'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
Now here is labour's problem in one comment
Keir Starmer has committed to resign if he gets a FPN and demands everyone in Labour tells the truth
Spinning is misleading the public and below Starmer's bar he has set labour
Oh? I am not a Labour fan, but I am sure the words "up to" were used. I am not expecting to be in receipt of anything. I thought it looked pretty straightforward to me?
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
Now here is labour's problem in one comment
Keir Starmer has committed to resign if he gets a FPN and demands everyone in Labour tells the truth
Spinning is misleading the public and below Starmer's bar he has set labour
Oh? I am not a Labour fan, but I am sure the words "up to" were used. I am not expecting to be in receipt of anything. I thought it looked pretty straightforward to me?
Use of the words "up to" is always a good sign that the advertiser is trying to give a false impression.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
Sure, Windfall taxes are a terrible idea which usually end up with the customer paying.
No good Conservative should support a windfall tax, they are the ultimate virtual signal tax.
Which is why I expect this government to announce one soon.
They really arn’t. It will be boost Starmer and Labour far too much, implying Labour and Starmer are as the ones with the ideas and leading in this crisis!
The challenge here is not to boost Labour by obeying what they tell you to do, but outflank Labour with a smarter, less glib response than windfall tax (it is indeed glib, we want private firms to invest and innovate here, and a few years ago they made no profit at all, where was Starmer then?).
When in power you can easily see off opposition, because you can actually do stuff, Opposition’s can’t.
If the Tories want to avoid this summers polling death spiral, outflank Labour, my Dad’s suggestion is they introduce a universal credit top-up, and add four figure money to pensioners winter fuel payment and bring part of it forward so they get it earlier. For those that rely on heating oil, they can be targeted by extending the price cap on energy to the heating oil.market. Also Cutting tariffs on non domestic products can make supermarket shop cheaper.
Paid for by? One of the reasons windfall tax isn’t happening, Instead of raising money from windfall tax the government is actually sitting on at least £20B it can use anytime on measures to help, before even contemplating borrowing more. And can pause spending in other areas to help fund these emergency measures, such as in the new alternative energy plans.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
I offer up the Conservative definition of a 'new' and indeed 'hospital' for the court...
Ah, you mean counting a new car parking space for the Chief Executive outside a hospital as a "new hospital". That kind of thing?
Have you a link for that?
It was a joke, Big G, just a joke.
I know - just me being naughty !!!
I opened a new hospital this morning. Sorry, I meant a new packet of paracetamol....
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
Now here is labour's problem in one comment
Keir Starmer has committed to resign if he gets a FPN and demands everyone in Labour tells the truth
Spinning is misleading the public and below Starmer's bar he has set labour
Oh? I am not a Labour fan, but I am sure the words "up to" were used. I am not expecting to be in receipt of anything. I thought it looked pretty straightforward to me?
The words commonly used by labour spokespersons were £200 off energy bills and upto £600 but I have listened to labour mps say £600 off energy bills
I expect if a poll was run on this the majority would expect £200 off their bills under this windfall tax policy
My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.
Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.
That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.
I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?
Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?
In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.
However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories? No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.
The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
It doesn't.
The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.
The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.
Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.
If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.
"Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
I offer up the Conservative definition of a 'new' and indeed 'hospital' for the court...
Ah, you mean counting a new car parking space for the Chief Executive outside a hospital as a "new hospital". That kind of thing?
Have you a link for that?
It was a joke, Big G, just a joke.
I know - just me being naughty !!!
I opened a new hospital this morning. Sorry, I meant a new packet of paracetamol....
Of all the stupid things the government has done, and there is a long list, this is one of the most irritating to me. In most cases there has been spending from central pockets to improve facilities. Often its a new unit (such as maternity or cancer etc). They are all shiny and new. Job done.
And then some prick thinks 'lets call it a new hospital' and makes mugs of us all.
A new hospital is a new hospital, with everything. A new unit at an existing hospital is not.
One wonders who thought it was a good idea? (Or a good wheeze, in stupid, Old Etonian slang).
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
Now here is labour's problem in one comment
Keir Starmer has committed to resign if he gets a FPN and demands everyone in Labour tells the truth
Spinning is misleading the public and below Starmer's bar he has set labour
Oh? I am not a Labour fan, but I am sure the words "up to" were used. I am not expecting to be in receipt of anything. I thought it looked pretty straightforward to me?
The words commonly used by labour spokespersons were £200 off energy bills and upto £600 but I have listened to labour mps say £600 off energy bills
I expect if a poll was run on this the majority would expect £200 off their bills under this windfall tax policy
Even if that were only for the most disadvantaged I am sure most us could support that couldn't we?
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
I mean, they're literally intending for people to hear "you'll get £600" and gloss over the "up to".
And, yeah, I'm not saying they're any worse than the other side. As usual, they're all pretty much the same.
The *incredibly* stupid thing is that £100/household sounds no worse than £600/household...If and only if noone has offered £600/household first.
Seeing as bills over a couple of years for some will move from £1000 a year to £3000 a year, £100 per household does not sound like much regardless of other offers. The bottom 10% or so can't just come up with that extra cash at all without a mix of debt, hunger or freezing next winter. The next 20% or so can but it will be a massive lifestyle downgrade. Probably only the top 20% are relatively immune.
On Jeremy Vine's show this morning they were asking the viewers to ring in with their versions of an "Eton Mess". Sadly I couldn't get through to say an Eton Mess is the present Tory government in the most part.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
Now here is labour's problem in one comment
Keir Starmer has committed to resign if he gets a FPN and demands everyone in Labour tells the truth
Spinning is misleading the public and below Starmer's bar he has set labour
Oh? I am not a Labour fan, but I am sure the words "up to" were used. I am not expecting to be in receipt of anything. I thought it looked pretty straightforward to me?
Use of the words "up to" is always a good sign that the advertiser is trying to give a false impression.
I think most people know what "up to" means. It means that the odd person might get it, but most will get less. Now I know I have a brain the size of a large galaxy, but I am sure even ordinary people could grasp that, Shirley?
That a so-called "No Deal" Brexit impact is ridiculously exaggerated? Yes 100% I do.
The UK is never going to impose a hard border in Northern Ireland. Ireland is never going to impose a hard border. The rest of the drama is bluffing and greatly exaggerated hysteria, if someone is willing to call that out then I 100% endorse that.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
Now here is labour's problem in one comment
Keir Starmer has committed to resign if he gets a FPN and demands everyone in Labour tells the truth
Spinning is misleading the public and below Starmer's bar he has set labour
Oh? I am not a Labour fan, but I am sure the words "up to" were used. I am not expecting to be in receipt of anything. I thought it looked pretty straightforward to me?
The words commonly used by labour spokespersons were £200 off energy bills and upto £600 but I have listened to labour mps say £600 off energy bills
I expect if a poll was run on this the majority would expect £200 off their bills under this windfall tax policy
Even if that were only for the most disadvantaged I am sure most us could support that couldn't we?
Of course, but labour have been caught out spinning the policy they have made so much an issue, and honesty from day one would have avoided the accusation that they have misled the public
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
I mean, they're literally intending for people to hear "you'll get £600" and gloss over the "up to".
And, yeah, I'm not saying they're any worse than the other side. As usual, they're all pretty much the same.
The *incredibly* stupid thing is that £100/household sounds no worse than £600/household...If and only if noone has offered £600/household first.
Seeing as bills over a couple of years for some will move from £1000 a year to £3000 a year, £100 per household does not sound like much regardless of other offers. The bottom 10% or so can't just come up with that extra cash at all without a mix of debt, hunger or freezing next winter. The next 20% or so can but it will be a massive lifestyle downgrade. Probably only the top 20% are relatively immune.
My point being that £600 per household doesn't sound like much against those numbers either.
That a so-called "No Deal" Brexit impact is ridiculously exaggerated? Yes 100% I do.
The UK is never going to impose a hard border in Northern Ireland. Ireland is never going to impose a hard border. The rest of the drama is bluffing and greatly exaggerated hysteria, if someone is willing to call that out then I 100% endorse that.
Gosh, that was a big delay. I was asking whether you approved of what I saw as being pretty offensive to Irish people and what amounts to the use of the "thick Irish turnip farmer" trope. Of course you approve.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
Now here is labour's problem in one comment
Keir Starmer has committed to resign if he gets a FPN and demands everyone in Labour tells the truth
Spinning is misleading the public and below Starmer's bar he has set labour
Oh? I am not a Labour fan, but I am sure the words "up to" were used. I am not expecting to be in receipt of anything. I thought it looked pretty straightforward to me?
The words commonly used by labour spokespersons were £200 off energy bills and upto £600 but I have listened to labour mps say £600 off energy bills
I expect if a poll was run on this the majority would expect £200 off their bills under this windfall tax policy
That's good, because £200 off is what the majority would get. The poorest, whose rise in income is furthest behind inflation, would get £600. Fairly straightforward.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
Now here is labour's problem in one comment
Keir Starmer has committed to resign if he gets a FPN and demands everyone in Labour tells the truth
Spinning is misleading the public and below Starmer's bar he has set labour
Oh? I am not a Labour fan, but I am sure the words "up to" were used. I am not expecting to be in receipt of anything. I thought it looked pretty straightforward to me?
The words commonly used by labour spokespersons were £200 off energy bills and upto £600 but I have listened to labour mps say £600 off energy bills
I expect if a poll was run on this the majority would expect £200 off their bills under this windfall tax policy
Even if that were only for the most disadvantaged I am sure most us could support that couldn't we?
Of course, but labour have been caught out spinning the policy they have made so much an issue, and honesty from day one would have avoided the accusation that they have misled the public
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
Now here is labour's problem in one comment
Keir Starmer has committed to resign if he gets a FPN and demands everyone in Labour tells the truth
Spinning is misleading the public and below Starmer's bar he has set labour
Oh? I am not a Labour fan, but I am sure the words "up to" were used. I am not expecting to be in receipt of anything. I thought it looked pretty straightforward to me?
The words commonly used by labour spokespersons were £200 off energy bills and upto £600 but I have listened to labour mps say £600 off energy bills
I expect if a poll was run on this the majority would expect £200 off their bills under this windfall tax policy
Even if that were only for the most disadvantaged I am sure most us could support that couldn't we?
Of course, but labour have been caught out spinning the policy they have made so much an issue, and honesty from day one would have avoided the accusation that they have misled the public
Oh, come off it, that is ridiculously partisan.
I see Big G has seamlessly moved onto his next synthetic Labour attack line.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
I mean, they're literally intending for people to hear "you'll get £600" and gloss over the "up to".
And, yeah, I'm not saying they're any worse than the other side. As usual, they're all pretty much the same.
The *incredibly* stupid thing is that £100/household sounds no worse than £600/household...If and only if noone has offered £600/household first.
Seeing as bills over a couple of years for some will move from £1000 a year to £3000 a year, £100 per household does not sound like much regardless of other offers. The bottom 10% or so can't just come up with that extra cash at all without a mix of debt, hunger or freezing next winter. The next 20% or so can but it will be a massive lifestyle downgrade. Probably only the top 20% are relatively immune.
My point being that £600 per household doesn't sound like much against those numbers either.
I think it sounds like a lot even if it is not enough. I suspect the end point will be something like £600 for energy for the worst hit plus the £20 pw universal credit coming back.
Or we are going to end up with a massive crime wave and social unrest on top of everything else.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
Now here is labour's problem in one comment
Keir Starmer has committed to resign if he gets a FPN and demands everyone in Labour tells the truth
Spinning is misleading the public and below Starmer's bar he has set labour
Oh? I am not a Labour fan, but I am sure the words "up to" were used. I am not expecting to be in receipt of anything. I thought it looked pretty straightforward to me?
The words commonly used by labour spokespersons were £200 off energy bills and upto £600 but I have listened to labour mps say £600 off energy bills
I expect if a poll was run on this the majority would expect £200 off their bills under this windfall tax policy
That's good, because £200 off is what the majority would get. The poorest, whose rise in income is furthest behind inflation, would get £600. Fairly straightforward.
Really? Someone upthread said the average would be £100.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
Loads of comments 🙂
Have you got any comment on this one?
The New York Times have run a story suggesting the Tory party have taken more iffy rubles.
The New York Times (NYT) said it had reviewed documents linked to the donation, which was recorded as £450,000 by the party, and said it originated in a Russian account of Sir Ehud’s father-in-law, Sergei Kopytov. The NYT said Barclays bank, in an alert sent to the National Crime Agency in 2021, identified with “considerable certainty” Mr Kopytov to have been the “true source of the donation”.
I have no idea about this story and it is up to the authorities to investigate if wrong doing is suspected
However, that is deflecting from my post which questions the veracity of not only Starmers report on beergate, but labours position on the windfall tax providing £200 and £600 for some, which Rachel Reeves clearly has had to clarify in the HOC this afternoon
Ha, deflection strategy foiled. 🙂
Okay I’ll tackle what you are posting head on. YOU ARE UTTERLY WRONG BIG G.
Absolutely everybody wants those struggling worse, helped first and helped most. Even those finding it difficult themselves want those worse off helped first.
Hence I have posted the suggestions from my dad, as alternative to Starmer’s windfall tax and how labour would use it, as far superior option for the Tories - target those really struggling in June’s crisis budget.
Not only are my posts better than your anti labour spin ones, because I explain what measures Rishi actually will take in a few weeks time outflanking labour, I even explained how it’s paid for.
All you are doing is barking a bit of fluff up the wrong tree.
Erm, no. I loath Corbyn and his ilk more than most but that wasn’t his appeal. It might have been part of it but when you spoke to those who loved him and weren’t previously politically engaged (e.g. weren’t the usual far left mob) it was because he spoke with compassion and about hope for the future.
Yes, that's the problem with the sober managerial approach. I absolutely think that "a serious leader for difficult times" is aa good solid argument for Labour under Starmer, but does it lift the heart? It needs compassion and hope too.
That a so-called "No Deal" Brexit impact is ridiculously exaggerated? Yes 100% I do.
The UK is never going to impose a hard border in Northern Ireland. Ireland is never going to impose a hard border. The rest of the drama is bluffing and greatly exaggerated hysteria, if someone is willing to call that out then I 100% endorse that.
Gosh, that was a big delay. I was asking whether you approved of what I saw as being pretty offensive to Irish people and what amounts to the use of the "thick Irish turnip farmer" trope. Of course you approve.
I must say that sort of anti-Irishism would be jarring in a golf club bar, let alone emitted by the ForM in the US of all places. That is not going to make friends and influence people, which I thought naively comprised part of her job ...
Completely off topic but a bit shaken up, just got back from dropping my wife off at the hospital. She seems to be OK but thought it best to get her in to be checked up. When she was crossing the road this morning to go into work she was hit by a car in a hit and run accident. They pulled out from a car park as she was already crossing the road, drove on the wrong side of the road, hit her and then swerved and sped off. She was knocked over.
A member of the public who witnessed the accident stopped to check she was OK. They got a partial reg-plate so hopefully the Police can identify whoever it was that did it.
She seems to be OK but in shock. At first she didn't even tell people at work she'd been hit by a car and continued working for a few hours before asking her manager if she could go home as she was in pain from the accident. She didn't want to go to A&E but is there now just in case she needs an x-ray or anything. Fingers crossed she's OK but utterly despicable anyone who hits a pedestrian and then just speeds off in response.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
I offer up the Conservative definition of a 'new' and indeed 'hospital' for the court...
Ah, you mean counting a new car parking space for the Chief Executive outside a hospital as a "new hospital". That kind of thing?
Have you a link for that?
It was a joke, Big G, just a joke.
I know - just me being naughty !!!
I opened a new hospital this morning. Sorry, I meant a new packet of paracetamol....
Of all the stupid things the government has done, and there is a long list, this is one of the most irritating to me. In most cases there has been spending from central pockets to improve facilities. Often its a new unit (such as maternity or cancer etc). They are all shiny and new. Job done.
And then some prick thinks 'lets call it a new hospital' and makes mugs of us all.
A new hospital is a new hospital, with everything. A new unit at an existing hospital is not.
One wonders who thought it was a good idea? (Or a good wheeze, in stupid, Old Etonian slang).
It is the bus again.
More of the voters who actually change their mind about how to vote mostly hear "new hospitals" whenever Tories announce them or Labour or the press criticise the Tories for lying exactly about how many "new hospitals" there are.
Completely off topic but a bit shaken up, just got back from dropping my wife off at the hospital. She seems to be OK but thought it best to get her in to be checked up. When she was crossing the road this morning to go into work she was hit by a car in a hit and run accident. They pulled out from a car park as she was already crossing the road, drove on the wrong side of the road, hit her and then swerved and sped off. She was knocked over.
A member of the public who witnessed the accident stopped to check she was OK. They got a partial reg-plate so hopefully the Police can identify whoever it was that did it.
She seems to be OK but in shock. At first she didn't even tell people at work she'd been hit by a car and continued working for a few hours before asking her manager if she could go home as she was in pain from the accident. She didn't want to go to A&E but is there now just in case she needs an x-ray or anything. Fingers crossed she's OK but utterly despicable anyone who hits a pedestrian and then just speeds off in response.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
Loads of comments 🙂
Have you got any comment on this one?
The New York Times have run a story suggesting the Tory party have taken more iffy rubles.
The New York Times (NYT) said it had reviewed documents linked to the donation, which was recorded as £450,000 by the party, and said it originated in a Russian account of Sir Ehud’s father-in-law, Sergei Kopytov. The NYT said Barclays bank, in an alert sent to the National Crime Agency in 2021, identified with “considerable certainty” Mr Kopytov to have been the “true source of the donation”.
I have no idea about this story and it is up to the authorities to investigate if wrong doing is suspected
However, that is deflecting from my post which questions the veracity of not only Starmers report on beergate, but labours position on the windfall tax providing £200 and £600 for some, which Rachel Reeves clearly has had to clarify in the HOC this afternoon
Ha, deflection strategy foiled. 🙂
Okay I’ll tackle what you are posting head on. YOU ARE UTTERLY WRONG BIG G.
Absolutely everybody wants those struggling worse, helped first and helped most. Even those finding it difficult themselves want those worse off helped first.
Hence I have posted the suggestions from my dad, as alternative to Starmer’s windfall tax and how labour would use it, as far superior option for the Tories - target those really struggling in June’s crisis budget.
Not only are my posts better than your anti labour spin ones, because I explain what measures Rishi actually will take in a few weeks time outflanking labour, I even explained how it’s paid for.
All you are doing is barking a bit of fluff up the wrong tree.
The question of targeting is pretty key here. I've already seen suggestions of increasing the WFP, which is all well and good, except a fair proportion of recipients of that don't really need it - it's paid to all people over the relevant age without any sort of means testing. WHD is a better bet, but too many people who are eligible for that don't claim it (and IIRC some suppliers still don't offer it, although the market consolidation we've seen over the last year or so might have improved that).
Completely off topic but a bit shaken up, just got back from dropping my wife off at the hospital. She seems to be OK but thought it best to get her in to be checked up. When she was crossing the road this morning to go into work she was hit by a car in a hit and run accident. They pulled out from a car park as she was already crossing the road, drove on the wrong side of the road, hit her and then swerved and sped off. She was knocked over.
A member of the public who witnessed the accident stopped to check she was OK. They got a partial reg-plate so hopefully the Police can identify whoever it was that did it.
She seems to be OK but in shock. At first she didn't even tell people at work she'd been hit by a car and continued working for a few hours before asking her manager if she could go home as she was in pain from the accident. She didn't want to go to A&E but is there now just in case she needs an x-ray or anything. Fingers crossed she's OK but utterly despicable anyone who hits a pedestrian and then just speeds off in response.
My thoughts with you and your wife. I hope all turns out well (and the culprit is caught).
That a so-called "No Deal" Brexit impact is ridiculously exaggerated? Yes 100% I do.
The UK is never going to impose a hard border in Northern Ireland. Ireland is never going to impose a hard border. The rest of the drama is bluffing and greatly exaggerated hysteria, if someone is willing to call that out then I 100% endorse that.
Gosh, that was a big delay. I was asking whether you approved of what I saw as being pretty offensive to Irish people and what amounts to the use of the "thick Irish turnip farmer" trope. Of course you approve.
I must say that sort of anti-Irishism would be jarring in a golf club bar, let alone emitted by the ForM in the US of all places. That is not going to make friends and influence people, which I thought naively were her job ...
Absolutely. Anyone claiming they can't see that is either lying, massively ignorant or is so ingrained in their anti-Irish prejudice that they think "old paddy should just laugh it off". It is like Corbyn claiming he hadn't noticed that mural was anti-Semitic.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
Sure, Windfall taxes are a terrible idea which usually end up with the customer paying.
No good Conservative should support a windfall tax, they are the ultimate virtual signal tax.
Which is why I expect this government to announce one soon.
Completely off topic but a bit shaken up, just got back from dropping my wife off at the hospital. She seems to be OK but thought it best to get her in to be checked up. When she was crossing the road this morning to go into work she was hit by a car in a hit and run accident. They pulled out from a car park as she was already crossing the road, drove on the wrong side of the road, hit her and then swerved and sped off. She was knocked over.
A member of the public who witnessed the accident stopped to check she was OK. They got a partial reg-plate so hopefully the Police can identify whoever it was that did it.
She seems to be OK but in shock. At first she didn't even tell people at work she'd been hit by a car and continued working for a few hours before asking her manager if she could go home as she was in pain from the accident. She didn't want to go to A&E but is there now just in case she needs an x-ray or anything. Fingers crossed she's OK but utterly despicable anyone who hits a pedestrian and then just speeds off in response.
How awful, sending best wishes. The way some people drive is an absolute disgrace.
That a so-called "No Deal" Brexit impact is ridiculously exaggerated? Yes 100% I do.
The UK is never going to impose a hard border in Northern Ireland. Ireland is never going to impose a hard border. The rest of the drama is bluffing and greatly exaggerated hysteria, if someone is willing to call that out then I 100% endorse that.
Gosh, that was a big delay. I was asking whether you approved of what I saw as being pretty offensive to Irish people and what amounts to the use of the "thick Irish turnip farmer" trope. Of course you approve.
Of course I don't approve of "thick Irish turnip farmer" trope but I take that element of hearsay with a massive grain of salt.
What I think was probably really said is the next Tweet “Most damagingly, the talking points also downplayed the consequences of Brexit for the delicate peace process in Northern Ireland, in which the US was a core stakeholder.”
Handled sensitively, Brexit has no negative consequences for peace in Northern Ireland since neither Britain nor Ireland want to impose a hard land border and both have ruled it out all along. Anti-Brexit fanatics may want to weaponise the GFA to further their agenda, but that is bollocks which absolutely it is the Foreign Secretary's job to be dismissing and soothing tensions by patiently explaining that there are no threats to Northern Ireland and deal or no deal we won't be imposing a hard border.
I can understand why hearsay fanatics would want to spin that into being "damaging downplaying" but calling out BS as BS is entirely appropriate.
That a so-called "No Deal" Brexit impact is ridiculously exaggerated? Yes 100% I do.
The UK is never going to impose a hard border in Northern Ireland. Ireland is never going to impose a hard border. The rest of the drama is bluffing and greatly exaggerated hysteria, if someone is willing to call that out then I 100% endorse that.
Gosh, that was a big delay. I was asking whether you approved of what I saw as being pretty offensive to Irish people and what amounts to the use of the "thick Irish turnip farmer" trope. Of course you approve.
I must say that sort of anti-Irishism would be jarring in a golf club bar, let alone emitted by the ForM in the US of all places. That is not going to make friends and influence people, which I thought naively comprised part of her job ...
If there is footage of it she resigns.
Maybe Big Dogs whips have got the footage, and this story is a gentle reminder 😆
Completely off topic but a bit shaken up, just got back from dropping my wife off at the hospital. She seems to be OK but thought it best to get her in to be checked up. When she was crossing the road this morning to go into work she was hit by a car in a hit and run accident. They pulled out from a car park as she was already crossing the road, drove on the wrong side of the road, hit her and then swerved and sped off. She was knocked over.
A member of the public who witnessed the accident stopped to check she was OK. They got a partial reg-plate so hopefully the Police can identify whoever it was that did it.
She seems to be OK but in shock. At first she didn't even tell people at work she'd been hit by a car and continued working for a few hours before asking her manager if she could go home as she was in pain from the accident. She didn't want to go to A&E but is there now just in case she needs an x-ray or anything. Fingers crossed she's OK but utterly despicable anyone who hits a pedestrian and then just speeds off in response.
Christ, hope she's okay and they catch whoever drove off. Definitely doing the right thing by getting it checked out.
Humdinger of an article by Martin Wolf in the FT where he notes, inter alia, that core inflation (ie excluding gas and food) in the UK is double that of the EU.
Completely off topic but a bit shaken up, just got back from dropping my wife off at the hospital. She seems to be OK but thought it best to get her in to be checked up. When she was crossing the road this morning to go into work she was hit by a car in a hit and run accident. They pulled out from a car park as she was already crossing the road, drove on the wrong side of the road, hit her and then swerved and sped off. She was knocked over.
A member of the public who witnessed the accident stopped to check she was OK. They got a partial reg-plate so hopefully the Police can identify whoever it was that did it.
She seems to be OK but in shock. At first she didn't even tell people at work she'd been hit by a car and continued working for a few hours before asking her manager if she could go home as she was in pain from the accident. She didn't want to go to A&E but is there now just in case she needs an x-ray or anything. Fingers crossed she's OK but utterly despicable anyone who hits a pedestrian and then just speeds off in response.
Sorry to hear this - hope she is fine and gets home today
Completely off topic but a bit shaken up, just got back from dropping my wife off at the hospital. She seems to be OK but thought it best to get her in to be checked up. When she was crossing the road this morning to go into work she was hit by a car in a hit and run accident. They pulled out from a car park as she was already crossing the road, drove on the wrong side of the road, hit her and then swerved and sped off. She was knocked over.
A member of the public who witnessed the accident stopped to check she was OK. They got a partial reg-plate so hopefully the Police can identify whoever it was that did it.
She seems to be OK but in shock. At first she didn't even tell people at work she'd been hit by a car and continued working for a few hours before asking her manager if she could go home as she was in pain from the accident. She didn't want to go to A&E but is there now just in case she needs an x-ray or anything. Fingers crossed she's OK but utterly despicable anyone who hits a pedestrian and then just speeds off in response.
That's appalling, every sympathy. I hope she's OK, and also that she gets past the shock soon. That sort of thing can shake one's whole confidence in getting around.
Completely off topic but a bit shaken up, just got back from dropping my wife off at the hospital. She seems to be OK but thought it best to get her in to be checked up. When she was crossing the road this morning to go into work she was hit by a car in a hit and run accident. They pulled out from a car park as she was already crossing the road, drove on the wrong side of the road, hit her and then swerved and sped off. She was knocked over.
A member of the public who witnessed the accident stopped to check she was OK. They got a partial reg-plate so hopefully the Police can identify whoever it was that did it.
She seems to be OK but in shock. At first she didn't even tell people at work she'd been hit by a car and continued working for a few hours before asking her manager if she could go home as she was in pain from the accident. She didn't want to go to A&E but is there now just in case she needs an x-ray or anything. Fingers crossed she's OK but utterly despicable anyone who hits a pedestrian and then just speeds off in response.
That's dreadful! I hope she's fine and recovers from the shock.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
Now here is labour's problem in one comment
Keir Starmer has committed to resign if he gets a FPN and demands everyone in Labour tells the truth
Spinning is misleading the public and below Starmer's bar he has set labour
Oh? I am not a Labour fan, but I am sure the words "up to" were used. I am not expecting to be in receipt of anything. I thought it looked pretty straightforward to me?
The words commonly used by labour spokespersons were £200 off energy bills and upto £600 but I have listened to labour mps say £600 off energy bills
I expect if a poll was run on this the majority would expect £200 off their bills under this windfall tax policy
Even if that were only for the most disadvantaged I am sure most us could support that couldn't we?
Of course, but labour have been caught out spinning the policy they have made so much an issue, and honesty from day one would have avoided the accusation that they have misled the public
Oh, come off it, that is ridiculously partisan.
I see Big G has seamlessly moved onto his next synthetic Labour attack line.
Is the need to bash Labour down to a realisation that the Conservative party have moved so far that he is now closer in views to Starmer than Johnson perhaps?
That a so-called "No Deal" Brexit impact is ridiculously exaggerated? Yes 100% I do.
The UK is never going to impose a hard border in Northern Ireland. Ireland is never going to impose a hard border. The rest of the drama is bluffing and greatly exaggerated hysteria, if someone is willing to call that out then I 100% endorse that.
Gosh, that was a big delay. I was asking whether you approved of what I saw as being pretty offensive to Irish people and what amounts to the use of the "thick Irish turnip farmer" trope. Of course you approve.
Of course I don't approve of "thick Irish turnip farmer" trope but I take that element of hearsay with a massive grain of salt.
What I think was probably really said is the next Tweet “Most damagingly, the talking points also downplayed the consequences of Brexit for the delicate peace process in Northern Ireland, in which the US was a core stakeholder.”
Handled sensitively, Brexit has no negative consequences for peace in Northern Ireland since neither Britain nor Ireland want to impose a hard land border and both have ruled it out all along. Anti-Brexit fanatics may want to weaponise the GFA to further their agenda, but that is bollocks which absolutely it is the Foreign Secretary's job to be dismissing and soothing tensions by patiently explaining that there are no threats to Northern Ireland and deal or no deal we won't be imposing a hard border.
I can understand why hearsay fanatics would want to spin that into being "damaging downplaying" but calling out BS as BS is entirely appropriate.
That a so-called "No Deal" Brexit impact is ridiculously exaggerated? Yes 100% I do.
The UK is never going to impose a hard border in Northern Ireland. Ireland is never going to impose a hard border. The rest of the drama is bluffing and greatly exaggerated hysteria, if someone is willing to call that out then I 100% endorse that.
Gosh, that was a big delay. I was asking whether you approved of what I saw as being pretty offensive to Irish people and what amounts to the use of the "thick Irish turnip farmer" trope. Of course you approve.
Of course I don't approve of "thick Irish turnip farmer" trope but I take that element of hearsay with a massive grain of salt.
What I think was probably really said is the next Tweet “Most damagingly, the talking points also downplayed the consequences of Brexit for the delicate peace process in Northern Ireland, in which the US was a core stakeholder.”
Handled sensitively, Brexit has no negative consequences for peace in Northern Ireland since neither Britain nor Ireland want to impose a hard land border and both have ruled it out all along. Anti-Brexit fanatics may want to weaponise the GFA to further their agenda, but that is bollocks which absolutely it is the Foreign Secretary's job to be dismissing and soothing tensions by patiently explaining that there are no threats to Northern Ireland and deal or no deal we won't be imposing a hard border.
I can understand why hearsay fanatics would want to spin that into being "damaging downplaying" but calling out BS as BS is entirely appropriate.
Except that you are guessing. As to your opinion on no-deal Brexit, I can tell you that the vast majority of economists and business people think you are spouting bollox. Thankfully we just avoided it. Brexit has been damaging enough as it is. Pointless and damaging, but you still believe. Quaint really.
Loving it that the Senate Republican Pennsylvania primary will be decided by late counted mail in ballots.
There's a certain humour that the Pennsylvania Republican candidate is likely to have been (until very recently) quite vehemently pro-Choice, in one of the few swing States where that would be vote loser.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
Loads of comments 🙂
Have you got any comment on this one?
The New York Times have run a story suggesting the Tory party have taken more iffy rubles.
The New York Times (NYT) said it had reviewed documents linked to the donation, which was recorded as £450,000 by the party, and said it originated in a Russian account of Sir Ehud’s father-in-law, Sergei Kopytov. The NYT said Barclays bank, in an alert sent to the National Crime Agency in 2021, identified with “considerable certainty” Mr Kopytov to have been the “true source of the donation”.
I have no idea about this story and it is up to the authorities to investigate if wrong doing is suspected
However, that is deflecting from my post which questions the veracity of not only Starmers report on beergate, but labours position on the windfall tax providing £200 and £600 for some, which Rachel Reeves clearly has had to clarify in the HOC this afternoon
Ha, deflection strategy foiled. 🙂
Okay I’ll tackle what you are posting head on. YOU ARE UTTERLY WRONG BIG G.
Absolutely everybody wants those struggling worse, helped first and helped most. Even those finding it difficult themselves want those worse off helped first.
Hence I have posted the suggestions from my dad, as alternative to Starmer’s windfall tax and how labour would use it, as far superior option for the Tories - target those really struggling in June’s crisis budget.
Not only are my posts better than your anti labour spin ones, because I explain what measures Rishi actually will take in a few weeks time outflanking labour, I even explained how it’s paid for.
All you are doing is barking a bit of fluff up the wrong tree.
I actually liked that post and sensible
That however does not negate the fact that at £100 per household admitted by Rachel Reeves in the house cannot equate to most having £200 and some £600
And no , I do not give labour a free pass on this and it is not a synthetic criticism
My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.
Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.
That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.
I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?
Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?
In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.
However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories? No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.
The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
It doesn't.
The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.
The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.
Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.
If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.
"Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
There's hope for the country in the long term, though, if Johnson is Ted Heath. Because the minority Labour Government that replaced him had no solutions to inflation or exogenous cost shocks and staggered from crisis to crisis for five years before losing to perhaps the greatest peacetime government this country has ever had.
Completely off topic but a bit shaken up, just got back from dropping my wife off at the hospital. She seems to be OK but thought it best to get her in to be checked up. When she was crossing the road this morning to go into work she was hit by a car in a hit and run accident. They pulled out from a car park as she was already crossing the road, drove on the wrong side of the road, hit her and then swerved and sped off. She was knocked over.
A member of the public who witnessed the accident stopped to check she was OK. They got a partial reg-plate so hopefully the Police can identify whoever it was that did it.
She seems to be OK but in shock. At first she didn't even tell people at work she'd been hit by a car and continued working for a few hours before asking her manager if she could go home as she was in pain from the accident. She didn't want to go to A&E but is there now just in case she needs an x-ray or anything. Fingers crossed she's OK but utterly despicable anyone who hits a pedestrian and then just speeds off in response.
Christ, hope she's okay and they catch whoever drove off. Definitely doing the right thing by getting it checked out.
If you need to check out if there is CCTV nearby. My wife was involved in a road rage incident a while back. CCTV showed it all, including that the prick was completely in the wrong (at a roundabout). Plod called in to visit him...
My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.
Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.
That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.
I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?
Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?
In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.
However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories? No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.
The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
It doesn't.
The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.
The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.
Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.
If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.
"Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
"in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
That a so-called "No Deal" Brexit impact is ridiculously exaggerated? Yes 100% I do.
The UK is never going to impose a hard border in Northern Ireland. Ireland is never going to impose a hard border. The rest of the drama is bluffing and greatly exaggerated hysteria, if someone is willing to call that out then I 100% endorse that.
Gosh, that was a big delay. I was asking whether you approved of what I saw as being pretty offensive to Irish people and what amounts to the use of the "thick Irish turnip farmer" trope. Of course you approve.
I must say that sort of anti-Irishism would be jarring in a golf club bar, let alone emitted by the ForM in the US of all places. That is not going to make friends and influence people, which I thought naively comprised part of her job ...
If there is footage of it she resigns.
Maybe Big Dogs whips have got the footage, and this story is a gentle reminder 😆
Indeed, if it's true and can be seen to be so. It is, of course, an old story from 2021 about events in 2019, but it is coming back to life.
She wasn't FM in 2019, of course but was President of the Board of Trade & Secretary of State for International Trade from 24 July 2019. And the alleged event was 8 August 2019.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
Now here is labour's problem in one comment
Keir Starmer has committed to resign if he gets a FPN and demands everyone in Labour tells the truth
Spinning is misleading the public and below Starmer's bar he has set labour
Oh? I am not a Labour fan, but I am sure the words "up to" were used. I am not expecting to be in receipt of anything. I thought it looked pretty straightforward to me?
The words commonly used by labour spokespersons were £200 off energy bills and upto £600 but I have listened to labour mps say £600 off energy bills
I expect if a poll was run on this the majority would expect £200 off their bills under this windfall tax policy
Even if that were only for the most disadvantaged I am sure most us could support that couldn't we?
Of course, but labour have been caught out spinning the policy they have made so much an issue, and honesty from day one would have avoided the accusation that they have misled the public
Oh, come off it, that is ridiculously partisan.
I see Big G has seamlessly moved onto his next synthetic Labour attack line.
Is the need to bash Labour down to a realisation that the Conservative party have moved so far that he is now closer in views to Starmer than Johnson perhaps?
I think possibly. He’s a lifelong Tory - fine - who seems to be struggling to find reasons to stay Tory.
In reality the Tory Party Big G campaigned for has vanished.
Completely off topic but a bit shaken up, just got back from dropping my wife off at the hospital. She seems to be OK but thought it best to get her in to be checked up. When she was crossing the road this morning to go into work she was hit by a car in a hit and run accident. They pulled out from a car park as she was already crossing the road, drove on the wrong side of the road, hit her and then swerved and sped off. She was knocked over.
A member of the public who witnessed the accident stopped to check she was OK. They got a partial reg-plate so hopefully the Police can identify whoever it was that did it.
She seems to be OK but in shock. At first she didn't even tell people at work she'd been hit by a car and continued working for a few hours before asking her manager if she could go home as she was in pain from the accident. She didn't want to go to A&E but is there now just in case she needs an x-ray or anything. Fingers crossed she's OK but utterly despicable anyone who hits a pedestrian and then just speeds off in response.
I am so sorry to hear this and really hope your wife recovers quickly
My 13 year old grandson was knocked down 6 months ago by his school and the car ran over his foot
It was not broken but badly bruised and to this day he is very cautious crossing the road
That a so-called "No Deal" Brexit impact is ridiculously exaggerated? Yes 100% I do.
The UK is never going to impose a hard border in Northern Ireland. Ireland is never going to impose a hard border. The rest of the drama is bluffing and greatly exaggerated hysteria, if someone is willing to call that out then I 100% endorse that.
Gosh, that was a big delay. I was asking whether you approved of what I saw as being pretty offensive to Irish people and what amounts to the use of the "thick Irish turnip farmer" trope. Of course you approve.
I must say that sort of anti-Irishism would be jarring in a golf club bar, let alone emitted by the ForM in the US of all places. That is not going to make friends and influence people, which I thought naively comprised part of her job ...
If there is footage of it she resigns.
Maybe Big Dogs whips have got the footage, and this story is a gentle reminder 😆
Indeed, if it's true and can be seen to be so. It is, of course, an old story from 2021 about events in 2019, but it is coming back to life.
She wasn't FM in 2019, of course but was President of the Board of Trade & Secretary of State for International Trade from 24 July 2019. And the alleged event was 8 August 2019.
As ever the biggest single obstacle to resolving the problems in Ireland caused by BoZo is the continued presence of BoZo...
Um - I don;t agree that we MUST accept any border as inevitable. Its only there because of the GFA. Its intolerable that a company selling produce from one part of the country to another, with no intention of leaving the UK, has to have checks imposed. There needs to be fair more movement on trusted trader status and simple certification. How about a bit of trust?
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
Now here is labour's problem in one comment
Keir Starmer has committed to resign if he gets a FPN and demands everyone in Labour tells the truth
Spinning is misleading the public and below Starmer's bar he has set labour
Oh? I am not a Labour fan, but I am sure the words "up to" were used. I am not expecting to be in receipt of anything. I thought it looked pretty straightforward to me?
The words commonly used by labour spokespersons were £200 off energy bills and upto £600 but I have listened to labour mps say £600 off energy bills
I expect if a poll was run on this the majority would expect £200 off their bills under this windfall tax policy
Even if that were only for the most disadvantaged I am sure most us could support that couldn't we?
Of course, but labour have been caught out spinning the policy they have made so much an issue, and honesty from day one would have avoided the accusation that they have misled the public
Oh, come off it, that is ridiculously partisan.
Yes indeed. We all love Big G, but he’s hopped on here this afternoon like a dog let out into a yard, to bark at a bit of paper flapping in the breeze. It’s just a bit of paper flapping around, it’s not pure evil.
In this national crisis Even those finding it difficult themselves want those worse off helped first. Whatever any party suggests, those struggling worse, helped first and helped most, is built in to all the ideas.
The important thing is to better Labours opportunistic but regressive windfall tax plans, the dozy Tories seem to be sleepwalking into by default of not coming up with anything better.
That a so-called "No Deal" Brexit impact is ridiculously exaggerated? Yes 100% I do.
The UK is never going to impose a hard border in Northern Ireland. Ireland is never going to impose a hard border. The rest of the drama is bluffing and greatly exaggerated hysteria, if someone is willing to call that out then I 100% endorse that.
Gosh, that was a big delay. I was asking whether you approved of what I saw as being pretty offensive to Irish people and what amounts to the use of the "thick Irish turnip farmer" trope. Of course you approve.
I must say that sort of anti-Irishism would be jarring in a golf club bar, let alone emitted by the ForM in the US of all places. That is not going to make friends and influence people, which I thought naively were her job ...
Absolutely. Anyone claiming they can't see that is either lying, massively ignorant or is so ingrained in their anti-Irish prejudice that they think "old paddy should just laugh it off". It is like Corbyn claiming he hadn't noticed that mural was anti-Semitic.
It's not even as if turnip farming is easy or trivial. The buggers are hard to grow and a real pain, as well as being essential fodder for animals.
Although it is PB wisdom that UK inflation is exogenous and out-of-our-control, there seem to be quite a few counter-arguments which are starting to be noticed.
I do think that racism is less of a problem in the UK than in almost every country in the world, but anti-Irish sentiment is depressingly common.
See too Priti Patel’s comments about starving the Irish into submission.
It is ingrained. As many will know, historically it goes back to the reformation. The Irish largely steadfastly remained loyal to Rome, and the fear of Catholicism in England & Scotland, combined with the largely rural nature of Ireland spawned the tropes that are still with us today. I can see it between the lines with some of the posters on here when they dribble on about Northern Ireland, as though Paddy really does need to be put in his rightful place.
Completely off topic but a bit shaken up, just got back from dropping my wife off at the hospital. She seems to be OK but thought it best to get her in to be checked up. When she was crossing the road this morning to go into work she was hit by a car in a hit and run accident. They pulled out from a car park as she was already crossing the road, drove on the wrong side of the road, hit her and then swerved and sped off. She was knocked over.
A member of the public who witnessed the accident stopped to check she was OK. They got a partial reg-plate so hopefully the Police can identify whoever it was that did it.
She seems to be OK but in shock. At first she didn't even tell people at work she'd been hit by a car and continued working for a few hours before asking her manager if she could go home as she was in pain from the accident. She didn't want to go to A&E but is there now just in case she needs an x-ray or anything. Fingers crossed she's OK but utterly despicable anyone who hits a pedestrian and then just speeds off in response.
I am so sorry to hear this and really hope your wife recovers quickly
My 13 year old grandson was knocked down 6 months ago by his school and the car ran over his foot
It was not broken but badly bruised and to this day he is very cautious crossing the road
Thanks for the nice responses everyone.
My sympathies for your grandson, in some ways it must be even worse for a child whose confidence could be knocked like that.
As ever the biggest single obstacle to resolving the problems in Ireland caused by BoZo is the continued presence of BoZo...
Um - I don;t agree that we MUST accept any border as inevitable. Its only there because of the GFA. Its intolerable that a company selling produce from one part of the country to another, with no intention of leaving the UK, has to have checks imposed. There needs to be fair more movement on trusted trader status and simple certification. How about a bit of trust?
I certainly don’t trust Boris. Why would the EU?
Nobody trusts Boris, not his ex-wife, nor his ex-employers, his children, none of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and large numbers of ex-Tory voters.
Northern Ireland will not be resolved until Boris goes.
As ever the biggest single obstacle to resolving the problems in Ireland caused by BoZo is the continued presence of BoZo...
Um - I don;t agree that we MUST accept any border as inevitable. Its only there because of the GFA. Its intolerable that a company selling produce from one part of the country to another, with no intention of leaving the UK, has to have checks imposed. There needs to be fair more movement on trusted trader status and simple certification. How about a bit of trust?
Boris, Truss and the government are onto a winner with this argument. The EU “the only way is border” approach is crumbling. Cumbersome EU thinking never agile enough, always late to the party.
As ever the biggest single obstacle to resolving the problems in Ireland caused by BoZo is the continued presence of BoZo...
Um - I don;t agree that we MUST accept any border as inevitable. Its only there because of the GFA. Its intolerable that a company selling produce from one part of the country to another, with no intention of leaving the UK, has to have checks imposed. There needs to be fair more movement on trusted trader status and simple certification. How about a bit of trust?
I certainly don’t trust Boris. Why would the EU?
Nobody trusts Boris, not his ex-wife, nor his ex-employers, his children, none of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and large numbers of ex-Tory voters.
Northern Ireland will not be resolved until Boris goes.
Or it can be resolved by invoking Article 16 and imposing a unilateral solution that does not involve either a hard land border in Northern Ireland, nor a sea border.
If there is neither alignment, nor a land border, nor a sea border following any unilateral actions, then from the perspective of peace what exactly is the problem with that?
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
Now here is labour's problem in one comment
Keir Starmer has committed to resign if he gets a FPN and demands everyone in Labour tells the truth
Spinning is misleading the public and below Starmer's bar he has set labour
Oh? I am not a Labour fan, but I am sure the words "up to" were used. I am not expecting to be in receipt of anything. I thought it looked pretty straightforward to me?
The words commonly used by labour spokespersons were £200 off energy bills and upto £600 but I have listened to labour mps say £600 off energy bills
I expect if a poll was run on this the majority would expect £200 off their bills under this windfall tax policy
Even if that were only for the most disadvantaged I am sure most us could support that couldn't we?
Of course, but labour have been caught out spinning the policy they have made so much an issue, and honesty from day one would have avoided the accusation that they have misled the public
Oh, come off it, that is ridiculously partisan.
Yes indeed. We all love Big G, but he’s hopped on here this afternoon like a dog let out into a yard, to bark at a bit of paper flapping in the breeze. It’s just a bit of paper flapping around, it’s not pure evil.
In this national crisis Even those finding it difficult themselves want those worse off helped first. Whatever any party suggests, those struggling worse, helped first and helped most, is built in to all the ideas.
The important thing is to better Labours opportunistic but regressive windfall tax plans, the dozy Tories seem to be sleepwalking into by default of not coming up with anything better.
I am glad you all love me to be fair and I have made my point about labour's policy
Some will agree, some will not, but then that is politics though your comments about your father's attitude does mirror mine
My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.
Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.
That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.
I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?
Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?
In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.
However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories? No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.
The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
It doesn't.
The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.
The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.
Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.
If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.
"Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
"in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
As ever the biggest single obstacle to resolving the problems in Ireland caused by BoZo is the continued presence of BoZo...
Um - I don;t agree that we MUST accept any border as inevitable. Its only there because of the GFA. Its intolerable that a company selling produce from one part of the country to another, with no intention of leaving the UK, has to have checks imposed. There needs to be fair more movement on trusted trader status and simple certification. How about a bit of trust?
I certainly don’t trust Boris. Why would the EU?
Nobody trusts Boris, not his ex-wife, nor his ex-employers, his children, none of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and large numbers of ex-Tory voters.
Northern Ireland will not be resolved until Boris goes.
Quite possibly. I don't trust the EU either, for what its worth. Both sides use everything they can to there advantage.
The EU used the GFA to tighten the screws. We tried to use no deal on our side.
The EU won on sequencing, and we are now seeing the consequences of this.
My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.
Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.
That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.
I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?
Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?
In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.
However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories? No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.
The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
It doesn't.
The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.
The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.
Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.
If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.
"Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
"in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
I do think that racism is less of a problem in the UK than in almost every country in the world, but anti-Irish sentiment is depressingly common.
See too Priti Patel’s comments about starving the Irish into submission.
It is ingrained. As many will know, historically it goes back to the reformation. The Irish largely steadfastly remained loyal to Rome, and the fear of Catholicism in England & Scotland, combined with the largely rural nature of Ireland spawned the tropes that are still with us today. I can see it between the lines with some of the posters on here when they dribble on about Northern Ireland, as though Paddy really does need to be put in his rightful place.
It is still, apparently, acceptable in the UK to say “potatoes” in a funny accent when talking about Irish matters. I know cos I’ve witnessed it myself several times.
Anti-French and anti-German sentiment is also very very common, as well as a weird patronising tone toward foreign countries generally.
I find it very odd since Brits are well travelled and much of the UK is, objectively, a shit-hole, so I don’t really understand where it comes from.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
Now here is labour's problem in one comment
Keir Starmer has committed to resign if he gets a FPN and demands everyone in Labour tells the truth
Spinning is misleading the public and below Starmer's bar he has set labour
Oh? I am not a Labour fan, but I am sure the words "up to" were used. I am not expecting to be in receipt of anything. I thought it looked pretty straightforward to me?
The words commonly used by labour spokespersons were £200 off energy bills and upto £600 but I have listened to labour mps say £600 off energy bills
I expect if a poll was run on this the majority would expect £200 off their bills under this windfall tax policy
Even if that were only for the most disadvantaged I am sure most us could support that couldn't we?
Of course, but labour have been caught out spinning the policy they have made so much an issue, and honesty from day one would have avoided the accusation that they have misled the public
Oh, come off it, that is ridiculously partisan.
I see Big G has seamlessly moved onto his next synthetic Labour attack line.
The one before the one before the one before last could end up with Starmer's resignation.
I keep reading on here how poor Starmer performs against the "charismatic" Johnson. I've just caught up with PMQs. Am I right in assuming Starmer is the shouty, portly, fair haired guy and Johnson is the calm forensic fellow in the blue suit?
My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.
Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.
That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.
I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?
Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?
In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.
However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories? No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.
The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
It doesn't.
The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.
The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.
Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.
If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.
"Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
"in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
Just like they were in 2010, until the numbers dictated otherwise.
Erm, no. I loath Corbyn and his ilk more than most but that wasn’t his appeal. It might have been part of it but when you spoke to those who loved him and weren’t previously politically engaged (e.g. weren’t the usual far left mob) it was because he spoke with compassion and about hope for the future.
Yes, that's the problem with the sober managerial approach. I absolutely think that "a serious leader for difficult times" is aa good solid argument for Labour under Starmer, but does it lift the heart? It needs compassion and hope too.
The problem is those who do not like a candidate suggest the two are mutually exclusive, and overly defensive candidates buy into that too. I recall some Labour talking head after one of the 2010 leader debates, where I thought Brown had done ok, and they were so defensive about substance being more important than presentation (or words to that effect) that they were in effect saying Brown had come across crap. They also did the usual thing of suggesting if someone did present well, that meant they had no substance.
Michael Fabricant 🇬🇧🇺🇦 @Mike_Fabricant I am expecting a strong turnout of Conservative MPs at Prime Minister's Questions today. Not only to demonstrate their strong support for #Boris (!!). BUT also to prove they are NOT the one told by the Chief Whip to stay at home. I'll be there!😜
Disgusting
Tory whips have asked him to remove it according to BBC2
What are the people of Lichfield thinking electing such a twat
You get what you vote for. What kind of person do you have to be to turn out to vote for *that*? And yet when @Heathener tried to describe them justly got roundly attacked for it.
Keep insulting the voters and Labour will be out of power for another 10 years.
A lot of voters deserve to be insulted, but the reality is that it is the system that enables a twat like Fabricant to be an MP, let alone Boris Johnson to be PM (or Mr Thicky Corbyn almost) needs serious reform.
Can't really agree with that, unless you can point me to a system that means no twats can become parliamentarians.
Edit: To be clear I think reform to imrpove the system we have is a good idea, but not for that reason, as it is unattainable.
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
Now here is labour's problem in one comment
Keir Starmer has committed to resign if he gets a FPN and demands everyone in Labour tells the truth
Spinning is misleading the public and below Starmer's bar he has set labour
Oh? I am not a Labour fan, but I am sure the words "up to" were used. I am not expecting to be in receipt of anything. I thought it looked pretty straightforward to me?
The words commonly used by labour spokespersons were £200 off energy bills and upto £600 but I have listened to labour mps say £600 off energy bills
I expect if a poll was run on this the majority would expect £200 off their bills under this windfall tax policy
Even if that were only for the most disadvantaged I am sure most us could support that couldn't we?
Of course, but labour have been caught out spinning the policy they have made so much an issue, and honesty from day one would have avoided the accusation that they have misled the public
Oh, come off it, that is ridiculously partisan.
I see Big G has seamlessly moved onto his next synthetic Labour attack line.
Is the need to bash Labour down to a realisation that the Conservative party have moved so far that he is now closer in views to Starmer than Johnson perhaps?
I think possibly. He’s a lifelong Tory - fine - who seems to be struggling to find reasons to stay Tory.
In reality the Tory Party Big G campaigned for has vanished.
For the time being. There are still good people in the Conservative Party. They just need to get rid of King Twat and then they might come to the fore
I do think that racism is less of a problem in the UK than in almost every country in the world, but anti-Irish sentiment is depressingly common.
See too Priti Patel’s comments about starving the Irish into submission.
It is ingrained. As many will know, historically it goes back to the reformation. The Irish largely steadfastly remained loyal to Rome, and the fear of Catholicism in England & Scotland, combined with the largely rural nature of Ireland spawned the tropes that are still with us today. I can see it between the lines with some of the posters on here when they dribble on about Northern Ireland, as though Paddy really does need to be put in his rightful place.
It is still, apparently, acceptable in the UK to say “potatoes” in a funny accent when talking about Irish matters. I know cos I’ve witnessed it myself several times.
Anti-French and anti-German sentiment is also very very common, as well as a weird patronising tone toward foreign countries generally.
I find it very odd since Brits are well travelled and much of the UK is, objectively, a shit-hole, so I don’t really understand where it comes from.
The contradiction is easily resolved when you grasp HMG's general approach*, which is to define it as a "world-beating" shite-hole.
*not necessarily to follow the anti-foreign sentiment in itself. But one does wonder sometimes.
As ever the biggest single obstacle to resolving the problems in Ireland caused by BoZo is the continued presence of BoZo...
Um - I don;t agree that we MUST accept any border as inevitable. Its only there because of the GFA. Its intolerable that a company selling produce from one part of the country to another, with no intention of leaving the UK, has to have checks imposed. There needs to be fair more movement on trusted trader status and simple certification. How about a bit of trust?
I certainly don’t trust Boris. Why would the EU?
Nobody trusts Boris, not his ex-wife, nor his ex-employers, his children, none of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and large numbers of ex-Tory voters.
Northern Ireland will not be resolved until Boris goes.
Quite possibly. I don't trust the EU either, for what its worth. Both sides use everything they can to there advantage.
The EU used the GFA to tighten the screws. We tried to use no deal on our side.
The EU won on sequencing, and we are now seeing the consequences of this.
Depends what you mean by trust. I have no illusions about the EU’s negotiating ruthlessness.
You are right on sequencing. I’m a hardcore Remainer, but the correct approach at the outset was to reject the EU’s preferred sequencing and to threaten to stay and gum up EU proceedings until a compromise could be found.
I do think that racism is less of a problem in the UK than in almost every country in the world, but anti-Irish sentiment is depressingly common.
See too Priti Patel’s comments about starving the Irish into submission.
It is ingrained. As many will know, historically it goes back to the reformation. The Irish largely steadfastly remained loyal to Rome, and the fear of Catholicism in England & Scotland, combined with the largely rural nature of Ireland spawned the tropes that are still with us today. I can see it between the lines with some of the posters on here when they dribble on about Northern Ireland, as though Paddy really does need to be put in his rightful place.
It is still, apparently, acceptable in the UK to say “potatoes” in a funny accent when talking about Irish matters. I know cos I’ve witnessed it myself several times.
Anti-French and anti-German sentiment is also very very common, as well as a weird patronising tone toward foreign countries generally.
I find it very odd since Brits are well travelled and much of the UK is, objectively, a shit-hole, so I don’t really understand where it comes from.
Your last line is a bit harsh! Is that why you left for the States?
Do you think anti-French and anti-German sentiment is that real though? Or is it more among those classes that don't meet many French and German people? (Non Uni educated for instance).
British humour is very much mocking each other. You know you are with friends when the piss is being thoroughly ripped out of you.
I turned up to help at the girls cricket training with a friend. First thing he said to me was an insult. The girls coach was slightly shocked! I wasn't.
Although it is PB wisdom that UK inflation is exogenous and out-of-our-control, there seem to be quite a few counter-arguments which are starting to be noticed.
I honestly have no idea, but I presume it is the regular argument of any goverment that successes are all down to their magisterial leadership, whilst failures are out of their control entirely.
As ever the biggest single obstacle to resolving the problems in Ireland caused by BoZo is the continued presence of BoZo...
Um - I don;t agree that we MUST accept any border as inevitable. Its only there because of the GFA. Its intolerable that a company selling produce from one part of the country to another, with no intention of leaving the UK, has to have checks imposed. There needs to be fair more movement on trusted trader status and simple certification. How about a bit of trust?
I certainly don’t trust Boris. Why would the EU?
Nobody trusts Boris, not his ex-wife, nor his ex-employers, his children, none of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and large numbers of ex-Tory voters.
Northern Ireland will not be resolved until Boris goes.
You've missed one. I don't think even Boris trusts Boris.
As ever the biggest single obstacle to resolving the problems in Ireland caused by BoZo is the continued presence of BoZo...
Um - I don;t agree that we MUST accept any border as inevitable. Its only there because of the GFA. Its intolerable that a company selling produce from one part of the country to another, with no intention of leaving the UK, has to have checks imposed. There needs to be fair more movement on trusted trader status and simple certification. How about a bit of trust?
I certainly don’t trust Boris. Why would the EU?
Nobody trusts Boris, not his ex-wife, nor his ex-employers, his children, none of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and large numbers of ex-Tory voters.
Northern Ireland will not be resolved until Boris goes.
Quite possibly. I don't trust the EU either, for what its worth. Both sides use everything they can to there advantage.
The EU used the GFA to tighten the screws. We tried to use no deal on our side.
The EU won on sequencing, and we are now seeing the consequences of this.
Depends what you mean by trust. I have no illusions about the EU’s negotiating ruthlessness.
You are right on sequencing. I’m a hardcore Remainer, but the correct approach at the outset was to reject the EU’s preferred sequencing and to threaten to stay and gum up EU proceedings until a compromise could be found.
The EU were perfectly used to and content with us staying and gumming up proceedings though.
The reason the EU are irate is the correct approach is what we're doing and they're impotent to handle it. They weaponised the GFA to try and abuse and exploit it to get what they want, but now the government is correctly turning the tide by saying the GFA must come first and if the GFA and the Protocol are contradictory then the GFA is the higher priority. Good for them.
The government can and should use Article 16 to impose a unilateral GFA-compliant solution that ensures there is no land border, no sea border and no alignment.
Once that is done, what can the EU do about it? What is the threat to the GFA if that is the situation? How can the EU impose a border from a position that none exists and we're not the ones seeking change and we are OK with the status quo we have imposed?
As ever the biggest single obstacle to resolving the problems in Ireland caused by BoZo is the continued presence of BoZo...
Um - I don;t agree that we MUST accept any border as inevitable. Its only there because of the GFA. Its intolerable that a company selling produce from one part of the country to another, with no intention of leaving the UK, has to have checks imposed. There needs to be fair more movement on trusted trader status and simple certification. How about a bit of trust?
I certainly don’t trust Boris. Why would the EU?
Nobody trusts Boris, not his ex-wife, nor his ex-employers, his children, none of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and large numbers of ex-Tory voters.
Northern Ireland will not be resolved until Boris goes.
Quite possibly. I don't trust the EU either, for what its worth. Both sides use everything they can to there advantage.
The EU used the GFA to tighten the screws. We tried to use no deal on our side.
The EU won on sequencing, and we are now seeing the consequences of this.
Depends what you mean by trust. I have no illusions about the EU’s negotiating ruthlessness.
You are right on sequencing. I’m a hardcore Remainer, but the correct approach at the outset was to reject the EU’s preferred sequencing and to threaten to stay and gum up EU proceedings until a compromise could be found.
There are many on PB (ok, some) who would have done a far better job negotiating than the UK government did. I def include you in this, although you may have been an inside man...
My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.
Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.
That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.
I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?
Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?
In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.
However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories? No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.
The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
It doesn't.
The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.
The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.
Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.
If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.
"Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
"in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
Just like they were in 2010, until the numbers dictated otherwise.
They were not at all in 2010, quite the contrary. They (I would have regarded them as "we" then) had a credible leader with sensible right of centre values. He had detoxed the brand. Johnson has "retoxed" it. It will take a generation for the Conservatives to recover, unless Labour are stupid enough to make someone like Corbyn leader again.
I see that, according to our current FS, my father's family were just "farmers with turnips". Makes a change, I suppose, from being called Papist terrorists.
In reality, part of the reason this country is as free as it is is because my father volunteered to become an RAF Squadron Leader during WW2 then worked as a doctor here all his life. My aunt also volunteered to work for the government during the same war, living in London during the Blitz. Before them, their uncle, also a doctor, who worked for a time in Wales and got a further degree from Cambridge University in 1912, volunteered for the RAMC and was killed in September 1915. There were many other Irish men and women who contributed to making this country what it is and has been.
But hey why worry about facts when ignorant bigotry is available instead.
I do think that racism is less of a problem in the UK than in almost every country in the world, but anti-Irish sentiment is depressingly common.
See too Priti Patel’s comments about starving the Irish into submission.
It is ingrained. As many will know, historically it goes back to the reformation. The Irish largely steadfastly remained loyal to Rome, and the fear of Catholicism in England & Scotland, combined with the largely rural nature of Ireland spawned the tropes that are still with us today. I can see it between the lines with some of the posters on here when they dribble on about Northern Ireland, as though Paddy really does need to be put in his rightful place.
It is still, apparently, acceptable in the UK to say “potatoes” in a funny accent when talking about Irish matters. I know cos I’ve witnessed it myself several times.
Anti-French and anti-German sentiment is also very very common, as well as a weird patronising tone toward foreign countries generally.
I find it very odd since Brits are well travelled and much of the UK is, objectively, a shit-hole, so I don’t really understand where it comes from.
Steady on! The French and Germans both gave us 12 points on Saturday night's Eurovision!
'Is there anyone in No.10, No.11, the wider Government, the wider Conservative party, the country, the continent, the globe, any sentient being this side of the Milky Way, who can explain the current Tory strategy on an Energy Windfall Tax...'
I really cannot understand the conservative party in all of this, but then I cannot understand why Starmer and labour are not out of sight in the polls
As an aside I have not commented on 'beergate' for quite a while but it interesting that Durham police indicate 20 questionnaires are being sent out
Starmer originally said there were 6, then 15 and now it looks like 20
Why does he prevaricate rather than be upfront
Also Rachel Reeves has just admitted in the house of commons that labour's windfall tax would raise about £100 per household, not the £200 or even £600 quoted by labour mps
And you wonder why he public says a plague on all your houses
New Labour being dishonest.
Well I'm shocked.
It really is a plague on all their houses. Labour promised £600 of our bills through their windfall tax. It is nothing of the sort. It just gets seen for what it is. cheap politics.
Not the case. Labour has always said that it is only the poorest households that will get £600 off their bills, and carefully couched it as 'up to £600', with most getting less or nothing. The refund (for want of a better word) will be on a sliding scale, with those who don't need help with paying their bills (e.g. most PB posters, including me) not getting a penny. That's also why Reeves' assertion that the total raised will be equivalent to £100 per household is accurate.
I mean, you've basically agreed that they've been dishonest. "carefully couched"???
Well, it's not my fault if people can't read or if the press don't report properly. Here's the actual wording from the Labour Party website on the press release that first announced the policy; it doesn't look dishonest to me:
“Labour will stand up for the millions of families across the country, with a package that won’t just help the average household with around £200 off bills, but also targeted and focused support for those who need it most – including low earners, pensioners and the squeezed middle – with up to £600 in total off their bills.”
They're intending for people to hear "you'll get £600".
Not their fault if people ignore the words "up to", which are always included.
I agree they're spinning it a bit, in stark contrast to Boris's Tories who would never dream of putting a gloss on something to make it sound better than it is.
Now here is labour's problem in one comment
Keir Starmer has committed to resign if he gets a FPN and demands everyone in Labour tells the truth
Spinning is misleading the public and below Starmer's bar he has set labour
Oh? I am not a Labour fan, but I am sure the words "up to" were used. I am not expecting to be in receipt of anything. I thought it looked pretty straightforward to me?
The words commonly used by labour spokespersons were £200 off energy bills and upto £600 but I have listened to labour mps say £600 off energy bills
I expect if a poll was run on this the majority would expect £200 off their bills under this windfall tax policy
Even if that were only for the most disadvantaged I am sure most us could support that couldn't we?
Of course, but labour have been caught out spinning the policy they have made so much an issue, and honesty from day one would have avoided the accusation that they have misled the public
Oh, come off it, that is ridiculously partisan.
I see Big G has seamlessly moved onto his next synthetic Labour attack line.
The one before the one before the one before last could end up with Starmer's resignation.
I keep reading on here how poor Starmer performs against the "charismatic" Johnson. I've just caught up with PMQs. Am I right in assuming Starmer is the shouty, portly, fair haired guy and Johnson is the calm forensic fellow in the blue suit.
Starmer and Labour had a good PMQs today. In fact, they have had a good 7 days in Parliament. The whole front bench just seem more capable than Corbyn’s suicide squad, as a team really getting into the swing if it now.
I thought Analise Dodds ineffective as shadow chancellor, but she was good in this video probing this at dispatch box yesterday
Although it is PB wisdom that UK inflation is exogenous and out-of-our-control, there seem to be quite a few counter-arguments which are starting to be noticed.
It is a mixture of too-loose fiscal and monetary policy (demand-pull), input price shocks (cost-push) and exogenous supply-side disruption due to the late epidemic (also cost-push). The latter two the government can do very little about, and the former it can but the other parties would have had fiscal policy even looser over the last couple of years, so it has a reasonable alibi there.
There is also a "built-in" inflation due to the poor supply-side policies governments of all colours have been pursuing since 1997 - regulation, limiting competition, increasing taxation, etc., but no party is seriously proposing to do anything about those so I'm afraid we're stuck with them for a while.
I do think that racism is less of a problem in the UK than in almost every country in the world, but anti-Irish sentiment is depressingly common.
See too Priti Patel’s comments about starving the Irish into submission.
It is ingrained. As many will know, historically it goes back to the reformation. The Irish largely steadfastly remained loyal to Rome, and the fear of Catholicism in England & Scotland, combined with the largely rural nature of Ireland spawned the tropes that are still with us today. I can see it between the lines with some of the posters on here when they dribble on about Northern Ireland, as though Paddy really does need to be put in his rightful place.
It is still, apparently, acceptable in the UK to say “potatoes” in a funny accent when talking about Irish matters. I know cos I’ve witnessed it myself several times.
Anti-French and anti-German sentiment is also very very common, as well as a weird patronising tone toward foreign countries generally.
I find it very odd since Brits are well travelled and much of the UK is, objectively, a shit-hole, so I don’t really understand where it comes from.
Your last line is a bit harsh! Is that why you left for the States?
Do you think anti-French and anti-German sentiment is that real though? Or is it more among those classes that don't meet many French and German people? (Non Uni educated for instance).
British humour is very much mocking each other. You know you are with friends when the piss is being thoroughly ripped out of you.
I turned up to help at the girls cricket training with a friend. First thing he said to me was an insult. The girls coach was slightly shocked! I wasn't.
Important for me to note that my father is British, I’m an Anglophile who spent 20 years in London, and I’m a unionist in that I do treasure the four corners of the UK.
I see on BBC that the Governor of Idaho defeated a challenge from his own Lt Governor, who kept coming up in the news as she would issue orders countermanding him whenever he left the state, as for historic reasons the Lt Governor got full power when that happened. Amusing stuff.
Erm, no. I loath Corbyn and his ilk more than most but that wasn’t his appeal. It might have been part of it but when you spoke to those who loved him and weren’t previously politically engaged (e.g. weren’t the usual far left mob) it was because he spoke with compassion and about hope for the future.
Yes, that's the problem with the sober managerial approach. I absolutely think that "a serious leader for difficult times" is aa good solid argument for Labour under Starmer, but does it lift the heart? It needs compassion and hope too.
The problem with a sober, managerial style is that after 18 months of failing to elucidate a single vision for moving forwards, onwards or upwards people start to wonder if there is any substance at all or, that rather than sober and managerial the leader is actually listless and wandering. If you're not doing Shazam you've got to offer practical stuff. He's already reduced to unilateral self-declarations of integrity and corny PMQs squibs
My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.
Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.
That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.
I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?
Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?
In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.
However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories? No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.
The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
It doesn't.
The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.
The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.
Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.
If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.
"Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
"in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
Just like they were in 2010, until the numbers dictated otherwise.
I'm not sure I recall the Tories being perceived in 2010 as uncoalitionable in anything like they were they are now. Didn't Clegg pre announce willingness to talk to whoever came top? And 12 years on, after the LD bruising in coalition, and DUP 'betrayal', the situation is surely different.
As someone with a son on the spectrum this makes me very emotional. Autistic people are easy pickings for the terminally unpleasant. I suspect the lad looked "normal" but appeared a bit "odd" so they considered him fair game.
Such understanding is normalised on this board too when one particular poster, supported by a couple of others accuse politicians they disagree with, and who appear "odd" to them as disparagingly being "probably on the spectrum" for example Mrs May.
I see that, according to our current FS, my father's family were just "farmers with turnips". Makes a change, I suppose, from being called Papist terrorists.
In reality, part of the reason this country is as free as it is is because my father volunteered to become an RAF Squadron Leader during WW2 then worked as a doctor here all his life. My aunt also volunteered to work for the government during the same war, living in London during the Blitz. Before them, their uncle, also a doctor, who worked for a time in Wales and got a further degree from Cambridge University in 1912, volunteered for the RAMC and was killed in September 1915. There were many other Irish men and women who contributed to making this country what it is and has been.
But hey why worry about facts when ignorant bigotry is available instead.
You don't have to chat with Liz Truss to get a bit of anti-Irish prejudice, it is alive and well on PB with all the experts who think we should tell all the Paddies south of the border to go and feck themselves, because when it comes to dealing with damn foreigners and Papists we don't care what the consequences are, so long as we Get Brexit Done!
My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.
Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.
That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.
I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?
Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?
In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.
However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories? No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.
The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
It doesn't.
The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.
The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.
Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.
If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.
"Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
"in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
Just like they were in 2010, until the numbers dictated otherwise.
They were not at all in 2010, quite the contrary. They (I would have regarded them as "we" then) had a credible leader with sensible right of centre values. He had detoxed the brand. Johnson has "retoxed" it. It will take a generation for the Conservatives to recover, unless Labour are stupid enough to make someone like Corbyn leader again.
Ah, come off it. With endless "I agree with Nick"s, it was obvious that it was going to be a Lib/Lab pact. Until the numbers allowed only for a Con/Lib coalition.
As someone with a son on the spectrum this makes me very emotional. Autistic people are easy pickings for the terminally unpleasant. I suspect the lad looked "normal" but appeared a bit "odd" so they considered him fair game.
Such understanding is normalised on this board too when one particular poster, supported by a couple of others accuse politicians they disagree with, and who appear "odd" to them as disparagingly being "probably on the spectrum" for example Mrs May.
Well said, it isn't something to be taken lightly or used as a term of abuse. Anyone doing so is sickening as well as ignorant.
As ever the biggest single obstacle to resolving the problems in Ireland caused by BoZo is the continued presence of BoZo...
Um - I don;t agree that we MUST accept any border as inevitable. Its only there because of the GFA. Its intolerable that a company selling produce from one part of the country to another, with no intention of leaving the UK, has to have checks imposed. There needs to be fair more movement on trusted trader status and simple certification. How about a bit of trust?
I certainly don’t trust Boris. Why would the EU?
Nobody trusts Boris, not his ex-wife, nor his ex-employers, his children, none of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and large numbers of ex-Tory voters.
Northern Ireland will not be resolved until Boris goes.
Quite possibly. I don't trust the EU either, for what its worth. Both sides use everything they can to there advantage.
The EU used the GFA to tighten the screws. We tried to use no deal on our side.
The EU won on sequencing, and we are now seeing the consequences of this.
Depends what you mean by trust. I have no illusions about the EU’s negotiating ruthlessness.
You are right on sequencing. I’m a hardcore Remainer, but the correct approach at the outset was to reject the EU’s preferred sequencing and to threaten to stay and gum up EU proceedings until a compromise could be found.
The EU were perfectly used to and content with us staying and gumming up proceedings though.
The reason the EU are irate is the correct approach is what we're doing and they're impotent to handle it. They weaponised the GFA to try and abuse and exploit it to get what they want, but now the government is correctly turning the tide by saying the GFA must come first and if the GFA and the Protocol are contradictory then the GFA is the higher priority. Good for them.
The government can and should use Article 16 to impose a unilateral GFA-compliant solution that ensures there is no land border, no sea border and no alignment.
Once that is done, what can the EU do about it? What is the threat to the GFA if that is the situation? How can the EU impose a border from a position that none exists and we're not the ones seeking change and we are OK with the status quo we have imposed?
I don’t know why you keep trying to pick an argument with me on this, it is one of the very, very rare cases where we vaguely align.
I would not be starting from here.
Given where we are, A16 is the least worst option. Disavowing the NIP (which the government is now pledged to do) one of the worst.
I see that, according to our current FS, my father's family were just "farmers with turnips". Makes a change, I suppose, from being called Papist terrorists.
In reality, part of the reason this country is as free as it is is because my father volunteered to become an RAF Squadron Leader during WW2 then worked as a doctor here all his life. My aunt also volunteered to work for the government during the same war, living in London during the Blitz. Before them, their uncle, also a doctor, who worked for a time in Wales and got a further degree from Cambridge University in 1912, volunteered for the RAMC and was killed in September 1915. There were many other Irish men and women who contributed to making this country what it is and has been.
But hey why worry about facts when ignorant bigotry is available instead.
You don't have to chat with Liz Truss to get a bit of anti-Irish prejudice, it is alive and well on PB with all the experts who think we should tell all the Paddies south of the border to go and feck themselves, because when it comes to dealing with damn foreigners and Papists we don't care what the consequences are, so long as we Get Brexit Done!
As someone with a son on the spectrum this makes me very emotional. Autistic people are easy pickings for the terminally unpleasant. I suspect the lad looked "normal" but appeared a bit "odd" so they considered him fair game.
Such understanding is normalised on this board too when one particular poster, supported by a couple of others accuse politicians they disagree with, and who appear "odd" to them as disparagingly being "probably on the spectrum" for example Mrs May.
It upset me too, as I have two family members with autism. They are often such gentle and vulnerable souls. Society needs to protect them, not victimise them. These scumbags that did this should be locked up for a lot longer.
BartholomewRoberts, sorry to hear about the vehicular assault on your wife. And very glad you convinced her to go to the emergency room to get checked out. Hope they catch the perp, and throw the book at 'em. AND that (if possible) you can collect some financial compensation for their hit and run. Though good chance they are some low-life without a pot to piss in BUT with plenty of previous violations and/or outstanding warrants. OR driving a stolen car.
Don't know about your neck of the woods, but where I reside pedestrians must be VERY careful crossing busy streets ESPECIALLY during morning rush hour.
Regarless whether they catch the hit-and-runner, best wishes for you & yours!
Although it is PB wisdom that UK inflation is exogenous and out-of-our-control, there seem to be quite a few counter-arguments which are starting to be noticed.
It is a mixture of too-loose fiscal and monetary policy (demand-pull), input price shocks (cost-push) and exogenous supply-side disruption due to the late epidemic (also cost-push). The latter two the government can do very little about, and the former it can but the other parties would have had fiscal policy even looser over the last couple of years, so it has a reasonable alibi there.
There is also a "built-in" inflation due to the poor supply-side policies governments of all colours have been pursuing since 1997 - regulation, limiting competition, increasing taxation, etc., but no party is seriously proposing to do anything about those so I'm afraid we're stuck with them for a while.
I agree with all of that, but it doesn’t get the government off.
They didn’t see it coming (many did) They’ve done nothing about it, in fact made it worse.
I posted about the need for urgent supply-side intervention about 9 months ago, and the usual suspects (on here) said inflation wasn’t a problem, and if it were to be it would be the market working wonderfully.
I see that, according to our current FS, my father's family were just "farmers with turnips". Makes a change, I suppose, from being called Papist terrorists.
In reality, part of the reason this country is as free as it is is because my father volunteered to become an RAF Squadron Leader during WW2 then worked as a doctor here all his life. My aunt also volunteered to work for the government during the same war, living in London during the Blitz. Before them, their uncle, also a doctor, who worked for a time in Wales and got a further degree from Cambridge University in 1912, volunteered for the RAMC and was killed in September 1915. There were many other Irish men and women who contributed to making this country what it is and has been.
But hey why worry about facts when ignorant bigotry is available instead.
You don't have to chat with Liz Truss to get a bit of anti-Irish prejudice, it is alive and well on PB with all the experts who think we should tell all the Paddies south of the border to go and feck themselves, because when it comes to dealing with damn foreigners and Papists we don't care what the consequences are, so long as we Get Brexit Done!
Oh cut the crap.
You're just as bigoted and just as ignorant as HYUFD saying that we should repartition Ireland again if there's a reunification referendum.
Had the referendum gone against Brexit then quite obviously it shouldn't be done. If it goes for Brexit however, then it should. The opinion of other nations comes second to that not because of discrimination but because we are a democratic state - just as Ireland are.
Democracy should be respected and the will of the people democratically expressed should come first whatever it is they choose, whether that be Brexit or Irish Unification or joining the Euro or anything comparable.
If people vote for Irish unification we should Get Irish Unification Done because that'd be what they voted for. If people here don't like it, they should be told to mind their own business, the will of the voters should be respected. The same is the case for Brexit.
My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.
Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.
That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.
I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?
Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?
In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.
However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories? No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.
The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
It doesn't.
The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.
The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.
Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.
If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.
"Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
"in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
Just like they were in 2010, until the numbers dictated otherwise.
I'm not sure I recall the Tories being perceived in 2010 as uncoalitionable in anything like they were they are now. Didn't Clegg pre announce willingness to talk to whoever came top? And 12 years on, after the LD bruising in coalition, and DUP 'betrayal', the situation is surely different.
The LDs are unlikely to be in anything like as strong a position either.i see 3 outcomes possible at the moment 1) reduced Tory majority 2) Tory minority government down to ca 310 seats, brought down when convenient and leading to a 1997 style horror show 3) rainbow coalition that falls apart acrimoniously within 2 years leading back to Tory majority
My view is that Tiverton & Honiton will go LibDem in a big way. It could be pretty seismic and will continue a huge yellow surge in the blue wall.
Wakefield ought to be a Labour win and they've finally settled on a good candidate but the initial rumpus over selection was not very smart by Starmer's aides and it tells me that they STILL don't get the new Conservative red wall voters.
That bodes badly in my opinion for Labour in the General Election. I'm expecting them to do fail in the former red wall seats. Uneducated and unethical people will stay loyal to Boris. He will lose his majority but Labour's failure to engage with the Brexit mob (as I have just failed to do) will cost them.
I agree with you about Labour possibly struggling in Wakefield, Heathener. If your messaging and persuasive skills can’t even prevent the local party resigning on mass, how is it going to persuade voters to switch?
Yesterday I placed bully on Tories at 6-1. Any sort of candidate from ‘disgruntled, red wall, leave their entire lives labour’ splitting the vote surely hands this one to Tories?
In a way, as a wake up call (see what I did there) it might be some good for Labour, slapped with a wet cold haddock to realise now rather than two years they have problems appealing in the red wall Tory seats, this failure coming soon after similar struggles recent local election night.
However, it also gives Tory’s a path back to Downing Street, if they are really underhand and despicably not playing by the rules to take it - to find and field anti Starmer labour splitters in all the red wall defences at next election. The story of election night would be, Tories 21K, Labour 19K, Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ 5K, over and over throughout the night.
You're thinking that Brexit is still popular in the ex-Red Wall seats. If so why would the 'Leave Labour ‘protect brexit’ candidate not hurt the Tories? No the Tories won those seats by convincing voters that the Tories would not ignore them as Labour had for years.
Nope they voted Tory to keep Corbyn out. Nothing more
No, otherwise they would have voted Tory in 2017 too when Corbyn was also Labour leader rather than Labour.
The redwall seats voted Tory in 2019 to get Brexit done, not just beat Corbyn
You keep claiming this and yet the polling data produced by OGH confirms my point. Stop repeating propaganda, and try not to start your sentences with "no" when you are only stating an unsupported opinion.
It doesn't.
The voting evidence refutes it. The redwall seats voted for Corbyn in 2017 remember, they only voted for Boris and the Tories in 2019 to get Brexit done.
The voting evidence again confirmed it in the local elections this month with a far bigger swing against the Tories in Remain voting areas of London and the Home counties than in Leave areas of the redwall
Oh dear, for someone who likes to pretend he is expert in this you don't have much ability to analyse. The result in 2017 was ambiguous because a lot of people assumed that TMay was going to get a landslide. The electorate swung back to Labour because they thought there was zero chance of a Corbyn win. When people realised how close we came to PM Corbyn they voted in 2019for Dumb rather than Dumber to keep Dumb out. OGH's polling data demonstrated this was by far the strongest motivation for previous Labour voters to vote Conservative IIRC. I suspect a large number of these voters couldn't give a flying fuck about "get Brexit done", but that is just my opinion, which has about as much supporting evidence as bit of CCHQ propaganda.
Yet at the local elections last month the Tories made gains in Leave areas in the North and Midlands from Sandwell to Bolton and held Dudley and Walsall even with Corbyn gone while also advancing further in Leave areas of Essex like Harlow.
Yet in Remain areas of London and the South the Tories lost councils like Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, West Oxfordshire etc (also losing wealthy Theydon Bois and Ingatestone in Essex to the LDs) now Starmer has replaced Corbyn and is less of a threat to wealth Remainers
There has been a shifting demographic aligned with gentrification in a number of those areas, so once again you are applying poor analysis with little sophistication. It is possible that in some areas there are lots of swivel-eyed nutjobs who still buy the Daily Express and rant on about the EU all the time, but I suspect they are in the minority. The polling evidence (as shown by OGH on here a number of times) clearly shows the "Red Wall" was mainly motivated by keeping Corbyn out in 2019.
If I may make a suggestion (as I have said so many times before), perhaps you could try speaking less in absolutes, as though your opinion is fact, and then people might take your perspective a little more seriously?
This is a succinct account of why the Tories are in real trouble and likely to lose next time. Nothing revelatory, just common sense, really. They need to remove Boris, but won't be able to.
"Ted Heath and Jim Callaghan lost elections after struggling to manage the fallout from the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s. There are many differences between then and now. But the problems of energy and prices could prove to be just as unmanageable, and just as politically devastating for the government. If so, its current blues could prove less mid-term than terminal."
Indeed, HYUFD continues to harp on about yesterday's battles (Brexit), as though those will inform how people will vote next time, when last time they swapped votes quite easily. My best guess is that the Conservatives are fecked at the next election, and Boris Johnson's legacy will be one of dishonesty and incompetence. They will lose a lot of the red wall to Labour and a lot of southern seats to LDs. The Tories need to get rid of Johnson and fast to stand any chance of averting Labour led governments in perpetuity.
"in perpetuity"? Don't think so. The next election would be a good one to lose. Like '92.
I might have engaged in slight hyperbole. However, Johnson has so trashed the reputation of the Conservatives that, though it might not be in perpetuity, it could certainly be generations. Coalitions work well, and Johnson has made the Tories "uncoalitionable".
Just like they were in 2010, until the numbers dictated otherwise.
They were not at all in 2010, quite the contrary. They (I would have regarded them as "we" then) had a credible leader with sensible right of centre values. He had detoxed the brand. Johnson has "retoxed" it. It will take a generation for the Conservatives to recover, unless Labour are stupid enough to make someone like Corbyn leader again.
Ah, come off it. With endless "I agree with Nick"s, it was obvious that it was going to be a Lib/Lab pact. Until the numbers allowed only for a Con/Lib coalition.
I award you today's Simplicity Prize for simplistic analysis of an historical political event.
Comments
The challenge here is not to boost Labour by obeying what they tell you to do, but outflank Labour with a smarter, less glib response than windfall tax (it is indeed glib, we want private firms to invest and innovate here, and a few years ago they made no profit at all, where was Starmer then?).
When in power you can easily see off opposition, because you can actually do stuff, Opposition’s can’t.
If the Tories want to avoid this summers polling death spiral, outflank Labour, my Dad’s suggestion is they introduce a universal credit top-up, and add four figure money to pensioners winter fuel payment and bring part of it forward so they get it earlier. For those that rely on heating oil, they can be targeted by extending the price cap on energy to the heating oil.market. Also Cutting tariffs on non domestic products can make supermarket shop cheaper.
Paid for by? One of the reasons windfall tax isn’t happening, Instead of raising money from windfall tax the government is actually sitting on at least £20B it can use anytime on measures to help, before even contemplating borrowing more. And can pause spending in other areas to help fund these emergency measures, such as in the new alternative energy plans.
I expect if a poll was run on this the majority would expect £200 off their bills under this windfall tax policy
And then some prick thinks 'lets call it a new hospital' and makes mugs of us all.
A new hospital is a new hospital, with everything. A new unit at an existing hospital is not.
One wonders who thought it was a good idea? (Or a good wheeze, in stupid, Old Etonian slang).
On Jeremy Vine's show this morning they were asking the viewers to ring in with their versions of an "Eton Mess". Sadly I couldn't get through to say an Eton Mess is the present Tory government in the most part.
The UK is never going to impose a hard border in Northern Ireland. Ireland is never going to impose a hard border. The rest of the drama is bluffing and greatly exaggerated hysteria, if someone is willing to call that out then I 100% endorse that.
Or we are going to end up with a massive crime wave and social unrest on top of everything else.
Okay I’ll tackle what you are posting head on. YOU ARE UTTERLY WRONG BIG G.
Absolutely everybody wants those struggling worse, helped first and helped most. Even those finding it difficult themselves want those worse off helped first.
Hence I have posted the suggestions from my dad, as alternative to Starmer’s windfall tax and how labour would use it, as far superior option for the Tories - target those really struggling in June’s crisis budget.
Not only are my posts better than your anti labour spin ones, because I explain what measures Rishi actually will take in a few weeks time outflanking labour, I even explained how it’s paid for.
All you are doing is barking a bit of fluff up the wrong tree.
A member of the public who witnessed the accident stopped to check she was OK. They got a partial reg-plate so hopefully the Police can identify whoever it was that did it.
She seems to be OK but in shock. At first she didn't even tell people at work she'd been hit by a car and continued working for a few hours before asking her manager if she could go home as she was in pain from the accident. She didn't want to go to A&E but is there now just in case she needs an x-ray or anything. Fingers crossed she's OK but utterly despicable anyone who hits a pedestrian and then just speeds off in response.
More of the voters who actually change their mind about how to vote mostly hear "new hospitals" whenever Tories announce them or Labour or the press criticise the Tories for lying exactly about how many "new hospitals" there are.
Best wishes to her and you.
What I think was probably really said is the next Tweet “Most damagingly, the talking points also downplayed the consequences of Brexit for the delicate peace process in Northern Ireland, in which the US was a core stakeholder.”
Handled sensitively, Brexit has no negative consequences for peace in Northern Ireland since neither Britain nor Ireland want to impose a hard land border and both have ruled it out all along. Anti-Brexit fanatics may want to weaponise the GFA to further their agenda, but that is bollocks which absolutely it is the Foreign Secretary's job to be dismissing and soothing tensions by patiently explaining that there are no threats to Northern Ireland and deal or no deal we won't be imposing a hard border.
I can understand why hearsay fanatics would want to spin that into being "damaging downplaying" but calling out BS as BS is entirely appropriate.
Maybe Big Dogs whips have got the footage, and this story is a gentle reminder 😆
https://www.ft.com/content/1390c053-2740-40c6-9e4e-525f7c4cad71
That however does not negate the fact that at £100 per household admitted by Rachel Reeves in the house cannot equate to most having £200 and some £600
And no , I do not give labour a free pass on this and it is not a synthetic criticism
As ever the biggest single obstacle to resolving the problems in Ireland caused by BoZo is the continued presence of BoZo...
I do think that racism is less of a problem in the UK than in almost every country in the world, but anti-Irish sentiment is depressingly common.
See too Priti Patel’s comments about starving the Irish into submission.
I'd take that.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-truss-ireland-brexit-farmers-b2081876.html
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2022/0518/1299709-protocol-brexit/
She wasn't FM in 2019, of course but was President of the Board of Trade & Secretary of State for International Trade from 24 July 2019. And the alleged event was 8 August 2019.
He’s a lifelong Tory - fine - who seems to be struggling to find reasons to stay Tory.
In reality the Tory Party Big G campaigned for has vanished.
My 13 year old grandson was knocked down 6 months ago by his school and the car ran over his foot
It was not broken but badly bruised and to this day he is very cautious crossing the road
In this national crisis Even those finding it difficult themselves want those worse off helped first. Whatever any party suggests, those struggling worse, helped first and helped most, is built in to all the ideas.
The important thing is to better Labours opportunistic but regressive windfall tax plans, the dozy Tories seem to be sleepwalking into by default of not coming up with anything better.
My sympathies for your grandson, in some ways it must be even worse for a child whose confidence could be knocked like that.
Why would the EU?
Nobody trusts Boris, not his ex-wife, nor his ex-employers, his children, none of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and large numbers of ex-Tory voters.
Northern Ireland will not be resolved until Boris goes.
A nice story about honouring Mrs Thatcher's entrepreneurship legacy - until the dead hand of the nanny state intervenes.
If there is neither alignment, nor a land border, nor a sea border following any unilateral actions, then from the perspective of peace what exactly is the problem with that?
Some will agree, some will not, but then that is politics though your comments about your father's attitude does mirror mine
The EU used the GFA to tighten the screws. We tried to use no deal on our side.
The EU won on sequencing, and we are now seeing the consequences of this.
Anti-French and anti-German sentiment is also very very common, as well as a weird patronising tone toward foreign countries generally.
I find it very odd since Brits are well travelled and much of the UK is, objectively, a shit-hole, so I don’t really understand where it comes from.
I keep reading on here how poor Starmer performs against the "charismatic" Johnson. I've just caught up with PMQs. Am I right in assuming Starmer is the shouty, portly, fair haired guy and Johnson is the calm forensic fellow in the blue suit?
Edit: To be clear I think reform to imrpove the system we have is a good idea, but not for that reason, as it is unattainable.
*not necessarily to follow the anti-foreign sentiment in itself. But one does wonder sometimes.
I have no illusions about the EU’s negotiating ruthlessness.
You are right on sequencing.
I’m a hardcore Remainer, but the correct approach at the outset was to reject the EU’s preferred sequencing and to threaten to stay and gum up EU proceedings until a compromise could be found.
Do you think anti-French and anti-German sentiment is that real though? Or is it more among those classes that don't meet many French and German people? (Non Uni educated for instance).
British humour is very much mocking each other. You know you are with friends when the piss is being thoroughly ripped out of you.
I turned up to help at the girls cricket training with a friend. First thing he said to me was an insult. The girls coach was slightly shocked! I wasn't.
The reason the EU are irate is the correct approach is what we're doing and they're impotent to handle it. They weaponised the GFA to try and abuse and exploit it to get what they want, but now the government is correctly turning the tide by saying the GFA must come first and if the GFA and the Protocol are contradictory then the GFA is the higher priority. Good for them.
The government can and should use Article 16 to impose a unilateral GFA-compliant solution that ensures there is no land border, no sea border and no alignment.
Once that is done, what can the EU do about it? What is the threat to the GFA if that is the situation? How can the EU impose a border from a position that none exists and we're not the ones seeking change and we are OK with the status quo we have imposed?
In reality, part of the reason this country is as free as it is is because my father volunteered to become an RAF Squadron Leader during WW2 then worked as a doctor here all his life. My aunt also volunteered to work for the government during the same war, living in London during the Blitz. Before them, their uncle, also a doctor, who worked for a time in Wales and got a further degree from Cambridge University in 1912, volunteered for the RAMC and was killed in September 1915. There were many other Irish men and women who contributed to making this country what it is and has been.
But hey why worry about facts when ignorant bigotry is available instead.
I thought Analise Dodds ineffective as shadow chancellor, but she was good in this video probing this at dispatch box yesterday
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-05-17/labour-calls-for-tory-probe-over-donation-with-possible-links-to-putin-associate
There is also a "built-in" inflation due to the poor supply-side policies governments of all colours have been pursuing since 1997 - regulation, limiting competition, increasing taxation, etc., but no party is seriously proposing to do anything about those so I'm afraid we're stuck with them for a while.
So I am speaking as a friend.
He's already reduced to unilateral self-declarations of integrity and corny PMQs squibs
Such understanding is normalised on this board too when one particular poster, supported by a couple of others accuse politicians they disagree with, and who appear "odd" to them as disparagingly being "probably on the spectrum" for example Mrs May.
I would not be starting from here.
Given where we are, A16 is the least worst option. Disavowing the NIP (which the government is now pledged to do) one of the worst.
Don't know about your neck of the woods, but where I reside pedestrians must be VERY careful crossing busy streets ESPECIALLY during morning rush hour.
Regarless whether they catch the hit-and-runner, best wishes for you & yours!
They didn’t see it coming (many did)
They’ve done nothing about it, in fact made it worse.
I posted about the need for urgent supply-side intervention about 9 months ago, and the usual suspects (on here) said inflation wasn’t a problem, and if it were to be it would be the market working wonderfully.
You're just as bigoted and just as ignorant as HYUFD saying that we should repartition Ireland again if there's a reunification referendum.
Had the referendum gone against Brexit then quite obviously it shouldn't be done. If it goes for Brexit however, then it should. The opinion of other nations comes second to that not because of discrimination but because we are a democratic state - just as Ireland are.
Democracy should be respected and the will of the people democratically expressed should come first whatever it is they choose, whether that be Brexit or Irish Unification or joining the Euro or anything comparable.
If people vote for Irish unification we should Get Irish Unification Done because that'd be what they voted for. If people here don't like it, they should be told to mind their own business, the will of the voters should be respected. The same is the case for Brexit.
1) reduced Tory majority
2) Tory minority government down to ca 310 seats, brought down when convenient and leading to a 1997 style horror show
3) rainbow coalition that falls apart acrimoniously within 2 years leading back to Tory majority