Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Johnson trails Starmer by some margin on favourability – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited June 3 in General
imageJohnson trails Starmer by some margin on favourability – politicalbetting.com

One of the things that I think is important when looking at polling is to dig deeper and observe the trend. We all know that statistically individual polls do have a chance every so often of being out and this is why I really appreciate tables like the ones above from YouGov. Looking at the trends in tables like the above is more revealing.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    Like a lot of recent headers this seems to be a direct message to the hon member for NuL.

    I approve it.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,210
    LAB: 38% (+1)
    CON: 32% (-2)
    LDM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 8% (+1)
    REF: 3% (-1)
    UKIP: 1% (-1)

    via @KantarPublic, 19-23 May

    (Changes with 11 Apr)

    Down. Down. Down.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,967
    Wants to scream currently but wondering if there is anything I can do about this situation.

    Fathers girlfriend finds my father collapsed this morning and in a bad way. Rings his doctors surgery as it literally is a two minute walk (his house backs onto it) to be told well he can come in to see the doctor at 5pm or ring an ambulance, which she already had. Surely in an emergency when that close to the house it wouldn't be too much to expect a little quicker assistance? Especially when its a suspected stroke and the adverts always tells us time is of the essence?

    Should I lodge a complaint here?
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 1,708
    The thing I think we should always look at in the chart (when we have net negatives) is the trend in *unfavourability*.

    Discount the cheerleaders, and the don't cares, and look at the negatives.

    While that should be hugely worrying for the Tories (approaching 70% negative is about as bad as it gets) the fact that Starmer is >50% negative is why it is all on a knife edge.

    If his number comes down into the low forties, I'd say we were into solid "Starmer next PM" territory.
  • eekeek Posts: 20,255
    FPT
    boulay said:


    Absolutely - I don’t care if the PM is into pet-play, spends the weekend at chequers watching TSE’s step mom collection, is a nasty person but I want them to have a vision that’s realisable and then pull all the levers to get things done.

    Unfortunately I’m not sure whether it’s a symptom or the cause of the attitude and comment you see here a lot:

    It’s not good politics.

    I don’t give a shit if it’s not good politics as that implies that the only things that should be done are things that help get re-elected or get a quick win for the government.

    This short termism, “optics”, crap media obsessed with gotchas and reacting to twitter is what stops the country moving forward.

    How many times does a party say “we realise that this issue is something that cannot be fixed Over one electoral cycle so we are going to create a cross party commission to find a way that we can fix this that will not be derailed by a change of party in govt”.

    For example - “levelling up” or Northern Ireland”.

    They just want everything done for short term political gain to win the next election so don’t want to “share the glory” but if you found common ground on levelling up then that programme (for example a lizzy line across the north) could get going without people not committing in case the next government decides they want something that suits their electoral chances.

    So again people need to stop this bollocks of “it’s sensible but not good politics” as good politics seems to be exactly what we don’t need (protecting pensioners good “politics” bad for the country).

    HS2E was Government policy and consensus across all parties from 2009 onwards (actually probably 2006 when they first started on it). Bozo was the first Government to try and cut it.

    Meanwhile LNER train services have been busier than ever before...
  • eekeek Posts: 20,255
    edited May 26
    Pagan2 said:

    Wants to scream currently but wondering if there is anything I can do about this situation.

    Fathers girlfriend finds my father collapsed this morning and in a bad way. Rings his doctors surgery as it literally is a two minute walk (his house backs onto it) to be told well he can come in to see the doctor at 5pm or ring an ambulance, which she already had. Surely in an emergency when that close to the house it wouldn't be too much to expect a little quicker assistance? Especially when its a suspected stroke and the adverts always tells us time is of the essence?

    Should I lodge a complaint here?

    It's a stroke - 999 will tell you what needs to be done prior to the ambulance arriving who will then take him to the appropriate A&E - especially as stroke patients may be taken directly to the appropriate specialist department rather than the local A&E..
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,478
    Pagan2 said:

    Wants to scream currently but wondering if there is anything I can do about this situation.

    Fathers girlfriend finds my father collapsed this morning and in a bad way. Rings his doctors surgery as it literally is a two minute walk (his house backs onto it) to be told well he can come in to see the doctor at 5pm or ring an ambulance, which she already had. Surely in an emergency when that close to the house it wouldn't be too much to expect a little quicker assistance? Especially when its a suspected stroke and the adverts always tells us time is of the essence?

    Should I lodge a complaint here?

    Very sorry to hear this - hope ambulance arrives soon and situation improves.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 6,374
    edited May 26
    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Well I'm no fan of the government, but I won't say no to a few hundred quid off the gas and leccy.

    You won't get a few hundred quid off. Your bills will still shoot up. Just not by quite the mad amounts being warned. So EDF say 40% of customers will be in fuel poverty. This cuts it to 35% - anyone feel better off?

    Same as the fuel duty cut. The reason this was always a stupid policy was that rising prices would quickly reverse it. And they have. With pump prices the highest on record you can't say "ahbut they would be 6p higher if we hadn't so please vote for us".
    Sorry but I disagree. Cutting taxes is a reasonable response to rising prices. Yes it doesn't reverse the price rise, but nothing will. The price has to be paid, one way or another, but there's no reason for the state to be adding insult to injury by adding taxes on top of the rises and on top of other taxes.

    Anyone who thinks there's a magic solution to eliminate cost from people's lives is in Dreamland but cutting taxes is a rational and reasonable way to mitigate the harm and smooth the transition in the price changes.
    Sure, we know there is no magic solution. I am pointing to the political stupidity of going out claiming people will pay less. They will not - they will pay more. That they would have paid even more without the rebate won't win any votes.

    And was always thus. Cutting fuel duty was always a stupid policy when prices were rising which is why Blair and Brown resisted calls to do so in the great fuel crisis of 2000 when prices were shockingly high at £1.20 a litre.

    Sunak need not have bothered cut 5p duty and lose 1p VAT off fuel - its the highest ever, people are screaming, there are no votes to be gained. Better to target the money differently and put it into people's pockets directly so that they feel it there before spending it.

    "I just got £200 cash off my tax bill" is better than "I've been saved £200 off a theoretical fuel bill which is more than I can afford anyway". Politically speaking.
    Completely disagreed. It may be better politics but its poorer economics and the wrong thing to do.

    The vast bulk of the price you pay at the pump is tax, not the cost of the fuel itself, and due to the way it is taxed when the cost of the fuel itself goes up the Exchequer gets more money automatically anyway. So the Chancellor cutting fuel duty isn't the wrong thing to do, its the right thing to do, since it is stabilising prices absorbing part of the cost of the price rise, but without costing the Exchequer much if any money since taxes are the bulk of the price anyway and they're getting more money automatically already.

    Any Chancellor who tries to wash his hands of fuel prices and says "not my problem" is wrong, because taxes are the overwhelming proportion of fuel prices in the first place. The ability to relatively stabilise the price when shocks occur is one of the only benefits of having it so heavily taxed in the first place as proportionately then the price rise doesn't seem so severe - Biden is struggling much more as gasoline prices in the States aren't taxed so much and so have risen proportionately much, much further.

    PS it probably is good politics too since if the Chancellor didn't intervene when prices rose then graphics would have rapidly started going around showing exactly what proportion of the price is tax which would make it his problem. As it did when Blair and Brown faced the same situation and it hurt them politically, but not enough to make up for the fact that they were miles ahead of the Tories for other reasons and the issue went away. "I can't afford this bill and its all your fault as the bill is mostly tax" is different to "I can't afford this bill, but at least its not getting taxed as much".

    Cutting fuel duty is probably the only thing Sunak has got right since Eat Out To Help Out.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,015

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Well I'm no fan of the government, but I won't say no to a few hundred quid off the gas and leccy.

    You won't get a few hundred quid off. Your bills will still shoot up. Just not by quite the mad amounts being warned. So EDF say 40% of customers will be in fuel poverty. This cuts it to 35% - anyone feel better off?

    Same as the fuel duty cut. The reason this was always a stupid policy was that rising prices would quickly reverse it. And they have. With pump prices the highest on record you can't say "ahbut they would be 6p higher if we hadn't so please vote for us".
    Sorry but I disagree. Cutting taxes is a reasonable response to rising prices. Yes it doesn't reverse the price rise, but nothing will. The price has to be paid, one way or another, but there's no reason for the state to be adding insult to injury by adding taxes on top of the rises and on top of other taxes.

    Anyone who thinks there's a magic solution to eliminate cost from people's lives is in Dreamland but cutting taxes is a rational and reasonable way to mitigate the harm and smooth the transition in the price changes.
    Sure, we know there is no magic solution. I am pointing to the political stupidity of going out claiming people will pay less. They will not - they will pay more. That they would have paid even more without the rebate won't win any votes.

    And was always thus. Cutting fuel duty was always a stupid policy when prices were rising which is why Blair and Brown resisted calls to do so in the great fuel crisis of 2000 when prices were shockingly high at £1.20 a litre.

    Sunak need not have bothered cut 5p duty and lose 1p VAT off fuel - its the highest ever, people are screaming, there are no votes to be gained. Better to target the money differently and put it into people's pockets directly so that they feel it there before spending it.

    "I just got £200 cash off my tax bill" is better than "I've been saved £200 off a theoretical fuel bill which is more than I can afford anyway". Politically speaking.
    Completely disagreed. It may be better politics but its poorer economics and the wrong thing to do.

    The vast bulk of the price you pay at the pump is tax, not the cost of the fuel itself, and due to the way it is taxed when the cost of the fuel itself goes up the Exchequer gets more money automatically anyway. So the Chancellor cutting fuel duty isn't the wrong thing to do, its the right thing to do, since it is stabilising prices absorbing part of the cost of the price rise, but without costing the Exchequer much if any money since taxes are the bulk of the price anyway and they're getting more money automatically already.

    Any Chancellor who tries to wash his hands of fuel prices and says "not my problem" is wrong, because taxes are the overwhelming proportion of fuel prices in the first place. The ability to relatively stabilise the price when shocks occur is one of the only benefits of having it so heavily taxed in the first place as proportionately then the price rise doesn't seem so severe - Biden is struggling much more as gasoline prices in the States aren't taxed so much and so have risen proportionately much, much further.

    PS it probably is good politics too since if the Chancellor didn't intervene when prices rose then graphics would have rapidly started going around showing exactly what proportion of the price is tax which would make it his problem. As it did when Blair and Brown faced the same situation and it hurt them politically, but not enough to make up for the fact that they were miles ahead of the Tories for other reasons and the issue went away. "I can't afford this bill and its all your fault as the bill is mostly tax" is different to "I can't afford this bill, but at least its not getting taxed as much".

    Cutting fuel duty is probably the only thing Sunak has got right since Eat Out To Help Out.
    Why not stabilise the tax on a fuel at a fixed price per litre rather than a percentage, which just amplifies the price movements.

    And yes, I know that the tax consist of several taxes. But all it takes is some legislation.

    But nothing will be done until the problem goes away in a a decade or 2.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 23,828
    One for @Heathener

    Last Night in Sivota. Literally. I am now checking out and moving on. The nomadic life continues…


  • LeonLeon Posts: 23,828
    Pagan2 said:

    Wants to scream currently but wondering if there is anything I can do about this situation.

    Fathers girlfriend finds my father collapsed this morning and in a bad way. Rings his doctors surgery as it literally is a two minute walk (his house backs onto it) to be told well he can come in to see the doctor at 5pm or ring an ambulance, which she already had. Surely in an emergency when that close to the house it wouldn't be too much to expect a little quicker assistance? Especially when its a suspected stroke and the adverts always tells us time is of the essence?

    Should I lodge a complaint here?

    That’s nasty. I have no idea what you should do!

    But: sympathies
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 6,374

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Well I'm no fan of the government, but I won't say no to a few hundred quid off the gas and leccy.

    You won't get a few hundred quid off. Your bills will still shoot up. Just not by quite the mad amounts being warned. So EDF say 40% of customers will be in fuel poverty. This cuts it to 35% - anyone feel better off?

    Same as the fuel duty cut. The reason this was always a stupid policy was that rising prices would quickly reverse it. And they have. With pump prices the highest on record you can't say "ahbut they would be 6p higher if we hadn't so please vote for us".
    Sorry but I disagree. Cutting taxes is a reasonable response to rising prices. Yes it doesn't reverse the price rise, but nothing will. The price has to be paid, one way or another, but there's no reason for the state to be adding insult to injury by adding taxes on top of the rises and on top of other taxes.

    Anyone who thinks there's a magic solution to eliminate cost from people's lives is in Dreamland but cutting taxes is a rational and reasonable way to mitigate the harm and smooth the transition in the price changes.
    Sure, we know there is no magic solution. I am pointing to the political stupidity of going out claiming people will pay less. They will not - they will pay more. That they would have paid even more without the rebate won't win any votes.

    And was always thus. Cutting fuel duty was always a stupid policy when prices were rising which is why Blair and Brown resisted calls to do so in the great fuel crisis of 2000 when prices were shockingly high at £1.20 a litre.

    Sunak need not have bothered cut 5p duty and lose 1p VAT off fuel - its the highest ever, people are screaming, there are no votes to be gained. Better to target the money differently and put it into people's pockets directly so that they feel it there before spending it.

    "I just got £200 cash off my tax bill" is better than "I've been saved £200 off a theoretical fuel bill which is more than I can afford anyway". Politically speaking.
    Completely disagreed. It may be better politics but its poorer economics and the wrong thing to do.

    The vast bulk of the price you pay at the pump is tax, not the cost of the fuel itself, and due to the way it is taxed when the cost of the fuel itself goes up the Exchequer gets more money automatically anyway. So the Chancellor cutting fuel duty isn't the wrong thing to do, its the right thing to do, since it is stabilising prices absorbing part of the cost of the price rise, but without costing the Exchequer much if any money since taxes are the bulk of the price anyway and they're getting more money automatically already.

    Any Chancellor who tries to wash his hands of fuel prices and says "not my problem" is wrong, because taxes are the overwhelming proportion of fuel prices in the first place. The ability to relatively stabilise the price when shocks occur is one of the only benefits of having it so heavily taxed in the first place as proportionately then the price rise doesn't seem so severe - Biden is struggling much more as gasoline prices in the States aren't taxed so much and so have risen proportionately much, much further.

    PS it probably is good politics too since if the Chancellor didn't intervene when prices rose then graphics would have rapidly started going around showing exactly what proportion of the price is tax which would make it his problem. As it did when Blair and Brown faced the same situation and it hurt them politically, but not enough to make up for the fact that they were miles ahead of the Tories for other reasons and the issue went away. "I can't afford this bill and its all your fault as the bill is mostly tax" is different to "I can't afford this bill, but at least its not getting taxed as much".

    Cutting fuel duty is probably the only thing Sunak has got right since Eat Out To Help Out.
    Why not stabilise the tax on a fuel at a fixed price per litre rather than a percentage, which just amplifies the price movements.

    And yes, I know that the tax consist of several taxes. But all it takes is some legislation.

    But nothing will be done until the problem goes away in a a decade or 2.
    I believe duty is a fixed price per litre, but then there's VAT too which is levied on the fuel [and the duty, double-taxation is real everywhere] and due to VAT, the North Sea etc higher oil prices gives more money to the Exchequer automatically.

    So when the oil price spikes as it has, the Government gets an unplanned windfall of its own, and using some of its own unplanned windfall to absorb some of the price rise by cutting duty, is good economics and good politics.

    It actually deals with the problem at source, and is better than adding something to welfare that will never be reversed.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,967
    eek said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Wants to scream currently but wondering if there is anything I can do about this situation.

    Fathers girlfriend finds my father collapsed this morning and in a bad way. Rings his doctors surgery as it literally is a two minute walk (his house backs onto it) to be told well he can come in to see the doctor at 5pm or ring an ambulance, which she already had. Surely in an emergency when that close to the house it wouldn't be too much to expect a little quicker assistance? Especially when its a suspected stroke and the adverts always tells us time is of the essence?

    Should I lodge a complaint here?

    It's a stroke - 999 will tell you what needs to be done prior to the ambulance arriving who will then take him to the appropriate A&E - especially as stroke patients may be taken directly to the appropriate specialist department rather than the local A&E..
    Which they did, just galling to have a medical professional 2 minutes away who says "not my problem" when could have so easily just came round to see what could be done till the ambulance arrived
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 8,731
    Pagan2 said:

    Wants to scream currently but wondering if there is anything I can do about this situation.

    Fathers girlfriend finds my father collapsed this morning and in a bad way. Rings his doctors surgery as it literally is a two minute walk (his house backs onto it) to be told well he can come in to see the doctor at 5pm or ring an ambulance, which she already had. Surely in an emergency when that close to the house it wouldn't be too much to expect a little quicker assistance? Especially when its a suspected stroke and the adverts always tells us time is of the essence?

    Should I lodge a complaint here?

    In their defence a doctor from the surgery would just call an ambulance too. I hope he is ok and the ambulance is quick.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,722
    edited May 26
    Apologies if this has been covered but by-election in Spelthorne Surrey last night.

    903 Green
    775 Con
    69 TUSC

    That's 4 Tory defences 4 losses since the locals.
    The radical Hard Left Alliance strikes.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,315
    "Tory Britain faces extinction at the hands of a radical hard-Left alliance
    ALLISTER HEATH" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/25/tory-britain-faces-extinction-hands-radical-hard-left-alliance/
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,620
    Conservative MP John Baron has withdrawn support from Boris Johnson – saying that the Prime Minister is "no longer credible"

    For more on this and other news visit http://trib.al/Rx0iR33
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,712

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Well I'm no fan of the government, but I won't say no to a few hundred quid off the gas and leccy.

    You won't get a few hundred quid off. Your bills will still shoot up. Just not by quite the mad amounts being warned. So EDF say 40% of customers will be in fuel poverty. This cuts it to 35% - anyone feel better off?

    Same as the fuel duty cut. The reason this was always a stupid policy was that rising prices would quickly reverse it. And they have. With pump prices the highest on record you can't say "ahbut they would be 6p higher if we hadn't so please vote for us".
    Sorry but I disagree. Cutting taxes is a reasonable response to rising prices. Yes it doesn't reverse the price rise, but nothing will. The price has to be paid, one way or another, but there's no reason for the state to be adding insult to injury by adding taxes on top of the rises and on top of other taxes.

    Anyone who thinks there's a magic solution to eliminate cost from people's lives is in Dreamland but cutting taxes is a rational and reasonable way to mitigate the harm and smooth the transition in the price changes.
    Sure, we know there is no magic solution. I am pointing to the political stupidity of going out claiming people will pay less. They will not - they will pay more. That they would have paid even more without the rebate won't win any votes.

    And was always thus. Cutting fuel duty was always a stupid policy when prices were rising which is why Blair and Brown resisted calls to do so in the great fuel crisis of 2000 when prices were shockingly high at £1.20 a litre.

    Sunak need not have bothered cut 5p duty and lose 1p VAT off fuel - its the highest ever, people are screaming, there are no votes to be gained. Better to target the money differently and put it into people's pockets directly so that they feel it there before spending it.

    "I just got £200 cash off my tax bill" is better than "I've been saved £200 off a theoretical fuel bill which is more than I can afford anyway". Politically speaking.
    Completely disagreed. It may be better politics but its poorer economics and the wrong thing to do.

    The vast bulk of the price you pay at the pump is tax, not the cost of the fuel itself, and due to the way it is taxed when the cost of the fuel itself goes up the Exchequer gets more money automatically anyway. So the Chancellor cutting fuel duty isn't the wrong thing to do, its the right thing to do, since it is stabilising prices absorbing part of the cost of the price rise, but without costing the Exchequer much if any money since taxes are the bulk of the price anyway and they're getting more money automatically already.

    Any Chancellor who tries to wash his hands of fuel prices and says "not my problem" is wrong, because taxes are the overwhelming proportion of fuel prices in the first place. The ability to relatively stabilise the price when shocks occur is one of the only benefits of having it so heavily taxed in the first place as proportionately then the price rise doesn't seem so severe - Biden is struggling much more as gasoline prices in the States aren't taxed so much and so have risen proportionately much, much further.

    PS it probably is good politics too since if the Chancellor didn't intervene when prices rose then graphics would have rapidly started going around showing exactly what proportion of the price is tax which would make it his problem. As it did when Blair and Brown faced the same situation and it hurt them politically, but not enough to make up for the fact that they were miles ahead of the Tories for other reasons and the issue went away. "I can't afford this bill and its all your fault as the bill is mostly tax" is different to "I can't afford this bill, but at least its not getting taxed as much".

    Cutting fuel duty is probably the only thing Sunak has got right since Eat Out To Help Out.
    The economics feel fairly simple - when you cut duty the money goes to everyone. They have a finite amount of money, and not everyone is in need, so it needs to be better targeted - a third of the £5bn spent goes to the richest 20% of households.

    The more we target money to the people most in need at the bottom the quicker that money gets spent and gets to circulate through the economy. So they've not only wasted the money, they get zero political benefit - lose lose.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,712
    Scott_xP said:

    Conservative MP John Baron has withdrawn support from Boris Johnson – saying that the Prime Minister is "no longer credible"

    For more on this and other news visit http://trib.al/Rx0iR33

    How many are we up to now then?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,620

    Scott_xP said:

    Conservative MP John Baron has withdrawn support from Boris Johnson – saying that the Prime Minister is "no longer credible"

    For more on this and other news visit http://trib.al/Rx0iR33

    How many are we up to now then?
    Not enough...
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,256
    edited May 26
    Forgive me if this has been discussed, but sad to see this in the Gray Report: "was made aware of multiple examples of a lack of respect and poor treatment of security and cleaning staff". I hate this sort of stuff.
  • northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 987
    FPT

    Lol, the Tory party should change course nor because they’re corrupt, self serving rsoles but just in case Kommissar Keir takes charge.



    It's the Trumpian language that rankles with me. Radical hard left alliance. It's garbage.

    But I suppose my reflexive response is a mirror image of those on the right when we on the left say there's an incipient whiff of fascism about the government, its policies and the way it operates.

    I find it hard to picture any possible Labour/Lib Dem, and maybe even Green, coalition being radically hard left. Mushily soft left, maybe. And that would suit me down to the ground.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,574
    Leon said:

    One for @Heathener

    Last Night in Sivota. Literally. I am now checking out and moving on. The nomadic life continues…


    Any clues as to the next stop?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,620
    Breaking:

    A third Tory MP has called for Boris Johnson to step down in wake of Gray report

    David Simmonds says while govt enjoys public confidence, 'the prime minister does not'

    'It is time for him to step down so new leadership can take forward the important work of govt' https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1529748450182676480/photo/1
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,620
    Great thread… even having caught Covid B Johnson indifferent to others in Number 10 catching it: https://twitter.com/sturdyalex/status/1529739456068067328
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 8,968
    Scott_xP said:

    Conservative MP John Baron has withdrawn support from Boris Johnson – saying that the Prime Minister is "no longer credible"

    For more on this and other news visit http://trib.al/Rx0iR33

    The overwhelming sense I received from media reporting was that Johnson was at little risk and had escaped again, but several Tory MPs didn't get the memo and have chosen this time to call for the PM to go.

    I wonder whether the media bubble are about to be caught out by the no confidence ballot threshold being reached?

    Despite all my cynicism it does seem like some Tory MPs were true to their word and genuinely were waiting for the Gray report to reach a verdict, rather than merely procrastinating.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,068
    Andy_JS said:

    "Tory Britain faces extinction at the hands of a radical hard-Left alliance
    ALLISTER HEATH" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/25/tory-britain-faces-extinction-hands-radical-hard-left-alliance/

    Ha ha, if only.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 6,374
    edited May 26

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Well I'm no fan of the government, but I won't say no to a few hundred quid off the gas and leccy.

    You won't get a few hundred quid off. Your bills will still shoot up. Just not by quite the mad amounts being warned. So EDF say 40% of customers will be in fuel poverty. This cuts it to 35% - anyone feel better off?

    Same as the fuel duty cut. The reason this was always a stupid policy was that rising prices would quickly reverse it. And they have. With pump prices the highest on record you can't say "ahbut they would be 6p higher if we hadn't so please vote for us".
    Sorry but I disagree. Cutting taxes is a reasonable response to rising prices. Yes it doesn't reverse the price rise, but nothing will. The price has to be paid, one way or another, but there's no reason for the state to be adding insult to injury by adding taxes on top of the rises and on top of other taxes.

    Anyone who thinks there's a magic solution to eliminate cost from people's lives is in Dreamland but cutting taxes is a rational and reasonable way to mitigate the harm and smooth the transition in the price changes.
    Sure, we know there is no magic solution. I am pointing to the political stupidity of going out claiming people will pay less. They will not - they will pay more. That they would have paid even more without the rebate won't win any votes.

    And was always thus. Cutting fuel duty was always a stupid policy when prices were rising which is why Blair and Brown resisted calls to do so in the great fuel crisis of 2000 when prices were shockingly high at £1.20 a litre.

    Sunak need not have bothered cut 5p duty and lose 1p VAT off fuel - its the highest ever, people are screaming, there are no votes to be gained. Better to target the money differently and put it into people's pockets directly so that they feel it there before spending it.

    "I just got £200 cash off my tax bill" is better than "I've been saved £200 off a theoretical fuel bill which is more than I can afford anyway". Politically speaking.
    Completely disagreed. It may be better politics but its poorer economics and the wrong thing to do.

    The vast bulk of the price you pay at the pump is tax, not the cost of the fuel itself, and due to the way it is taxed when the cost of the fuel itself goes up the Exchequer gets more money automatically anyway. So the Chancellor cutting fuel duty isn't the wrong thing to do, its the right thing to do, since it is stabilising prices absorbing part of the cost of the price rise, but without costing the Exchequer much if any money since taxes are the bulk of the price anyway and they're getting more money automatically already.

    Any Chancellor who tries to wash his hands of fuel prices and says "not my problem" is wrong, because taxes are the overwhelming proportion of fuel prices in the first place. The ability to relatively stabilise the price when shocks occur is one of the only benefits of having it so heavily taxed in the first place as proportionately then the price rise doesn't seem so severe - Biden is struggling much more as gasoline prices in the States aren't taxed so much and so have risen proportionately much, much further.

    PS it probably is good politics too since if the Chancellor didn't intervene when prices rose then graphics would have rapidly started going around showing exactly what proportion of the price is tax which would make it his problem. As it did when Blair and Brown faced the same situation and it hurt them politically, but not enough to make up for the fact that they were miles ahead of the Tories for other reasons and the issue went away. "I can't afford this bill and its all your fault as the bill is mostly tax" is different to "I can't afford this bill, but at least its not getting taxed as much".

    Cutting fuel duty is probably the only thing Sunak has got right since Eat Out To Help Out.
    The economics feel fairly simple - when you cut duty the money goes to everyone. They have a finite amount of money, and not everyone is in need, so it needs to be better targeted - a third of the £5bn spent goes to the richest 20% of households.

    The more we target money to the people most in need at the bottom the quicker that money gets spent and gets to circulate through the economy. So they've not only wasted the money, they get zero political benefit - lose lose.
    When you cut duty the money goes to the people who are paying the bills by purchasing fuel. That is the problem at source.

    If you want to increase taxes on the wealthy, or increase benefits for the poor, then make that argument, but that is not what fuel duty is for.

    Cutting fuel duty relatively stabilises fuel prices, while being relatively revenue-neutral for the Exchequer. It is the right thing to do. If you want taxes rising on the richest, then just say so, don't try to warp commodities to do it for you.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    A third Tory MP has called for Boris Johnson to step down in wake of Gray report

    David Simmonds says while govt enjoys public confidence, 'the prime minister does not'

    'It is time for him to step down so new leadership can take forward the important work of govt' https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1529748450182676480/photo/1

    The BBC said this morning that Boris is much safer than yesterday as only a few had declared against him

    Unfortunately 54 will not be enough to see him go unless the vonc sees a dramatic increase towards the 180 +

    It may happen, it should happen, but I fear it will not happen, certainly not yet
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,394
    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    A third Tory MP has called for Boris Johnson to step down in wake of Gray report

    David Simmonds says while govt enjoys public confidence, 'the prime minister does not'

    'It is time for him to step down so new leadership can take forward the important work of govt' https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1529748450182676480/photo/1

    Drip, drip, drip...
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,068
    eek said:

    FPT

    boulay said:


    Absolutely - I don’t care if the PM is into pet-play, spends the weekend at chequers watching TSE’s step mom collection, is a nasty person but I want them to have a vision that’s realisable and then pull all the levers to get things done.

    Unfortunately I’m not sure whether it’s a symptom or the cause of the attitude and comment you see here a lot:

    It’s not good politics.

    I don’t give a shit if it’s not good politics as that implies that the only things that should be done are things that help get re-elected or get a quick win for the government.

    This short termism, “optics”, crap media obsessed with gotchas and reacting to twitter is what stops the country moving forward.

    How many times does a party say “we realise that this issue is something that cannot be fixed Over one electoral cycle so we are going to create a cross party commission to find a way that we can fix this that will not be derailed by a change of party in govt”.

    For example - “levelling up” or Northern Ireland”.

    They just want everything done for short term political gain to win the next election so don’t want to “share the glory” but if you found common ground on levelling up then that programme (for example a lizzy line across the north) could get going without people not committing in case the next government decides they want something that suits their electoral chances.

    So again people need to stop this bollocks of “it’s sensible but not good politics” as good politics seems to be exactly what we don’t need (protecting pensioners good “politics” bad for the country).

    HS2E was Government policy and consensus across all parties from 2009 onwards (actually probably 2006 when they first started on it). Bozo was the first Government to try and cut it.

    Meanwhile LNER train services have been busier than ever before...
    As a Londoner and enthusiastic Elizabeth Line user can I just say that the decision to axe HS2E is an absolute disgrace. They need to get on with it, and NPR. These big infrastructure projects are absolutely transformative. And if we had a rolling 30-50 year pipeline of projects building expertise across procurement, project management and engineering I bet that costs could be brought down.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,712

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Well I'm no fan of the government, but I won't say no to a few hundred quid off the gas and leccy.

    You won't get a few hundred quid off. Your bills will still shoot up. Just not by quite the mad amounts being warned. So EDF say 40% of customers will be in fuel poverty. This cuts it to 35% - anyone feel better off?

    Same as the fuel duty cut. The reason this was always a stupid policy was that rising prices would quickly reverse it. And they have. With pump prices the highest on record you can't say "ahbut they would be 6p higher if we hadn't so please vote for us".
    Sorry but I disagree. Cutting taxes is a reasonable response to rising prices. Yes it doesn't reverse the price rise, but nothing will. The price has to be paid, one way or another, but there's no reason for the state to be adding insult to injury by adding taxes on top of the rises and on top of other taxes.

    Anyone who thinks there's a magic solution to eliminate cost from people's lives is in Dreamland but cutting taxes is a rational and reasonable way to mitigate the harm and smooth the transition in the price changes.
    Sure, we know there is no magic solution. I am pointing to the political stupidity of going out claiming people will pay less. They will not - they will pay more. That they would have paid even more without the rebate won't win any votes.

    And was always thus. Cutting fuel duty was always a stupid policy when prices were rising which is why Blair and Brown resisted calls to do so in the great fuel crisis of 2000 when prices were shockingly high at £1.20 a litre.

    Sunak need not have bothered cut 5p duty and lose 1p VAT off fuel - its the highest ever, people are screaming, there are no votes to be gained. Better to target the money differently and put it into people's pockets directly so that they feel it there before spending it.

    "I just got £200 cash off my tax bill" is better than "I've been saved £200 off a theoretical fuel bill which is more than I can afford anyway". Politically speaking.
    Completely disagreed. It may be better politics but its poorer economics and the wrong thing to do.

    The vast bulk of the price you pay at the pump is tax, not the cost of the fuel itself, and due to the way it is taxed when the cost of the fuel itself goes up the Exchequer gets more money automatically anyway. So the Chancellor cutting fuel duty isn't the wrong thing to do, its the right thing to do, since it is stabilising prices absorbing part of the cost of the price rise, but without costing the Exchequer much if any money since taxes are the bulk of the price anyway and they're getting more money automatically already.

    Any Chancellor who tries to wash his hands of fuel prices and says "not my problem" is wrong, because taxes are the overwhelming proportion of fuel prices in the first place. The ability to relatively stabilise the price when shocks occur is one of the only benefits of having it so heavily taxed in the first place as proportionately then the price rise doesn't seem so severe - Biden is struggling much more as gasoline prices in the States aren't taxed so much and so have risen proportionately much, much further.

    PS it probably is good politics too since if the Chancellor didn't intervene when prices rose then graphics would have rapidly started going around showing exactly what proportion of the price is tax which would make it his problem. As it did when Blair and Brown faced the same situation and it hurt them politically, but not enough to make up for the fact that they were miles ahead of the Tories for other reasons and the issue went away. "I can't afford this bill and its all your fault as the bill is mostly tax" is different to "I can't afford this bill, but at least its not getting taxed as much".

    Cutting fuel duty is probably the only thing Sunak has got right since Eat Out To Help Out.
    The economics feel fairly simple - when you cut duty the money goes to everyone. They have a finite amount of money, and not everyone is in need, so it needs to be better targeted - a third of the £5bn spent goes to the richest 20% of households.

    The more we target money to the people most in need at the bottom the quicker that money gets spent and gets to circulate through the economy. So they've not only wasted the money, they get zero political benefit - lose lose.
    When you cut duty the money goes to the people who are paying the bills by purchasing fuel. That is the problem at source.

    If you want to increase taxes on the wealthy, or increase benefits for the poor, then make that argument, but that is not what fuel duty is for.

    Cutting fuel duty relatively stabilises fuel prices, while being relatively revenue-neutral for the Exchequer. It is the right thing to do. If you want taxes rising on the richest, then just say so, don't try to warp commodities to do it for you.
    If the aim was "lets cut fuel duty, its too high" then I would agree with you.

    But that is not their aim...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,722

    FPT

    Lol, the Tory party should change course nor because they’re corrupt, self serving rsoles but just in case Kommissar Keir takes charge.



    It's the Trumpian language that rankles with me. Radical hard left alliance. It's garbage.

    But I suppose my reflexive response is a mirror image of those on the right when we on the left say there's an incipient whiff of fascism about the government, its policies and the way it operates.

    I find it hard to picture any possible Labour/Lib Dem, and maybe even Green, coalition being radically hard left. Mushily soft left, maybe. And that would suit me down to the ground.
    It's self-defeating, too. If you tell someone they are something, a little part of them begins to consider it. Tell it enough times, and they'll believe it and act accordingly.
    That's why children who are told they are naughty (as opposed to having behaved badly) or thick, begin to believe it, and act accordingly. It's why you get (far fewer these days) self-hating gays. And numerous other examples. Righties called fascist, begin to feel the need to defend stuff they wouldn't normally.
    So. Your voter in Tiverton who votes Lib Dem, or in Spelthorne Green, maybe for the first time.
    It puts the idea in their head that they are the outgroup.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,620
    If any other rebellious Conservative MPs could just hold off releasing their statements until I get into the office that'd be great, thanks.

    @LouisDegenhardt is threatening to steal the spreadsheet

    https://twitter.com/TomLarkinSky/status/1529750409052577792
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,315
    Johnson in serious trouble now: David Simmonds and John Baron have never called for him to go before.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    A third Tory MP has called for Boris Johnson to step down in wake of Gray report

    David Simmonds says while govt enjoys public confidence, 'the prime minister does not'

    'It is time for him to step down so new leadership can take forward the important work of govt' https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1529748450182676480/photo/1

    The BBC said this morning that Boris is much safer than yesterday as only a few had declared against him

    Unfortunately 54 will not be enough to see him go unless the vonc sees a dramatic increase towards the 180 +

    It may happen, it should happen, but I fear it will not happen, certainly not yet
    I agree but I still think the by-elections are the last moment of peril for Johnson. If they go as badly as I now suspect they will, then I think he might yet be in trouble.

    Survive those, and he's here until the General Election barring an act of God.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 8,731
    Andy_JS said:

    Johnson in serious trouble now: David Simmonds and John Baron have never called for him to go before.

    Could this be that start of the avalanche? We can only hope.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    Leon said:

    One for @Heathener

    Last Night in Sivota. Literally. I am now checking out and moving on. The nomadic life continues…


    Beautiful!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,315
    Leon said:

    One for @Heathener

    Last Night in Sivota. Literally. I am now checking out and moving on. The nomadic life continues…


    Italy next?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    Alastair Meeks tweets

    This one is slightly unexpected. He’d been on my cool list. There are nearly 100 MPs who have already made public expressions that were less favourable to the PM than John Baron.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 8,731
    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    One for @Heathener

    Last Night in Sivota. Literally. I am now checking out and moving on. The nomadic life continues…


    Italy next?
    Or a complete change -Swindon?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 21,799
    Andy_JS said:

    "Tory Britain faces extinction at the hands of a radical hard-Left alliance
    ALLISTER HEATH" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/25/tory-britain-faces-extinction-hands-radical-hard-left-alliance/

    TLDR: "My and my family's enormous privileges might get watered down a bit around the edges by oaks who should know their place."
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,455
    edited May 26

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    A third Tory MP has called for Boris Johnson to step down in wake of Gray report

    David Simmonds says while govt enjoys public confidence, 'the prime minister does not'

    'It is time for him to step down so new leadership can take forward the important work of govt' https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1529748450182676480/photo/1

    The BBC said this morning that Boris is much safer than yesterday as only a few had declared against him

    Unfortunately 54 will not be enough to see him go unless the vonc sees a dramatic increase towards the 180 +

    It may happen, it should happen, but I fear it will not happen, certainly not yet
    I’m not sure that difficulty getting to the 54 letters necessarily shows that it will be hard to get the 180+ to dump him in a vote.

    It’s one thing to write in and demand he goes but once that particular door has been opened I think a lot of Tory MPs will look at the situation differently and realise that they only really have this one chance to potentially save themselves at the election.

    It’s probably a bit like the Brexit referendum. I’m sure there were loads of people who wouldn’t have wanted/demanded the referendum and would have carried on as it was however when it came down to actually voting they took the plunge and voted leave - either they weighed up the “arguments”, went with their guts or thought “fuck it, may as well get shot of this as might not get another go”.

    So I’m hopeful that once we get to the tipping point there will be enough MOs make the decision to go in a different direction.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    Andy_JS said:

    Johnson in serious trouble now: David Simmonds and John Baron have never called for him to go before.

    Interesting.

    MPs will be taking soundings from constituents which I suspect will be absolutely dire.

    I reckon opinion polls will also be bad for the tories in coming weeks. That Kantar this morning, with an increase in Labour's lead, was before Sue Gray.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    "How's Carrie" trending on twitter for some reason.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 8,731

    Andy_JS said:

    "Tory Britain faces extinction at the hands of a radical hard-Left alliance
    ALLISTER HEATH" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/25/tory-britain-faces-extinction-hands-radical-hard-left-alliance/

    TLDR: "My and my family's enormous privileges might get watered down a bit around the edges by oaks who should know their place."
    In the woods? :D
  • theProletheProle Posts: 666

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Well I'm no fan of the government, but I won't say no to a few hundred quid off the gas and leccy.

    You won't get a few hundred quid off. Your bills will still shoot up. Just not by quite the mad amounts being warned. So EDF say 40% of customers will be in fuel poverty. This cuts it to 35% - anyone feel better off?

    Same as the fuel duty cut. The reason this was always a stupid policy was that rising prices would quickly reverse it. And they have. With pump prices the highest on record you can't say "ahbut they would be 6p higher if we hadn't so please vote for us".
    Sorry but I disagree. Cutting taxes is a reasonable response to rising prices. Yes it doesn't reverse the price rise, but nothing will. The price has to be paid, one way or another, but there's no reason for the state to be adding insult to injury by adding taxes on top of the rises and on top of other taxes.

    Anyone who thinks there's a magic solution to eliminate cost from people's lives is in Dreamland but cutting taxes is a rational and reasonable way to mitigate the harm and smooth the transition in the price changes.
    Sure, we know there is no magic solution. I am pointing to the political stupidity of going out claiming people will pay less. They will not - they will pay more. That they would have paid even more without the rebate won't win any votes.

    And was always thus. Cutting fuel duty was always a stupid policy when prices were rising which is why Blair and Brown resisted calls to do so in the great fuel crisis of 2000 when prices were shockingly high at £1.20 a litre.

    Sunak need not have bothered cut 5p duty and lose 1p VAT off fuel - its the highest ever, people are screaming, there are no votes to be gained. Better to target the money differently and put it into people's pockets directly so that they feel it there before spending it.

    "I just got £200 cash off my tax bill" is better than "I've been saved £200 off a theoretical fuel bill which is more than I can afford anyway". Politically speaking.
    Completely disagreed. It may be better politics but its poorer economics and the wrong thing to do.

    The vast bulk of the price you pay at the pump is tax, not the cost of the fuel itself, and due to the way it is taxed when the cost of the fuel itself goes up the Exchequer gets more money automatically anyway. So the Chancellor cutting fuel duty isn't the wrong thing to do, its the right thing to do, since it is stabilising prices absorbing part of the cost of the price rise, but without costing the Exchequer much if any money since taxes are the bulk of the price anyway and they're getting more money automatically already.

    Any Chancellor who tries to wash his hands of fuel prices and says "not my problem" is wrong, because taxes are the overwhelming proportion of fuel prices in the first place. The ability to relatively stabilise the price when shocks occur is one of the only benefits of having it so heavily taxed in the first place as proportionately then the price rise doesn't seem so severe - Biden is struggling much more as gasoline prices in the States aren't taxed so much and so have risen proportionately much, much further.

    PS it probably is good politics too since if the Chancellor didn't intervene when prices rose then graphics would have rapidly started going around showing exactly what proportion of the price is tax which would make it his problem. As it did when Blair and Brown faced the same situation and it hurt them politically, but not enough to make up for the fact that they were miles ahead of the Tories for other reasons and the issue went away. "I can't afford this bill and its all your fault as the bill is mostly tax" is different to "I can't afford this bill, but at least its not getting taxed as much".

    Cutting fuel duty is probably the only thing Sunak has got right since Eat Out To Help Out.
    Why not stabilise the tax on a fuel at a fixed price per litre rather than a percentage, which just amplifies the price movements.

    And yes, I know that the tax consist of several taxes. But all it takes is some legislation.

    But nothing will be done until the problem goes away in a a decade or 2.
    I believe duty is a fixed price per litre, but then there's VAT too which is levied on the fuel [and the duty, double-taxation is real everywhere] and due to VAT, the North Sea etc higher oil prices gives more money to the Exchequer automatically.

    So when the oil price spikes as it has, the Government gets an unplanned windfall of its own, and using some of its own unplanned windfall to absorb some of the price rise by cutting duty, is good economics and good politics.

    It actually deals with the problem at source, and is better than adding something to welfare that will never be reversed.
    Trouble with abolishing VAT on fuel and lumping it in with the duty is that if you're a company you can get the VAT back, but not the duty. Making business pay 20% more for fuel in the current climate would be unhelpfully inflationary.

    I was quite surprised that Rishi cut fuel duty rather than VAT on fuel for exactly this reason - I thought he'd only want individuals to benefit, rather than businesses.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Andy_JS said:

    "Tory Britain faces extinction at the hands of a radical hard-Left alliance
    ALLISTER HEATH" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/25/tory-britain-faces-extinction-hands-radical-hard-left-alliance/

    TLDR: "My and my family's enormous privileges might get watered down a bit around the edges by oaks who should know their place."
    In the woods? :D
    That's acorny joke.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,455
    IshmaelZ said:

    "How's Carrie" trending on twitter for some reason.

    I believe that Lulu Lyttle has been declared “passé” by Tatler today.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,523

    Andy_JS said:

    "Tory Britain faces extinction at the hands of a radical hard-Left alliance
    ALLISTER HEATH" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/25/tory-britain-faces-extinction-hands-radical-hard-left-alliance/

    TLDR: "My and my family's enormous privileges might get watered down a bit around the edges by oaks who should know their place."
    Ignoring AEP's clickbait, there is an interesting analysis that Boris has failed to deliver what he promised, and that rather than partygate is why voters are abandoning the Conservatives.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,482
    edited May 26
    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Breaking:

    A third Tory MP has called for Boris Johnson to step down in wake of Gray report

    David Simmonds says while govt enjoys public confidence, 'the prime minister does not'

    'It is time for him to step down so new leadership can take forward the important work of govt' https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1529748450182676480/photo/1

    The BBC said this morning that Boris is much safer than yesterday as only a few had declared against him

    Unfortunately 54 will not be enough to see him go unless the vonc sees a dramatic increase towards the 180 +

    It may happen, it should happen, but I fear it will not happen, certainly not yet
    I’m not sure that difficulty getting to the 54 letters necessarily shows that it will be hard to get the 180+ to dump him in a vote.

    It’s one thing to write in and demand he goes but once that particular door has been opened I think a lot of Tory MOs will look at the situation differently and realise that they only really have this one chance to potentially save themselves at the election.

    It’s probably a bit like the Brexit referendum. I’m sure there were loads of people who wouldn’t have wanted/demanded the referendum and would have carried on as it was however when it came down to actually voting they took the plunge and voted leave - either they weighed up the “arguments”, went with their guts or thought “fuck it, may as well get shot of this as might not get another go”.

    So I’m hopeful that once we get to the tipping point there will be enough MOs make the decision to go in a different direction.
    Also, the psychology is different.

    To speak up, or even to write a letter to the 1922, is a positive act, putting your head above the parapet. Not doing anything has the effect of supporting BoJo, but in a passive way. It's possible to still one's soul by saying "not yet".

    In an actual VoC, they can't avoid the question. Do you endorse this man- yes or no? In the privacy of the voting booth, alone with their concience (I'm sure most still have one... they're just trained in ignoring it), how many will actually endorse Boris?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,712
    Sunak is coming out with a tub of sweeties again this lunchtime. Despite the "he's rich" damage that was done, if he still fancies a pop at it he can demonstrate a whole load of stuff he has personally done to help people.

    The people who say "he can't cut through" aren't thinking it through. To win the south you need to proffer a big pre-election tax cut and he's lined that up. To win the north you actually have to deliver the promised cash for levelling up. He's made promises which haven't been delivered, but could blame Bonzo for the delays if he managed to oust him.

    What are the Tories realistic alternatives? Cosplay Thatcher? Vacant? Penny who?
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 1,708

    Andy_JS said:

    "Tory Britain faces extinction at the hands of a radical hard-Left alliance
    ALLISTER HEATH" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/25/tory-britain-faces-extinction-hands-radical-hard-left-alliance/

    TLDR: "My and my family's enormous privileges might get watered down a bit around the edges by oaks who should know their place."
    Ah, the sturdy oaks of old England.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,712
    IshmaelZ said:

    "How's Carrie" trending on twitter for some reason.

    "I see 'How's Carrie' is trending due to rumours she has left Johnson and is shacked up with racist posh boy Zak Goldsmith. no idea if this is true or not."

    https://twitter.com/driandunce/status/1529747308874711042
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 8,968

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Well I'm no fan of the government, but I won't say no to a few hundred quid off the gas and leccy.

    You won't get a few hundred quid off. Your bills will still shoot up. Just not by quite the mad amounts being warned. So EDF say 40% of customers will be in fuel poverty. This cuts it to 35% - anyone feel better off?

    Same as the fuel duty cut. The reason this was always a stupid policy was that rising prices would quickly reverse it. And they have. With pump prices the highest on record you can't say "ahbut they would be 6p higher if we hadn't so please vote for us".
    Sorry but I disagree. Cutting taxes is a reasonable response to rising prices. Yes it doesn't reverse the price rise, but nothing will. The price has to be paid, one way or another, but there's no reason for the state to be adding insult to injury by adding taxes on top of the rises and on top of other taxes.

    Anyone who thinks there's a magic solution to eliminate cost from people's lives is in Dreamland but cutting taxes is a rational and reasonable way to mitigate the harm and smooth the transition in the price changes.
    Sure, we know there is no magic solution. I am pointing to the political stupidity of going out claiming people will pay less. They will not - they will pay more. That they would have paid even more without the rebate won't win any votes.

    And was always thus. Cutting fuel duty was always a stupid policy when prices were rising which is why Blair and Brown resisted calls to do so in the great fuel crisis of 2000 when prices were shockingly high at £1.20 a litre.

    Sunak need not have bothered cut 5p duty and lose 1p VAT off fuel - its the highest ever, people are screaming, there are no votes to be gained. Better to target the money differently and put it into people's pockets directly so that they feel it there before spending it.

    "I just got £200 cash off my tax bill" is better than "I've been saved £200 off a theoretical fuel bill which is more than I can afford anyway". Politically speaking.
    Completely disagreed. It may be better politics but its poorer economics and the wrong thing to do.

    The vast bulk of the price you pay at the pump is tax, not the cost of the fuel itself, and due to the way it is taxed when the cost of the fuel itself goes up the Exchequer gets more money automatically anyway. So the Chancellor cutting fuel duty isn't the wrong thing to do, its the right thing to do, since it is stabilising prices absorbing part of the cost of the price rise, but without costing the Exchequer much if any money since taxes are the bulk of the price anyway and they're getting more money automatically already.

    Any Chancellor who tries to wash his hands of fuel prices and says "not my problem" is wrong, because taxes are the overwhelming proportion of fuel prices in the first place. The ability to relatively stabilise the price when shocks occur is one of the only benefits of having it so heavily taxed in the first place as proportionately then the price rise doesn't seem so severe - Biden is struggling much more as gasoline prices in the States aren't taxed so much and so have risen proportionately much, much further.

    PS it probably is good politics too since if the Chancellor didn't intervene when prices rose then graphics would have rapidly started going around showing exactly what proportion of the price is tax which would make it his problem. As it did when Blair and Brown faced the same situation and it hurt them politically, but not enough to make up for the fact that they were miles ahead of the Tories for other reasons and the issue went away. "I can't afford this bill and its all your fault as the bill is mostly tax" is different to "I can't afford this bill, but at least its not getting taxed as much".

    Cutting fuel duty is probably the only thing Sunak has got right since Eat Out To Help Out.
    The economics feel fairly simple - when you cut duty the money goes to everyone. They have a finite amount of money, and not everyone is in need, so it needs to be better targeted - a third of the £5bn spent goes to the richest 20% of households.

    The more we target money to the people most in need at the bottom the quicker that money gets spent and gets to circulate through the economy. So they've not only wasted the money, they get zero political benefit - lose lose.
    When you cut duty the money goes to the people who are paying the bills by purchasing fuel. That is the problem at source.

    If you want to increase taxes on the wealthy, or increase benefits for the poor, then make that argument, but that is not what fuel duty is for.

    Cutting fuel duty relatively stabilises fuel prices, while being relatively revenue-neutral for the Exchequer. It is the right thing to do. If you want taxes rising on the richest, then just say so, don't try to warp commodities to do it for you.
    The problem is that by attempting to stabilise prices you are reducing the effect of the price signal on demand, and so you are interfering to support demand and drive prices even higher.

    Government intervention would be better being targeted, to reduce the extent of the distortion, and then on the supply side - speeding up installation of more renewable capacity, for example.
  • eekeek Posts: 20,255

    eek said:

    FPT

    boulay said:


    Absolutely - I don’t care if the PM is into pet-play, spends the weekend at chequers watching TSE’s step mom collection, is a nasty person but I want them to have a vision that’s realisable and then pull all the levers to get things done.

    Unfortunately I’m not sure whether it’s a symptom or the cause of the attitude and comment you see here a lot:

    It’s not good politics.

    I don’t give a shit if it’s not good politics as that implies that the only things that should be done are things that help get re-elected or get a quick win for the government.

    This short termism, “optics”, crap media obsessed with gotchas and reacting to twitter is what stops the country moving forward.

    How many times does a party say “we realise that this issue is something that cannot be fixed Over one electoral cycle so we are going to create a cross party commission to find a way that we can fix this that will not be derailed by a change of party in govt”.

    For example - “levelling up” or Northern Ireland”.

    They just want everything done for short term political gain to win the next election so don’t want to “share the glory” but if you found common ground on levelling up then that programme (for example a lizzy line across the north) could get going without people not committing in case the next government decides they want something that suits their electoral chances.

    So again people need to stop this bollocks of “it’s sensible but not good politics” as good politics seems to be exactly what we don’t need (protecting pensioners good “politics” bad for the country).

    HS2E was Government policy and consensus across all parties from 2009 onwards (actually probably 2006 when they first started on it). Bozo was the first Government to try and cut it.

    Meanwhile LNER train services have been busier than ever before...
    As a Londoner and enthusiastic Elizabeth Line user can I just say that the decision to axe HS2E is an absolute disgrace. They need to get on with it, and NPR. These big infrastructure projects are absolutely transformative. And if we had a rolling 30-50 year pipeline of projects building expertise across procurement, project management and engineering I bet that costs could be brought down.
    That bit is my greatest annoyance - the easiest way to keep costs under control would be to keep people continually employed and that pipeline of work would result in a whole set of other benefits...

  • eekeek Posts: 20,255
    IshmaelZ said:

    "How's Carrie" trending on twitter for some reason.

    Surprised it's taken so long given I've heard rumours about their relationship (or lack there of) for weeks.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 6,374

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Well I'm no fan of the government, but I won't say no to a few hundred quid off the gas and leccy.

    You won't get a few hundred quid off. Your bills will still shoot up. Just not by quite the mad amounts being warned. So EDF say 40% of customers will be in fuel poverty. This cuts it to 35% - anyone feel better off?

    Same as the fuel duty cut. The reason this was always a stupid policy was that rising prices would quickly reverse it. And they have. With pump prices the highest on record you can't say "ahbut they would be 6p higher if we hadn't so please vote for us".
    Sorry but I disagree. Cutting taxes is a reasonable response to rising prices. Yes it doesn't reverse the price rise, but nothing will. The price has to be paid, one way or another, but there's no reason for the state to be adding insult to injury by adding taxes on top of the rises and on top of other taxes.

    Anyone who thinks there's a magic solution to eliminate cost from people's lives is in Dreamland but cutting taxes is a rational and reasonable way to mitigate the harm and smooth the transition in the price changes.
    Sure, we know there is no magic solution. I am pointing to the political stupidity of going out claiming people will pay less. They will not - they will pay more. That they would have paid even more without the rebate won't win any votes.

    And was always thus. Cutting fuel duty was always a stupid policy when prices were rising which is why Blair and Brown resisted calls to do so in the great fuel crisis of 2000 when prices were shockingly high at £1.20 a litre.

    Sunak need not have bothered cut 5p duty and lose 1p VAT off fuel - its the highest ever, people are screaming, there are no votes to be gained. Better to target the money differently and put it into people's pockets directly so that they feel it there before spending it.

    "I just got £200 cash off my tax bill" is better than "I've been saved £200 off a theoretical fuel bill which is more than I can afford anyway". Politically speaking.
    Completely disagreed. It may be better politics but its poorer economics and the wrong thing to do.

    The vast bulk of the price you pay at the pump is tax, not the cost of the fuel itself, and due to the way it is taxed when the cost of the fuel itself goes up the Exchequer gets more money automatically anyway. So the Chancellor cutting fuel duty isn't the wrong thing to do, its the right thing to do, since it is stabilising prices absorbing part of the cost of the price rise, but without costing the Exchequer much if any money since taxes are the bulk of the price anyway and they're getting more money automatically already.

    Any Chancellor who tries to wash his hands of fuel prices and says "not my problem" is wrong, because taxes are the overwhelming proportion of fuel prices in the first place. The ability to relatively stabilise the price when shocks occur is one of the only benefits of having it so heavily taxed in the first place as proportionately then the price rise doesn't seem so severe - Biden is struggling much more as gasoline prices in the States aren't taxed so much and so have risen proportionately much, much further.

    PS it probably is good politics too since if the Chancellor didn't intervene when prices rose then graphics would have rapidly started going around showing exactly what proportion of the price is tax which would make it his problem. As it did when Blair and Brown faced the same situation and it hurt them politically, but not enough to make up for the fact that they were miles ahead of the Tories for other reasons and the issue went away. "I can't afford this bill and its all your fault as the bill is mostly tax" is different to "I can't afford this bill, but at least its not getting taxed as much".

    Cutting fuel duty is probably the only thing Sunak has got right since Eat Out To Help Out.
    The economics feel fairly simple - when you cut duty the money goes to everyone. They have a finite amount of money, and not everyone is in need, so it needs to be better targeted - a third of the £5bn spent goes to the richest 20% of households.

    The more we target money to the people most in need at the bottom the quicker that money gets spent and gets to circulate through the economy. So they've not only wasted the money, they get zero political benefit - lose lose.
    When you cut duty the money goes to the people who are paying the bills by purchasing fuel. That is the problem at source.

    If you want to increase taxes on the wealthy, or increase benefits for the poor, then make that argument, but that is not what fuel duty is for.

    Cutting fuel duty relatively stabilises fuel prices, while being relatively revenue-neutral for the Exchequer. It is the right thing to do. If you want taxes rising on the richest, then just say so, don't try to warp commodities to do it for you.
    If the aim was "lets cut fuel duty, its too high" then I would agree with you.

    But that is not their aim...
    The aim is to stabilise prices, as reasonably as can be done, in a way that is relatively revenue neutral.

    The prices would have gone up higher had he not acted, and had he not acted then people would have been screaming about how high the prices are and that the price is all taxation. By acting, he shut that down and neutered that argument politically, but it didn't cost the Treasury much if any money since they were getting an unexpected windfall and they're using that windfall to stabilise the prices they're getting the windfall on.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    edited May 26
    Heathener said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Johnson in serious trouble now: David Simmonds and John Baron have never called for him to go before.

    Interesting.

    MPs will be taking soundings from constituents which I suspect will be absolutely dire.

    I reckon opinion polls will also be bad for the tories in coming weeks. That Kantar this morning, with an increase in Labour's lead, was before Sue Gray.
    I think you have a very valid point

    Parliament goes into recess tomorrow until after the platinum jubilee, and mps will not only be at their constituencies but no doubt mixing at various parties (the irony) and getting it full on from angered voters (many loyal) and when they return, gather together and hopefully will decide to do the only decent and honest thing, and vote him out office
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,068
    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    boulay said:


    Absolutely - I don’t care if the PM is into pet-play, spends the weekend at chequers watching TSE’s step mom collection, is a nasty person but I want them to have a vision that’s realisable and then pull all the levers to get things done.

    Unfortunately I’m not sure whether it’s a symptom or the cause of the attitude and comment you see here a lot:

    It’s not good politics.

    I don’t give a shit if it’s not good politics as that implies that the only things that should be done are things that help get re-elected or get a quick win for the government.

    This short termism, “optics”, crap media obsessed with gotchas and reacting to twitter is what stops the country moving forward.

    How many times does a party say “we realise that this issue is something that cannot be fixed Over one electoral cycle so we are going to create a cross party commission to find a way that we can fix this that will not be derailed by a change of party in govt”.

    For example - “levelling up” or Northern Ireland”.

    They just want everything done for short term political gain to win the next election so don’t want to “share the glory” but if you found common ground on levelling up then that programme (for example a lizzy line across the north) could get going without people not committing in case the next government decides they want something that suits their electoral chances.

    So again people need to stop this bollocks of “it’s sensible but not good politics” as good politics seems to be exactly what we don’t need (protecting pensioners good “politics” bad for the country).

    HS2E was Government policy and consensus across all parties from 2009 onwards (actually probably 2006 when they first started on it). Bozo was the first Government to try and cut it.

    Meanwhile LNER train services have been busier than ever before...
    As a Londoner and enthusiastic Elizabeth Line user can I just say that the decision to axe HS2E is an absolute disgrace. They need to get on with it, and NPR. These big infrastructure projects are absolutely transformative. And if we had a rolling 30-50 year pipeline of projects building expertise across procurement, project management and engineering I bet that costs could be brought down.
    That bit is my greatest annoyance - the easiest way to keep costs under control would be to keep people continually employed and that pipeline of work would result in a whole set of other benefits...

    It is such a no brainer isn't it.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,712
    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    "How's Carrie" trending on twitter for some reason.

    Surprised it's taken so long given I've heard rumours about their relationship (or lack there of) for weeks.
    Bonzo not rich enough, so she's dumped him for the Goldsmith billions?

    Don't know. Don't care either. Though if it was true I wonder if Harry Cole might wee himself laughing a little.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    IshmaelZ said:

    "How's Carrie" trending on twitter for some reason.

    "I see 'How's Carrie' is trending due to rumours she has left Johnson and is shacked up with racist posh boy Zak Goldsmith. no idea if this is true or not."

    https://twitter.com/driandunce/status/1529747308874711042
    Probably as accurate as the spelling of his name...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    Applicant said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    "How's Carrie" trending on twitter for some reason.

    "I see 'How's Carrie' is trending due to rumours she has left Johnson and is shacked up with racist posh boy Zak Goldsmith. no idea if this is true or not."

    https://twitter.com/driandunce/status/1529747308874711042
    Probably as accurate as the spelling of his name...
    Killer point.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420
    Andy_JS said:

    "Tory Britain faces extinction at the hands of a radical hard-Left alliance
    ALLISTER HEATH" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/25/tory-britain-faces-extinction-hands-radical-hard-left-alliance/

    Works for me 🙂🙂🙂
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,574

    Andy_JS said:

    "Tory Britain faces extinction at the hands of a radical hard-Left alliance
    ALLISTER HEATH" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/25/tory-britain-faces-extinction-hands-radical-hard-left-alliance/

    TLDR: "My and my family's enormous privileges might get watered down a bit around the edges by oaks who should know their place."
    Ignoring AEP's clickbait, there is an interesting analysis that Boris has failed to deliver what he promised, and that rather than partygate is why voters are abandoning the Conservatives.
    It's not AEP it is Heath, editor of Sunday Torygraph.

    AEP has been concentrating on the debt disaster and dollar crisis facing the world in recent outings.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,574
    Tom Larkin
    @TomLarkinSky
    ·
    24m
    If any other rebellious Conservative MPs could just hold off releasing their statements until I get into the office that'd be great, thanks.

    https://twitter.com/TomLarkinSky/status/1529750409052577792
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 6,374
    theProle said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Well I'm no fan of the government, but I won't say no to a few hundred quid off the gas and leccy.

    You won't get a few hundred quid off. Your bills will still shoot up. Just not by quite the mad amounts being warned. So EDF say 40% of customers will be in fuel poverty. This cuts it to 35% - anyone feel better off?

    Same as the fuel duty cut. The reason this was always a stupid policy was that rising prices would quickly reverse it. And they have. With pump prices the highest on record you can't say "ahbut they would be 6p higher if we hadn't so please vote for us".
    Sorry but I disagree. Cutting taxes is a reasonable response to rising prices. Yes it doesn't reverse the price rise, but nothing will. The price has to be paid, one way or another, but there's no reason for the state to be adding insult to injury by adding taxes on top of the rises and on top of other taxes.

    Anyone who thinks there's a magic solution to eliminate cost from people's lives is in Dreamland but cutting taxes is a rational and reasonable way to mitigate the harm and smooth the transition in the price changes.
    Sure, we know there is no magic solution. I am pointing to the political stupidity of going out claiming people will pay less. They will not - they will pay more. That they would have paid even more without the rebate won't win any votes.

    And was always thus. Cutting fuel duty was always a stupid policy when prices were rising which is why Blair and Brown resisted calls to do so in the great fuel crisis of 2000 when prices were shockingly high at £1.20 a litre.

    Sunak need not have bothered cut 5p duty and lose 1p VAT off fuel - its the highest ever, people are screaming, there are no votes to be gained. Better to target the money differently and put it into people's pockets directly so that they feel it there before spending it.

    "I just got £200 cash off my tax bill" is better than "I've been saved £200 off a theoretical fuel bill which is more than I can afford anyway". Politically speaking.
    Completely disagreed. It may be better politics but its poorer economics and the wrong thing to do.

    The vast bulk of the price you pay at the pump is tax, not the cost of the fuel itself, and due to the way it is taxed when the cost of the fuel itself goes up the Exchequer gets more money automatically anyway. So the Chancellor cutting fuel duty isn't the wrong thing to do, its the right thing to do, since it is stabilising prices absorbing part of the cost of the price rise, but without costing the Exchequer much if any money since taxes are the bulk of the price anyway and they're getting more money automatically already.

    Any Chancellor who tries to wash his hands of fuel prices and says "not my problem" is wrong, because taxes are the overwhelming proportion of fuel prices in the first place. The ability to relatively stabilise the price when shocks occur is one of the only benefits of having it so heavily taxed in the first place as proportionately then the price rise doesn't seem so severe - Biden is struggling much more as gasoline prices in the States aren't taxed so much and so have risen proportionately much, much further.

    PS it probably is good politics too since if the Chancellor didn't intervene when prices rose then graphics would have rapidly started going around showing exactly what proportion of the price is tax which would make it his problem. As it did when Blair and Brown faced the same situation and it hurt them politically, but not enough to make up for the fact that they were miles ahead of the Tories for other reasons and the issue went away. "I can't afford this bill and its all your fault as the bill is mostly tax" is different to "I can't afford this bill, but at least its not getting taxed as much".

    Cutting fuel duty is probably the only thing Sunak has got right since Eat Out To Help Out.
    Why not stabilise the tax on a fuel at a fixed price per litre rather than a percentage, which just amplifies the price movements.

    And yes, I know that the tax consist of several taxes. But all it takes is some legislation.

    But nothing will be done until the problem goes away in a a decade or 2.
    I believe duty is a fixed price per litre, but then there's VAT too which is levied on the fuel [and the duty, double-taxation is real everywhere] and due to VAT, the North Sea etc higher oil prices gives more money to the Exchequer automatically.

    So when the oil price spikes as it has, the Government gets an unplanned windfall of its own, and using some of its own unplanned windfall to absorb some of the price rise by cutting duty, is good economics and good politics.

    It actually deals with the problem at source, and is better than adding something to welfare that will never be reversed.
    Trouble with abolishing VAT on fuel and lumping it in with the duty is that if you're a company you can get the VAT back, but not the duty. Making business pay 20% more for fuel in the current climate would be unhelpfully inflationary.

    I was quite surprised that Rishi cut fuel duty rather than VAT on fuel for exactly this reason - I thought he'd only want individuals to benefit, rather than businesses.
    That's an interesting point but the trouble with that is that the traditional way to cut VAT is to cut it from 20% to 5% and that would probably cost the Exchequer far more than 5p (which with VAT is actually 6p) per litre, though I've not done the numbers.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,620

    Andy_JS said:

    "Tory Britain faces extinction at the hands of a radical hard-Left alliance
    ALLISTER HEATH" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/25/tory-britain-faces-extinction-hands-radical-hard-left-alliance/

    TLDR: "My and my family's enormous privileges might get watered down a bit around the edges by oaks who should know their place."
    The "hard left" includes a former minister in David Cameron's cabinet...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,620
    NEW: Two more Tory MPs call on Boris Johnson to resign in wake of Sue Gray’s partygate report

    Politicshome understands one more MP is considering going public

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/two-more-tory-mps-call-on-boris-johnson-to-resign-in-wake-of-sue-grays-partygate-report
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 102,739
    The cost of living crisis is real, for all us.

    If the the egg and bacon brigade are struggling…


  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 6,374

    Heathener said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Johnson in serious trouble now: David Simmonds and John Baron have never called for him to go before.

    Interesting.

    MPs will be taking soundings from constituents which I suspect will be absolutely dire.

    I reckon opinion polls will also be bad for the tories in coming weeks. That Kantar this morning, with an increase in Labour's lead, was before Sue Gray.
    I think you have a very valid point

    Parliament goes into recess tomorrow until after the platinum jubilee, and mps will not only be at their constituencies but no doubt mixing at various parties (the irony) and getting it full on from angered voters (many loyal) and when they return, gather together and hopefully will decide to do the only decent and honest thing, and vote him out office
    I think you're likely to be disappointed. Postponing until tomorrow an action you could do today tends to end up with the postponed action never happening unless something forces the issue.

    The focus on Partygate was yesterday, that was the "climax" that had been built up to. Realistically every day that passes now is a day where it slips down the agenda and MPs will be talking to constituents who have progressively less and less to say about Parties and more and more to say about Cost of Living and other issues instead.

    The agenda is quite literally going to move on, and the Jubilee Recess is going to aid that I expect.

    If MPs are going to act, the time to do so is now, not at some undefined later on date.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 8,731

    The cost of living crisis is real, for all us.

    If the the egg and bacon brigade are struggling…


    TBH I blame the recent poor performances of the team - who wants to see England thrashed in three days (assuming we bowl first)? Other than Scots of course
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,315
    David Simmonds is Johnson's neighbour in Ruislip.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,455

    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    "How's Carrie" trending on twitter for some reason.

    Surprised it's taken so long given I've heard rumours about their relationship (or lack there of) for weeks.
    Bonzo not rich enough, so she's dumped him for the Goldsmith billions?

    Don't know. Don't care either. Though if it was true I wonder if Harry Cole might wee himself laughing a little.
    Maybe he’s binned her for throwing such a lame birthday party.

    Her present was the final straw, a T-shirt saying “I went to my birthday party and all I got was a cheese sandwich, a £100 fine and this lousy t-shirt”.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062

    The cost of living crisis is real, for all us.

    If the the egg and bacon brigade are struggling…


    Apparently the Hundred ticket sales are piss poor.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,394

    The cost of living crisis is real, for all us.

    If the the egg and bacon brigade are struggling…


    TBH I blame the recent poor performances of the team - who wants to see England thrashed in three days (assuming we bowl first)? Other than Scots of course
    Yep. I'm going to the first day (£140), but thoroughly expect New Zealand to win comfortably.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 6,374

    The cost of living crisis is real, for all us.

    If the the egg and bacon brigade are struggling…


    Apparently the Hundred ticket sales are [is] piss poor.
    FTFY.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,208

    theProle said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Well I'm no fan of the government, but I won't say no to a few hundred quid off the gas and leccy.

    You won't get a few hundred quid off. Your bills will still shoot up. Just not by quite the mad amounts being warned. So EDF say 40% of customers will be in fuel poverty. This cuts it to 35% - anyone feel better off?

    Same as the fuel duty cut. The reason this was always a stupid policy was that rising prices would quickly reverse it. And they have. With pump prices the highest on record you can't say "ahbut they would be 6p higher if we hadn't so please vote for us".
    Sorry but I disagree. Cutting taxes is a reasonable response to rising prices. Yes it doesn't reverse the price rise, but nothing will. The price has to be paid, one way or another, but there's no reason for the state to be adding insult to injury by adding taxes on top of the rises and on top of other taxes.

    Anyone who thinks there's a magic solution to eliminate cost from people's lives is in Dreamland but cutting taxes is a rational and reasonable way to mitigate the harm and smooth the transition in the price changes.
    Sure, we know there is no magic solution. I am pointing to the political stupidity of going out claiming people will pay less. They will not - they will pay more. That they would have paid even more without the rebate won't win any votes.

    And was always thus. Cutting fuel duty was always a stupid policy when prices were rising which is why Blair and Brown resisted calls to do so in the great fuel crisis of 2000 when prices were shockingly high at £1.20 a litre.

    Sunak need not have bothered cut 5p duty and lose 1p VAT off fuel - its the highest ever, people are screaming, there are no votes to be gained. Better to target the money differently and put it into people's pockets directly so that they feel it there before spending it.

    "I just got £200 cash off my tax bill" is better than "I've been saved £200 off a theoretical fuel bill which is more than I can afford anyway". Politically speaking.
    Completely disagreed. It may be better politics but its poorer economics and the wrong thing to do.

    The vast bulk of the price you pay at the pump is tax, not the cost of the fuel itself, and due to the way it is taxed when the cost of the fuel itself goes up the Exchequer gets more money automatically anyway. So the Chancellor cutting fuel duty isn't the wrong thing to do, its the right thing to do, since it is stabilising prices absorbing part of the cost of the price rise, but without costing the Exchequer much if any money since taxes are the bulk of the price anyway and they're getting more money automatically already.

    Any Chancellor who tries to wash his hands of fuel prices and says "not my problem" is wrong, because taxes are the overwhelming proportion of fuel prices in the first place. The ability to relatively stabilise the price when shocks occur is one of the only benefits of having it so heavily taxed in the first place as proportionately then the price rise doesn't seem so severe - Biden is struggling much more as gasoline prices in the States aren't taxed so much and so have risen proportionately much, much further.

    PS it probably is good politics too since if the Chancellor didn't intervene when prices rose then graphics would have rapidly started going around showing exactly what proportion of the price is tax which would make it his problem. As it did when Blair and Brown faced the same situation and it hurt them politically, but not enough to make up for the fact that they were miles ahead of the Tories for other reasons and the issue went away. "I can't afford this bill and its all your fault as the bill is mostly tax" is different to "I can't afford this bill, but at least its not getting taxed as much".

    Cutting fuel duty is probably the only thing Sunak has got right since Eat Out To Help Out.
    Why not stabilise the tax on a fuel at a fixed price per litre rather than a percentage, which just amplifies the price movements.

    And yes, I know that the tax consist of several taxes. But all it takes is some legislation.

    But nothing will be done until the problem goes away in a a decade or 2.
    I believe duty is a fixed price per litre, but then there's VAT too which is levied on the fuel [and the duty, double-taxation is real everywhere] and due to VAT, the North Sea etc higher oil prices gives more money to the Exchequer automatically.

    So when the oil price spikes as it has, the Government gets an unplanned windfall of its own, and using some of its own unplanned windfall to absorb some of the price rise by cutting duty, is good economics and good politics.

    It actually deals with the problem at source, and is better than adding something to welfare that will never be reversed.
    Trouble with abolishing VAT on fuel and lumping it in with the duty is that if you're a company you can get the VAT back, but not the duty. Making business pay 20% more for fuel in the current climate would be unhelpfully inflationary.

    I was quite surprised that Rishi cut fuel duty rather than VAT on fuel for exactly this reason - I thought he'd only want individuals to benefit, rather than businesses.
    That's an interesting point but the trouble with that is that the traditional way to cut VAT is to cut it from 20% to 5% and that would probably cost the Exchequer far more than 5p (which with VAT is actually 6p) per litre, though I've not done the numbers.
    For some of us, for whom most of the price of petrol is the cost of the petrol itself rather than tax, prices at the pump have *more than doubled* in the past 18 months.

    Lies, damn lies, and statistics ;)
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,754
    Leon said:

    One for @Heathener

    Last Night in Sivota. Literally. I am now checking out and moving on. The nomadic life continues…

    I'm also abroad atm and moving from place to place using only my native wit and a credit card.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    .

    The cost of living crisis is real, for all us.

    If the the egg and bacon brigade are struggling…


    TBH I blame the recent poor performances of the team - who wants to see England thrashed in three days (assuming we bowl first)? Other than Scots of course
    I had a quick scan on the Lord's site and the cheapest adult ticket available appears to be £100. I'm not surprised they aren't sold out.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062

    The cost of living crisis is real, for all us.

    If the the egg and bacon brigade are struggling…


    Apparently the Hundred ticket sales are piss poor.
    Good. Its shit. We already have a thriving, successful, well understood evening bash into its 20th season, with well known sides. Want more kids watching cricket? Bite the bullet and get the Vitality Blast on BBC and test cricket back on C4.
    T20 was on YouTube last night.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,208
    eek said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    "How's Carrie" trending on twitter for some reason.

    Surprised it's taken so long given I've heard rumours about their relationship (or lack there of) for weeks.
    Surely she doesn’t divorce him until he’s got the book deal and speaking rights signed?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    Pagan2 said:

    Wants to scream currently but wondering if there is anything I can do about this situation.

    Fathers girlfriend finds my father collapsed this morning and in a bad way. Rings his doctors surgery as it literally is a two minute walk (his house backs onto it) to be told well he can come in to see the doctor at 5pm or ring an ambulance, which she already had. Surely in an emergency when that close to the house it wouldn't be too much to expect a little quicker assistance? Especially when its a suspected stroke and the adverts always tells us time is of the essence?

    Should I lodge a complaint here?

    I think @DecrepitJohnL is right here.
    Treatment needs a specialist team (there are different treatments for clots vs bleeds), and the key is speed of arrival of ambulance and time to hospital.

    I wish you all well.

  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371

    The cost of living crisis is real, for all us.

    If the the egg and bacon brigade are struggling…


    Apparently the Hundred ticket sales are piss poor.
    I wish they would ditch the stupid format. A shameless attempt by the ECB to wrestle power back from India.

    T20 is fine and proven. 65,000 people packed yesterday's Eliminator IPL match and the final is a 100,000 sell-out.

    I have a pair of tickets for Day 3 next Saturday. Hopefully will see some cricket!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157

    The cost of living crisis is real, for all us.

    If the the egg and bacon brigade are struggling…


    TBH I blame the recent poor performances of the team - who wants to see England thrashed in three days (assuming we bowl first)? Other than Scots of course
    Protest at scrapping the Eton-Harrow and Varsity matches.

    My own school has been barred from Lords since 1906 for trashing the pavilion.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 21,799
    mwadams said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Tory Britain faces extinction at the hands of a radical hard-Left alliance
    ALLISTER HEATH" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/25/tory-britain-faces-extinction-hands-radical-hard-left-alliance/

    TLDR: "My and my family's enormous privileges might get watered down a bit around the edges by oaks who should know their place."
    Ah, the sturdy oaks of old England.
    Bloody autocorrupt!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062
    edited May 26

    The cost of living crisis is real, for all us.

    If the the egg and bacon brigade are struggling…


    Apparently the Hundred ticket sales are piss poor.
    Good. Its shit. We already have a thriving, successful, well understood evening bash into its 20th season, with well known sides. Want more kids watching cricket? Bite the bullet and get the Vitality Blast on BBC and test cricket back on C4.
    One problem is if Hundred fails it could bust the ECB. They have guaranted £300m of funding, with the hope they recoup all of it via tv, ticket sales and merch. Even last season, that was boosted by being new and coming out of lockdown it was something you could do on a nice summer evening, it lost a load of money.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371

    Heathener said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Johnson in serious trouble now: David Simmonds and John Baron have never called for him to go before.

    Interesting.

    MPs will be taking soundings from constituents which I suspect will be absolutely dire.

    I reckon opinion polls will also be bad for the tories in coming weeks. That Kantar this morning, with an increase in Labour's lead, was before Sue Gray.
    I think you have a very valid point

    Parliament goes into recess tomorrow until after the platinum jubilee, and mps will not only be at their constituencies but no doubt mixing at various parties (the irony) and getting it full on from angered voters (many loyal) and when they return, gather together and hopefully will decide to do the only decent and honest thing, and vote him out office

    The focus on Partygate was yesterday, that was the "climax" that had been built up to. Realistically every day that passes now is a day where it slips down the agenda and MPs will be talking to constituents who have progressively less and less to say about Parties and more and more to say about Cost of Living and other issues instead.
    .
    'Liked' by Sandpit who lives in the Middle East and has no finger on the pulse of the nation, nor I suspect do you.

    Until or unless Johnson is removed this will not 'go away'. It's a cancer and it's eating away your party.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 21,799
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    One for @Heathener

    Last Night in Sivota. Literally. I am now checking out and moving on. The nomadic life continues…

    I'm also abroad atm and moving from place to place using only my native wit and a credit card.
    Looking forward to your daily travelblog.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    The cost of living crisis is real, for all us.

    If the the egg and bacon brigade are struggling…


    Apparently the Hundred ticket sales are piss poor.
    Good. Its shit. We already have a thriving, successful, well understood evening bash into its 20th season, with well known sides. Want more kids watching cricket? Bite the bullet and get the Vitality Blast on BBC and test cricket back on C4.
    One problem is if Hundred fails it could bust the ECB. They have guaranted £300m of funding, with the hope they recoup all of it via tv, ticket sales and merch. Even last season, that was boosted by being new and coming out of lockdown it was something you could do on a nice summer evening, it lost a load of money.
    It'll only be the smaller counties that get sacrificed.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 3,994
    edited May 26
    Apols if seen, and Election maps uk teasing a 'particularly spicy' Redfield at 5, usually from them meaning big Labour lead
    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 38% (+1)
    CON: 32% (-2)
    LDEM: 13% (+2)
    GRN: 8% (+1)

    via @KantarPublic, 19 - 23 May
    Chgs. w/ Apr
    https://t.co/tbuWdJkYCg
    SNP and Reform 3%
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,208
    Applicant said:

    .

    The cost of living crisis is real, for all us.

    If the the egg and bacon brigade are struggling…


    TBH I blame the recent poor performances of the team - who wants to see England thrashed in three days (assuming we bowl first)? Other than Scots of course
    I had a quick scan on the Lord's site and the cheapest adult ticket available appears to be £100. I'm not surprised they aren't sold out.
    Who wants to pay £100, plus F&B, to watch England lose by an innings? Find a quiet pub to watch it, or stay at home and drown sorrows there.

    I’m sure I remember paying £50 for a non-Ashes TM at Lord’s a decade or so ago.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Sandpit said:

    Applicant said:

    .

    The cost of living crisis is real, for all us.

    If the the egg and bacon brigade are struggling…


    TBH I blame the recent poor performances of the team - who wants to see England thrashed in three days (assuming we bowl first)? Other than Scots of course
    I had a quick scan on the Lord's site and the cheapest adult ticket available appears to be £100. I'm not surprised they aren't sold out.
    Who wants to pay £100, plus F&B, to watch England lose by an innings? Find a quiet pub to watch it, or stay at home and drown sorrows there.

    I’m sure I remember paying £50 for a non-Ashes TM at Lord’s a decade or so ago.
    Yeah, it's insane. Headingley has plenty available for £45.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,455
    Sandpit said:

    Applicant said:

    .

    The cost of living crisis is real, for all us.

    If the the egg and bacon brigade are struggling…


    TBH I blame the recent poor performances of the team - who wants to see England thrashed in three days (assuming we bowl first)? Other than Scots of course
    I had a quick scan on the Lord's site and the cheapest adult ticket available appears to be £100. I'm not surprised they aren't sold out.
    Who wants to pay £100, plus F&B, to watch England lose by an innings? Find a quiet pub to watch it, or stay at home and drown sorrows there.

    I’m sure I remember paying £50 for a non-Ashes TM at Lord’s a decade or so ago.
    And if you have a choice to pay £100 to watch England or £100 to get pissed in Downing Street then there’s only one winner.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 6,374
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Johnson in serious trouble now: David Simmonds and John Baron have never called for him to go before.

    Interesting.

    MPs will be taking soundings from constituents which I suspect will be absolutely dire.

    I reckon opinion polls will also be bad for the tories in coming weeks. That Kantar this morning, with an increase in Labour's lead, was before Sue Gray.
    I think you have a very valid point

    Parliament goes into recess tomorrow until after the platinum jubilee, and mps will not only be at their constituencies but no doubt mixing at various parties (the irony) and getting it full on from angered voters (many loyal) and when they return, gather together and hopefully will decide to do the only decent and honest thing, and vote him out office

    The focus on Partygate was yesterday, that was the "climax" that had been built up to. Realistically every day that passes now is a day where it slips down the agenda and MPs will be talking to constituents who have progressively less and less to say about Parties and more and more to say about Cost of Living and other issues instead.
    .
    'Liked' by Sandpit who lives in the Middle East and has no finger on the pulse of the nation, nor I suspect do you.

    Until or unless Johnson is removed this will not 'go away'. It's a cancer and it's eating away your party.
    Not my party. 🤷‍♂️
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,523

    Andy_JS said:

    "Tory Britain faces extinction at the hands of a radical hard-Left alliance
    ALLISTER HEATH" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/25/tory-britain-faces-extinction-hands-radical-hard-left-alliance/

    TLDR: "My and my family's enormous privileges might get watered down a bit around the edges by oaks who should know their place."
    Ignoring AEP's clickbait, there is an interesting analysis that Boris has failed to deliver what he promised, and that rather than partygate is why voters are abandoning the Conservatives.
    It's not AEP it is Heath, editor of Sunday Torygraph.

    AEP has been concentrating on the debt disaster and dollar crisis facing the world in recent outings.
    Sorry, my mistake. Anyway, the point stands. Boris has not done what it said on the tin and voters have noticed. The question for backbenchers is whether Boris can rediscover his mojo and fool the electorate again in 2024.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814

    Apols if seen, and Election maps uk teasing a 'particularly spicy' Redfield at 5, usually from them meaning big Labour lead
    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 38% (+1)
    CON: 32% (-2)
    LDEM: 13% (+2)
    GRN: 8% (+1)

    via @KantarPublic, 19 - 23 May
    Chgs. w/ Apr
    https://t.co/tbuWdJkYCg
    SNP and Reform 3%

    Conservatives sub 30% would not be a surprise

    They are committing hari-kari at present

    Hopefully it will push the letters over the 54
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 17,417

    Andy_JS said:

    "Tory Britain faces extinction at the hands of a radical hard-Left alliance
    ALLISTER HEATH" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/25/tory-britain-faces-extinction-hands-radical-hard-left-alliance/

    TLDR: "My and my family's enormous privileges might get watered down a bit around the edges by oaks who should know their place."
    Failing to see the wood for the trees would you say?
This discussion has been closed.