 election, despite having never voted Labour in my life.
“Never let sentiment get in the way of a good betting opportunity”.
40-1 shots - come in all the time. 
The worst outcome of this leadership contest actually - is Boris gets the top job but ONLY by taking No Deal away to placate the Remainers threatening to knobble him otherwise.
The next election isn’t until June 2022 - if this happens, and by that point, M15 will have doctered up enough material against each and every member of the Brexit Party - to prevent them getting anywhere in the 2022 general election, which they are only favourites to win in the opinion polls if an election were held THIS side of Christmas 2019!
Politics - is nothing more than “Lies Management with Knobs On” don’t let us forget.
All Boris needs to do if he becomes PM is open investigations into embezzlement, fraud, Theft, and false accounting across the entire senior civil service, with people suspended on zero pay for the duration of the investigation. That way, many of them will choose to take early retitement (offered) and Boris can get some fresh people in there on the levers of CASH - and start shutting down those payments to the EU on a “Better late than never” basis. THIS was supposed to happen on March 29th - so there’s no legal reason why Boris cannot start the process of “cutting the finance to Brussels”.
Acting in this way doesn’t “porogue parliament”, or do anything else that Remainers are likely to prevent him from doing.
If Boris immediately re-allocates this money to the NHS as well - then what he manages to do here - will become politically irreversible, as what person taking over from Boris, (should he then be removed) - would approach the NHS and ask them for billions back already paid them - ‘because that money was earmarked for Brussels in law instead’ - they’ll argue.
We’ve left the EU proper - when the money we pay them STOPS. All the other stuff - falls into place once the EU are no longer being paid to waste time, and our own Remainer contingent get actively bribed BY the EU with UK taxpayer’s cash - to “kick Brexit down the road until doomsday” which is the default setting we have otherwise.
Carryfast:
Rjan:
The Tory party has spent the past 30 years throwing away reasonable conservative leaders.Heseltine, Portillo, Clarke, probably others.
What a surprise.The definition of ‘reasonable’ obviously being Euro Federalist while Hoey is supposedly ‘eccentric’ and ‘controversial’.No doubt just like Benn and Shore.Which leaves the obvious question would you prefer to vote for a Clark led Con administration than a Hoey led Labour one.Either or no ifs or buts ?.
But being a “Euro Federalist” is reasonable enough in Tory business terms. I wouldn’t vote Tory in any likely circumstances.
Hoey is eccentric and controversial. I’ve said before, I only know enough about her views to know that they need further scrutiny before passing judgment.
robroy:
OVLOV JAY:
Remain mps used underhanded but legal tactics to try and scupper Brexit, if Johnson does the same by suspending parliament to push through a result the majority voted for, he gets my backing.And mine also.
Boris is preparing if voted in, to lay out some genuine contingency plans for a No Deal scenario, thus sending out a message to the EU that he is prepared to go with it, and that a mutual interest deal is their call.
So basically he will not be [zb] ed about by them, unlike the last pathetic shower of [zb] who just went through the motions of getting a deal in order to leave, …whilst in reality they had zero desire to do so on both counts.The EU is [zb] their kecks over this despite what the official line is, because if a precedent is set for a successful exit by the UK, Holland will definitely be next in the queue (according to my Dutch origin Mrs) then whoever else who is ■■■■■■ off with this corrupt arse feeding organisation that you lot are so fond of.
Difficult to see what anyone can do in the next few months to me?
Especially when Johnson is proposing giving Brexit contingency funds to those who earn over £50,000 as tax cuts? theguardian.com/politics/20 … -threshold
“Boris Johnson has promised to cut taxes for around 3 million higher earners by raising the 40p threshold from £50,000 to £80,000 if he becomes prime minister,”
“The move would cost around £9.6bn a year, which would be paid for partly from savings in Brexit no-deal preparations, he said.”
So he is simultaneously saying more Brexit preparations, but using those funds to pay more cash to the richer among us…
Dunno how that trick can be pulled off?
I wonder if half the stuff our poltiicans are reputed to say every five minutes as “Gaffes” - is just mis-quoted newspaper stuff, as opposed to Boris saying what he was supposed to have said - on HD video!
I’m buggered if I can find any vids of Boris talking about “Tax cuts just for the rich”.
Talking about “Tax Cuts” - doesn’t even seem to be relevant to the entire Brexit Argument, come to that…
The whole 40p tax threshold is a red herring attack from the left, aimed at alienating the stupid. There are plenty of middle earners being squeezed by it. The 40p rate applies to gross earnings, we all live in take home pay. Plenty of public service workers in that bracket too. My girlfriend earns £80k working for a housing association, and I earn £38k driving a truck. She should be on a considerable amount more that £270 a week more than me, which is the difference in our take home pay
robroy:
OVLOV JAY:
Remain mps used underhanded but legal tactics to try and scupper Brexit, if Johnson does the same by suspending parliament to push through a result the majority voted for, he gets my backing.And mine also.
If you have an agenda truly supported by a continuing majority, then why not just call an election?
I agree with you that the Remain campaign driven by old Blairites has been deeply dishonest. But it has not, thus far anyway, succeeded.
But to use that to justify engaging in novel dishonesties, or in fact to use it to justify precisely the behaviour that sparked the last civil war centuries ago (in which the opponents of parliament came off worse), is senseless.
Boris is preparing if voted in, to lay out some genuine contingency plans for a No Deal scenario, thus sending out a message to the EU that he is prepared to go with it, and that a mutual interest deal is their call.
So basically he will not be [zb] ed about by them, unlike the last pathetic shower of [zb] who just went through the motions of getting a deal in order to leave, …whilst in reality they had zero desire to do so on both counts.The EU is [zb] their kecks over this despite what the official line is, because if a precedent is set for a successful exit by the UK, Holland will definitely be next in the queue (according to my Dutch origin Mrs) then whoever else who is ■■■■■■ off with this corrupt arse feeding organisation that you lot are so fond of.
What does a “successful exit” look like? Capital flight? The reintroduction of a wartime command economy? Dropping a few hundred billion in the hole to get back to where you were before?
What sort of things, concrete things, do you actually expect to change?
And you yourself don’t seem to be clear on what you want. Do you want a “mutual interest deal”, or do you want to leave?
Any deal is going to involve constraints and not just benefits and so-called cherries. You don’t seem to be very clear about what a deal is supposed to achieve for Britain.
OVLOV JAY:
The whole 40p tax threshold is a red herring attack from the left, aimed at alienating the stupid. There are plenty of middle earners being squeezed by it. The 40p rate applies to gross earnings, we all live in take home pay. Plenty of public service workers in that bracket too. My girlfriend earns £80k working for a housing association, and I earn £38k driving a truck. She should be on a considerable amount more that £270 a week more than me, which is the difference in our take home pay
There are no middle earners being squeezed by the 40% rate. In fact, you need to be on almost twice the middle income before your last slice of earnings is taxed at 40%.
The reason more people are falling into higher brackets is the corollary of more inequality and more people being paid too little.
£270 a week extra in disposable income is a huge amount. You could both dine out at a nice restaurant every night of the week without compromising any other aspect of living. You could buy a brand new car outright every 12 months, or certainly every 18 months, and afford to park it on the dung heap at the end without troubling yourself to sell it on. I wonder whether you have lost perspective?
Winseer:
I wonder if half the stuff our poltiicans are reputed to say every five minutes as “Gaffes” - is just mis-quoted newspaper stuff, as opposed to Boris saying what he was supposed to have said - on HD video!I’m buggered if I can find any vids of Boris talking about “Tax cuts just for the rich”.
Talking about “Tax Cuts” - doesn’t even seem to be relevant to the entire Brexit Argument, come to that…
Tax cuts are relevant to this thread about PM material when he is promising more Brexit preparations, and using Brexit funds, to finance tax cuts.
The article, should you care to read it, says Johnson was talking about this in his own piece in The Telegraph. If you choose you can view the original there.
Rjan:
OVLOV JAY:
The whole 40p tax threshold is a red herring attack from the left, aimed at alienating the stupid. There are plenty of middle earners being squeezed by it. The 40p rate applies to gross earnings, we all live in take home pay. Plenty of public service workers in that bracket too. My girlfriend earns £80k working for a housing association, and I earn £38k driving a truck. She should be on a considerable amount more that £270 a week more than me, which is the difference in our take home payThere are no middle earners being squeezed by the 40% rate. In fact, you need to be on almost twice the middle income before your last slice of earnings is taxed at 40%.
The reason more people are falling into higher brackets is the corollary of more inequality and more people being paid too little.
£270 a week extra in disposable income is a huge amount. You could both dine out at a nice restaurant every night of the week without compromising any other aspect of living. You could buy a brand new car outright every 12 months, or certainly every 18 months, and afford to park it on the dung heap at the end without troubling yourself to sell it on. I wonder whether you have lost perspective?
I’ve not lost any perspective. It kicks in at double the national average. Then it’s virtually half gone to tax. She paid over £25k in tax last year. I paid £8k. Is it fair that two people on £40k each pay appropriately £18k between them in tax, while one person pays £25k? Where’s the desire to succeed in life if you pay most of it to the government?
OVLOV JAY:
I’ve not lost any perspective. It kicks in at double the national average. Then it’s virtually half gone to tax. She paid over £25k in tax last year. I paid £8k. Is it fair that two people on £40k each pay appropriately £18k between them in tax, while one person pays £25k? Where’s the desire to succeed in life if you pay most of it to the government?
And 8 people each earning £10,000 would pay nothing. How fair is that?
And obviously they will have no desire to get a better paid job, as they would have to start paying tax.
Franglais:
OVLOV JAY:
I’ve not lost any perspective. It kicks in at double the national average. Then it’s virtually half gone to tax. She paid over £25k in tax last year. I paid £8k. Is it fair that two people on £40k each pay appropriately £18k between them in tax, while one person pays £25k? Where’s the desire to succeed in life if you pay most of it to the government?And 8 people each earning £10,000 would pay nothing. How fair is that?
And obviously they will have no desire to get a better paid job, as they would have to start paying tax.
If you are earning £10k you will be most likely to be on benefits to top it up, so not much desire to better yourself to be honest
switchlogic:
Grumpy Dad:
[The in house voting at this stage doesn’t really stand for anything, last time this happened and was seen all the way through was when Cameron won the leadership, the first 2 stages he wasn’t in the top 3 and Micheal Portillo was looking favourite.
Minor correction but Portillo and Cameron never stood in same leadership election. Portillo wasnt even an MP when Cameron was elected, in fact they’ve never both been in parliament at the same time, he retired from politics in 2005. Can’t for life of me remember who he was up against though
Portillo - lost his seat to Labour in Enfield Southgate in 1997.
He then went on to make some railway journey programmes, and I would argue he retired from Politics in 1997 when he lost his seat, as I don’t recall him doing any work at any town hall after that.
Cameron - became leader after Michael Howard stepped down following “Insufficient inroads” made into the Tory majority at the 2005 general election. Blair’s majority was greatly reduced, the Libdems under the late Charles Kennedy - reached their highest ever seat tally of 62, and the Conservatives under Howard - advanced 32 seats in that election, losing by less popular votes than Remain lost the referendum by.
Howard became leader of the Conservatives “via coronation” in effect, as no one stood against him.
Before Howard stepped down following the 2005 election defeat - he had a cabinet re-shuffle that put both Cameron and Osbourne known as the “Notting Hill Set” into the shadow cabinet, paving the way for this pair’s eventual ascendency in 2010.
Franglais:
Winseer:
I wonder if half the stuff our poltiicans are reputed to say every five minutes as “Gaffes” - is just mis-quoted newspaper stuff, as opposed to Boris saying what he was supposed to have said - on HD video!I’m buggered if I can find any vids of Boris talking about “Tax cuts just for the rich”.
Talking about “Tax Cuts” - doesn’t even seem to be relevant to the entire Brexit Argument, come to that…
Tax cuts are relevant to this thread about PM material when he is promising more Brexit preparations, and using Brexit funds, to finance tax cuts.
The article, should you care to read it, says Johnson was talking about this in his own piece in The Telegraph. If you choose you can view the original there.
I don’t read articles that don’t have moving pictures in them. If I took “snapshot” journalism too seriously, I’d be camping outside some fleet street office asking them for a job - following the large amounts of pontificating stuff I write all the time. 
Just because “The Guardian” says "Boris did this, and Boris said that - and the only bit of moving picture I see - is some higher-massed Boris swinging around on a zip wire…
Howcome the Left apparently fear Boris so much that they do NOT want him taking over as PM anyways■■? 
“If Labour don’t want him as PM - then Tory Voters - should BACK this arch-enemy of Labour - to get a harder Brexit done than would be even contemplated otherwise…”
I suspect Boris will get knobbled in this leadership race though… It ain’t over yet.
Franglais:
And 8 people each earning £10,000 would pay nothing. How fair is that?
And obviously they will have no desire to get a better paid job, as they would have to start paying tax.
Fairer than a single person earning £15,000 as opposed to a married couple earning £15,000 each or VAT paid at a single rate whether a worker on minimum wage or a banker.
On that note feel free to work more than 30 hours per week and/or earn more than minimum wage,a few years from retirement and if you no longer need to pay a mortgage or rent.Having said that there are plenty of jobs out there expecting more than 1 hour’s worth of work and/or more than one job role for 1 hour’s and/or 1 job’s worth of pay if you’re mug enough and/or desperate enough to take it. 
OVLOV JAY:
Rjan:
… I wonder whether you have lost perspective?I’ve not lost any perspective. It kicks in at double the national average. Then it’s virtually half gone to tax. She paid over £25k in tax last year. I paid £8k. Is it fair that two people on £40k each pay appropriately £18k between them in tax, while one person pays £25k? Where’s the desire to succeed in life if you pay most of it to the government?
One person earning double the national average means in practice that they have many times the disposable income of someone on an average salary.
It is fair that one person pays more tax on the same income as two people earning the same combined, because part of the function of progressive taxation is firstly to ensure that those who evidently gain the most from our society pay the most for its facilities and upkeep, and secondly it is there to penalise runaway market mechanisms that concentrate too much reward amongst a minority whilst depriving the majority.
I’m very sceptical that a “desire to succeed” has any social benefit, particularly when it manifests predominantly as a desire to monopolise wholly disproportionate economic means, or when a person with quite a few bob more than the norm (and who has succeeded even in their own terms) can be indignant that they aren’t even richer.
I mean I know everyone wants to believe they are smart and that they deserve all achievements, and I suppose a person could argue that their full social contribution is rendered by their labour at work, and that their wages should not then be garnished by a further web of taxation and obligations.
But taxation to pay for the social and economic infrastructure has to be levied somewhere - if not on the individual’s wages then upstream on the surpluses generated by the organisation.
And does it never occur that some salaries may be the result of runaway market forces and thus represent unearned windfalls?
Does it not occur that some large salaries are granted not because of the social benefit they generate but because of the social harm they inflict?