Howdy, Stranger!

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

If the Tories hold Tiverton & Honiton then Johnson will surely survive – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited June 20 in General
imageIf the Tories hold Tiverton & Honiton then Johnson will surely survive – politicalbetting.com

Quite simply a majority of 24,239 has never before been surmounted in a Westminster by-election. This is a huge hurdle for the LDs to overturn especially as they start in third place.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,403
    edited June 20
    Johnson's future is part of the background noise for the foreseeable.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,965
    I was just getting into an enjoyable ding dong with @Heathener and you switch threads. Chiz
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460
    I'm not convinced it would make that big a difference. They'd think all was well if they hold on by 1 vote, but losing by 1 would be a disaster?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,873
    kle4 said:

    I'm not convinced it would make that big a difference. They'd think all was well if they hold on by 1 vote, but losing by 1 would be a disaster?

    Expectations have been managed. Perhaps if the Tories were to lose their deposit it would cause a sufficient shock.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,501
    edited June 20
    kle4 said:

    I'm not convinced it would make that big a difference. They'd think all was well if they hold on by 1 vote, but losing by 1 would be a disaster?

    Well, look at the way Brexit is portrayed on PB. 52% = total victory, metaphorical UJs all the way from the East End down the Strand to the stachoo of W. Churchill.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,501

    kle4 said:

    I'm not convinced it would make that big a difference. They'd think all was well if they hold on by 1 vote, but losing by 1 would be a disaster?

    Expectations have been managed. Perhaps if the Tories were to lose their deposit it would cause a sufficient shock.
    Farming type likes tractors is not news enough? I suppose not.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460
    I know the LDs would naturally be a bit cautious about their chances even if they thought they were bossing it, but it really is a bloody big majority. 74% feels a bit high.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,791
    Why the apparent pessimism from OGH?

    A swing of the same magnitude as in N Shropshire (34%) would see the LDs home by a margin of 22%. The LDs also started there on 3rd, with a 10% vote share, and 53% behind the Conservatives.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,843
    edited June 20
    I strongly suspect the Tories will lose. The voters don't feel they have a point to make by being loyal to Boris anymore - showing solidarity over Brexit, pissing off the metropolitan elite etc. etc. Boris is now fair game like every politician before him.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,873
    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I'm not convinced it would make that big a difference. They'd think all was well if they hold on by 1 vote, but losing by 1 would be a disaster?

    Expectations have been managed. Perhaps if the Tories were to lose their deposit it would cause a sufficient shock.
    Farming type likes tractors is not news enough? I suppose not.
    Well, that is relevant, as it provides an excuse for the loss. Most Tory MPs will feel confident that they won't be caught watching tractor porn in the Commons chamber.

    If the by-election had been triggered for less disreputable reasons then a defeat might have been seen as more damaging.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,965
    Anyway. Cheers to all PB travellers, stranded or abroad

    From Sovats Vozni, Dilijan, Armenia


  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,944
    Labour lead of 20k?
    20% more like. And I don't think that is at all likely.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939
    Westminster Voting Intention (19 June):

    Labour 40% (-2)
    Conservative 33% (-1)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 5% (-2)
    Scottish National Party 4% (+1)
    Other 1% (–)

    Changes +/- 15 June

    https://t.co/CKqEKxoomO https://t.co/Xby2zSIq3X

    The unbearable dullness goes on
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,965
    edited June 20
    I think the Tories will lose both but Boris will survive. Starmer just isn’t credible yet and maybe never. Where are the policies? What are the positive reasons to vote for Sir Beer? Until Labour have an actual offering they will struggle, and they are still weak on many things, as soon as they open their mouths people will despise them for the views on culture, migration, gender stuff, Brexit, etc , and on the biggest issues of all - cost of living, Ukraine - they are either identical to the Tories or invisible
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    Following on with the musical conversation from the previous thread:

    Am I the only PBer whose singing talents are so notable they've been mentioned in a book?

    (That is a very carefully worded statement...)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,965

    Westminster Voting Intention (19 June):

    Labour 40% (-2)
    Conservative 33% (-1)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 5% (-2)
    Scottish National Party 4% (+1)
    Other 1% (–)

    Changes +/- 15 June

    https://t.co/CKqEKxoomO https://t.co/Xby2zSIq3X

    The unbearable dullness goes on

    What are you on about? The Nats have surged by 33%!

    i really would like to see a Scotland only poll. I wonder what Nicola’s indyref2 commitment has done to their polling, It could be good or bad, depending how you see it

    My guess is: marginally bad. It will shave off a couple of points
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939
    edited June 20
    dixiedean said:

    Labour lead of 20k?
    20% more like. And I don't think that is at all likely.

    They wont even get 20,000 votes total (maybe just about on a reasonable turnout). 'Lead of 20k' is just fanciful nonsense, which not a single poll has shown. Mike is just wrong here.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,690
    Just before noon I saw a helicopter go overhead, heading northwest. I think it must have been the one that crashed.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,266

    Just before noon I saw a helicopter go overhead, heading northwest. I think it must have been the one that crashed.

    2 people dead....
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939
    edited June 20
    Leon said:

    Westminster Voting Intention (19 June):

    Labour 40% (-2)
    Conservative 33% (-1)
    Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
    Green 5% (+1)
    Reform UK 5% (-2)
    Scottish National Party 4% (+1)
    Other 1% (–)

    Changes +/- 15 June

    https://t.co/CKqEKxoomO https://t.co/Xby2zSIq3X

    The unbearable dullness goes on

    What are you on about? The Nats have surged by 33%!

    i really would like to see a Scotland only poll. I wonder what Nicola’s indyref2 commitment has done to their polling, It could be good or bad, depending how you see it

    My guess is: marginally bad. It will shave off a couple of points
    My guess on a Scottish poll right now...... 44/25/19/7 SNP/Lab/Con/LD Westminster which would create a handful of interesting battles and lead to ca 45 to 48 SNP seats of the 59.
    If the SNP start to fall towards 40 it gets more interesting
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,873

    Following on with the musical conversation from the previous thread:

    Am I the only PBer whose singing talents are so notable they've been mentioned in a book?

    (That is a very carefully worded statement...)

    I'm named in a book, but I don't think my singing talents were mentioned, although I do think my Dad's lack of them were.

    I have a decent sense in general of where the extant copies of this book are likely to be located, but it would be fascinating to track them over time.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,944

    dixiedean said:

    Labour lead of 20k?
    20% more like. And I don't think that is at all likely.

    They wont even get 20,000 votes total (maybe just about on a reasonable turnout). 'Lead of 20k' is just fanciful nonsense, which not a single poll has shown. Mike is just wrong here.
    Yep.
    Probably a typo.
    There were only 45k votes in total at the GE.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Labour lead of 20k?
    20% more like. And I don't think that is at all likely.

    They wont even get 20,000 votes total (maybe just about on a reasonable turnout). 'Lead of 20k' is just fanciful nonsense, which not a single poll has shown. Mike is just wrong here.
    Yep.
    Probably a typo.
    There were only 45k votes in total at the GE.
    Agreed, typo central!
    10k maybe. On 50% plus turnout
  • Net approval:

    Starmer: -3 (+3)
    Sunak: -6 (+1)
    Johnson: -24 (-5)

    Best PM:

    Starmer v Johnson
    Starmer: 37% (-1)
    Johnson: 33% (-)

    Starmer v Sunak
    Starmer: 38% (-3)
    Sunak: 31% (-)

    Truss vs Johnson
    Truss: 19% (-)
    Johnson: 35% (+1)

    Sunak vs Johnson
    Sunak: 28% (-)
    Johnson: 32% (-)

    SKS continues to bore himself to Downing Street
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939

    Net approval:

    Starmer: -3 (+3)
    Sunak: -6 (+1)
    Johnson: -24 (-5)

    Best PM:

    Starmer v Johnson
    Starmer: 37% (-1)
    Johnson: 33% (-)

    Starmer v Sunak
    Starmer: 38% (-3)
    Sunak: 31% (-)

    Truss vs Johnson
    Truss: 19% (-)
    Johnson: 35% (+1)

    Sunak vs Johnson
    Sunak: 28% (-)
    Johnson: 32% (-)

    SKS continues to bore himself to Downing Street

    Poll was conducted before the massive sinus bounce we must surely expect.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,259
    edited June 20
    It appears all the idiots who have spent $100ks on NFTs of Apes have bought into a 4Chan alt-right meme fest...

    Not really new info, but first time I have seen it all put together in such detail.

    BORED APE NAZI CLUB
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpH3O6mnZvw
  • Net approval:

    Starmer: -3 (+3)
    Sunak: -6 (+1)
    Johnson: -24 (-5)

    Best PM:

    Starmer v Johnson
    Starmer: 37% (-1)
    Johnson: 33% (-)

    Starmer v Sunak
    Starmer: 38% (-3)
    Sunak: 31% (-)

    Truss vs Johnson
    Truss: 19% (-)
    Johnson: 35% (+1)

    Sunak vs Johnson
    Sunak: 28% (-)
    Johnson: 32% (-)

    SKS continues to bore himself to Downing Street

    Poll was conducted before the massive sinus bounce we must surely expect.
    He got a bogey?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,944

    Net approval:

    Starmer: -3 (+3)
    Sunak: -6 (+1)
    Johnson: -24 (-5)

    Best PM:

    Starmer v Johnson
    Starmer: 37% (-1)
    Johnson: 33% (-)

    Starmer v Sunak
    Starmer: 38% (-3)
    Sunak: 31% (-)

    Truss vs Johnson
    Truss: 19% (-)
    Johnson: 35% (+1)

    Sunak vs Johnson
    Sunak: 28% (-)
    Johnson: 32% (-)

    SKS continues to bore himself to Downing Street

    And Johnson continues to be the Tories best bet.
    How the mighty have fallen!
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939

    Net approval:

    Starmer: -3 (+3)
    Sunak: -6 (+1)
    Johnson: -24 (-5)

    Best PM:

    Starmer v Johnson
    Starmer: 37% (-1)
    Johnson: 33% (-)

    Starmer v Sunak
    Starmer: 38% (-3)
    Sunak: 31% (-)

    Truss vs Johnson
    Truss: 19% (-)
    Johnson: 35% (+1)

    Sunak vs Johnson
    Sunak: 28% (-)
    Johnson: 32% (-)

    SKS continues to bore himself to Downing Street

    Poll was conducted before the massive sinus bounce we must surely expect.
    He got a bogey?
    Double bogey. Straight into a fairway bunker
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,419
    edited June 20

    Net approval:

    Starmer: -3 (+3)
    Sunak: -6 (+1)
    Johnson: -24 (-5)

    Best PM:

    Starmer v Johnson
    Starmer: 37% (-1)
    Johnson: 33% (-)

    Starmer v Sunak
    Starmer: 38% (-3)
    Sunak: 31% (-)

    Truss vs Johnson
    Truss: 19% (-)
    Johnson: 35% (+1)

    Sunak vs Johnson
    Sunak: 28% (-)
    Johnson: 32% (-)

    SKS continues to bore himself to Downing Street

    Poll was conducted before the massive sinus bounce we must surely expect.
    He got a bogey?
    Double bogey. Straight into a fairway bunker
    Surely somebody had to shout fore, Nadine thinks Johnson is wonderful
  • Boris Johnson Approval Rating (19 June):

    Approve: 27% (-4)
    Disapprove: 51% (+1)
    Net: -24% (-5)

    Changes +/- 15 June

    This is Corbyn levels
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,785

    Net approval:

    Starmer: -3 (+3)
    Sunak: -6 (+1)
    Johnson: -24 (-5)

    Best PM:

    Starmer v Johnson
    Starmer: 37% (-1)
    Johnson: 33% (-)

    Starmer v Sunak
    Starmer: 38% (-3)
    Sunak: 31% (-)

    Truss vs Johnson
    Truss: 19% (-)
    Johnson: 35% (+1)

    Sunak vs Johnson
    Sunak: 28% (-)
    Johnson: 32% (-)

    SKS continues to bore himself to Downing Street

    All he has to do is be a safe pair of hands, who looks like he has answers to the cost of living crisis, who can be trusted with the economy, with recovery from the pandemic, etc. And he will find himself in number 10 for as long as the Tories continue to look completely out of touch and out of ideas.

    One thing he really needs to borrow from Blair though is a Clause 4 moment.

    For people like me, economically right of centre and socially liberal, but strongly valuing managerial professionalism, it would be very, very, very hard to vote for a party that a little over 3 years ago, wanted to put a toxic hard left firebrand like Corbyn into power. Many of those MPs who were complicit in that are still there.

    Blair's Clause 4 moment proved that Labour in power would be sympathetic to business - what will Starmer do to prove that Labour have moved on from the Corbyn years. It's not about personalities (suspending individuals from the party), it's about policy as Clause 4 was.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939
    edited June 20

    Net approval:

    Starmer: -3 (+3)
    Sunak: -6 (+1)
    Johnson: -24 (-5)

    Best PM:

    Starmer v Johnson
    Starmer: 37% (-1)
    Johnson: 33% (-)

    Starmer v Sunak
    Starmer: 38% (-3)
    Sunak: 31% (-)

    Truss vs Johnson
    Truss: 19% (-)
    Johnson: 35% (+1)

    Sunak vs Johnson
    Sunak: 28% (-)
    Johnson: 32% (-)

    SKS continues to bore himself to Downing Street

    Poll was conducted before the massive sinus bounce we must surely expect.
    He got a bogey?
    Double bogey. Straight into a fairway bunker
    Surely somebody had to shout fore, Nadine thinks Johnson is wonderful
    You think Nadine would warn people of danger on the way?!
  • kyf_100 said:

    Net approval:

    Starmer: -3 (+3)
    Sunak: -6 (+1)
    Johnson: -24 (-5)

    Best PM:

    Starmer v Johnson
    Starmer: 37% (-1)
    Johnson: 33% (-)

    Starmer v Sunak
    Starmer: 38% (-3)
    Sunak: 31% (-)

    Truss vs Johnson
    Truss: 19% (-)
    Johnson: 35% (+1)

    Sunak vs Johnson
    Sunak: 28% (-)
    Johnson: 32% (-)

    SKS continues to bore himself to Downing Street

    All he has to do is be a safe pair of hands, who looks like he has answers to the cost of living crisis, who can be trusted with the economy, with recovery from the pandemic, etc. And he will find himself in number 10 for as long as the Tories continue to look completely out of touch and out of ideas.

    One thing he really needs to borrow from Blair though is a Clause 4 moment.

    For people like me, economically right of centre and socially liberal, but strongly valuing managerial professionalism, it would be very, very, very hard to vote for a party that a little over 3 years ago, wanted to put a toxic hard left firebrand like Corbyn into power. Many of those MPs who were complicit in that are still there.

    Blair's Clause 4 moment proved that Labour in power would be sympathetic to business - what will Starmer do to prove that Labour have moved on from the Corbyn years. It's not about personalities (suspending individuals from the party), it's about policy as Clause 4 was.
    Scrapping all nationalisations
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939
    kyf_100 said:

    Net approval:

    Starmer: -3 (+3)
    Sunak: -6 (+1)
    Johnson: -24 (-5)

    Best PM:

    Starmer v Johnson
    Starmer: 37% (-1)
    Johnson: 33% (-)

    Starmer v Sunak
    Starmer: 38% (-3)
    Sunak: 31% (-)

    Truss vs Johnson
    Truss: 19% (-)
    Johnson: 35% (+1)

    Sunak vs Johnson
    Sunak: 28% (-)
    Johnson: 32% (-)

    SKS continues to bore himself to Downing Street

    All he has to do is be a safe pair of hands, who looks like he has answers to the cost of living crisis, who can be trusted with the economy, with recovery from the pandemic, etc. And he will find himself in number 10 for as long as the Tories continue to look completely out of touch and out of ideas.

    One thing he really needs to borrow from Blair though is a Clause 4 moment.

    For people like me, economically right of centre and socially liberal, but strongly valuing managerial professionalism, it would be very, very, very hard to vote for a party that a little over 3 years ago, wanted to put a toxic hard left firebrand like Corbyn into power. Many of those MPs who were complicit in that are still there.

    Blair's Clause 4 moment proved that Labour in power would be sympathetic to business - what will Starmer do to prove that Labour have moved on from the Corbyn years. It's not about personalities (suspending individuals from the party), it's about policy as Clause 4 was.
    Starmers would be more a sub paragraph 3 in the appendix to the third addendum moment.
    Snores 4.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 7,804

    kyf_100 said:

    Net approval:

    Starmer: -3 (+3)
    Sunak: -6 (+1)
    Johnson: -24 (-5)

    Best PM:

    Starmer v Johnson
    Starmer: 37% (-1)
    Johnson: 33% (-)

    Starmer v Sunak
    Starmer: 38% (-3)
    Sunak: 31% (-)

    Truss vs Johnson
    Truss: 19% (-)
    Johnson: 35% (+1)

    Sunak vs Johnson
    Sunak: 28% (-)
    Johnson: 32% (-)

    SKS continues to bore himself to Downing Street

    All he has to do is be a safe pair of hands, who looks like he has answers to the cost of living crisis, who can be trusted with the economy, with recovery from the pandemic, etc. And he will find himself in number 10 for as long as the Tories continue to look completely out of touch and out of ideas.

    One thing he really needs to borrow from Blair though is a Clause 4 moment.

    For people like me, economically right of centre and socially liberal, but strongly valuing managerial professionalism, it would be very, very, very hard to vote for a party that a little over 3 years ago, wanted to put a toxic hard left firebrand like Corbyn into power. Many of those MPs who were complicit in that are still there.

    Blair's Clause 4 moment proved that Labour in power would be sympathetic to business - what will Starmer do to prove that Labour have moved on from the Corbyn years. It's not about personalities (suspending individuals from the party), it's about policy as Clause 4 was.
    Scrapping all nationalisations
    Goes without saying.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,501
    Omnium said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Net approval:

    Starmer: -3 (+3)
    Sunak: -6 (+1)
    Johnson: -24 (-5)

    Best PM:

    Starmer v Johnson
    Starmer: 37% (-1)
    Johnson: 33% (-)

    Starmer v Sunak
    Starmer: 38% (-3)
    Sunak: 31% (-)

    Truss vs Johnson
    Truss: 19% (-)
    Johnson: 35% (+1)

    Sunak vs Johnson
    Sunak: 28% (-)
    Johnson: 32% (-)

    SKS continues to bore himself to Downing Street

    All he has to do is be a safe pair of hands, who looks like he has answers to the cost of living crisis, who can be trusted with the economy, with recovery from the pandemic, etc. And he will find himself in number 10 for as long as the Tories continue to look completely out of touch and out of ideas.

    One thing he really needs to borrow from Blair though is a Clause 4 moment.

    For people like me, economically right of centre and socially liberal, but strongly valuing managerial professionalism, it would be very, very, very hard to vote for a party that a little over 3 years ago, wanted to put a toxic hard left firebrand like Corbyn into power. Many of those MPs who were complicit in that are still there.

    Blair's Clause 4 moment proved that Labour in power would be sympathetic to business - what will Starmer do to prove that Labour have moved on from the Corbyn years. It's not about personalities (suspending individuals from the party), it's about policy as Clause 4 was.
    Scrapping all nationalisations
    Goes without saying.
    That'd make him more right wing than the current "Conservative" party (and its previous incarnations over the last few years)! Train operating companies, that strategically important factory, etc.
  • Keir Starmer Approval Rating (19 June):

    Approve: 29% (–)
    Disapprove: 31% (-3)
    Net: -2% (+3)

    Changes +/- 15 June

    If only Keir could be a bit more like Jeremy, Labour could be losing again
  • Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 7,804
    Carnyx said:

    Omnium said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Net approval:

    Starmer: -3 (+3)
    Sunak: -6 (+1)
    Johnson: -24 (-5)

    Best PM:

    Starmer v Johnson
    Starmer: 37% (-1)
    Johnson: 33% (-)

    Starmer v Sunak
    Starmer: 38% (-3)
    Sunak: 31% (-)

    Truss vs Johnson
    Truss: 19% (-)
    Johnson: 35% (+1)

    Sunak vs Johnson
    Sunak: 28% (-)
    Johnson: 32% (-)

    SKS continues to bore himself to Downing Street

    All he has to do is be a safe pair of hands, who looks like he has answers to the cost of living crisis, who can be trusted with the economy, with recovery from the pandemic, etc. And he will find himself in number 10 for as long as the Tories continue to look completely out of touch and out of ideas.

    One thing he really needs to borrow from Blair though is a Clause 4 moment.

    For people like me, economically right of centre and socially liberal, but strongly valuing managerial professionalism, it would be very, very, very hard to vote for a party that a little over 3 years ago, wanted to put a toxic hard left firebrand like Corbyn into power. Many of those MPs who were complicit in that are still there.

    Blair's Clause 4 moment proved that Labour in power would be sympathetic to business - what will Starmer do to prove that Labour have moved on from the Corbyn years. It's not about personalities (suspending individuals from the party), it's about policy as Clause 4 was.
    Scrapping all nationalisations
    Goes without saying.
    That'd make him more right wing than the current "Conservative" party (and its previous incarnations over the last few years)! Train operating companies, that strategically important factory, etc.
    The one great thought the Tories have ever had is that a small state is better. If Labour were to steal those clothes.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383
    I just wrote a bunch of comments on the last thread.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Following on with the musical conversation from the previous thread:

    Am I the only PBer whose singing talents are so notable they've been mentioned in a book?

    (That is a very carefully worded statement...)

    I'm named in a book, but I don't think my singing talents were mentioned, although I do think my Dad's lack of them were.

    I have a decent sense in general of where the extant copies of this book are likely to be located, but it would be fascinating to track them over time.
    I was very careful not to say they were 'good' talents.

    This is the book:
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Shake-Well-Before-Use-Isaacs/dp/0955773008/

    By quite an inspirational guy. Who survived hearing me sing.... ;)
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 7,804
    rcs1000 said:

    I just wrote a bunch of comments on the last thread.

    Care to recap?... :)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383
    FPT:

    Renting is an organised scam.

    Not enough houses = charge as much as they want or you're homeless

    The key point - which is not a very complicated one - is that housing prices are set ultimately by supply and demand.

    And history suggests, it's much more pleasant to bring house prices into line by increasing supply, than by reducing incomes (and therefore demand).

    WRT renting: there are good reasons for people to rent. Owning a home is great if it's somewhere you plan on being for a long, long time. It's not such a great idea if you think your needs might change in the near future, or that you may need to move somewhere else. It's also (almost) always going to be the case that people moving out of home/university aren't immediately in a place (financially) to buy their own home.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,148

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    Kicking out Corbyn was the break from the past. Needs policies that work for the future next and the obvious ones are a wealth tax and merging NI and IT to lower taxes for workers (i.e. labour) and restore the balance between those earning from existing assets and working.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,785

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    It needs to be a headline grabber and it needs to say "you can trust us not to squeeze you until the pips squeak".

    Reduction in VAT to 15% would be an interesting one, it says we're a tax cutting party, but the tax we're cutting is the regressive one that hurts the poor the most. It would also help bring the cost of living down.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 1,625

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    Kicking out Corbyn was the break from the past. Needs policies that work for the future next and the obvious ones are a wealth tax and merging NI and IT to lower taxes for workers (i.e. labour) and restore the balance between those earning from existing assets and working.
    Whereas all the Tories need to do is spend a few days not acting like total plonkers and everyone declares “they’ve changed” and prepares to put their x in the conservative box at the next election.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,041
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Renting is an organised scam.

    Not enough houses = charge as much as they want or you're homeless

    The key point - which is not a very complicated one - is that housing prices are set ultimately by supply and demand.

    And history suggests, it's much more pleasant to bring house prices into line by increasing supply, than by reducing incomes (and therefore demand).

    WRT renting: there are good reasons for people to rent. Owning a home is great if it's somewhere you plan on being for a long, long time. It's not such a great idea if you think your needs might change in the near future, or that you may need to move somewhere else. It's also (almost) always going to be the case that people moving out of home/university aren't immediately in a place (financially) to buy their own home.
    Lots of talk about imminent house price fall, I am unconvinced as are E&Y Item Club

    To understand the housing market all you have to do is ask yourself: on the night of 15 April 1912 were the officers of RMS Titanic saying to one another We must do something to make lifeboat places more *affordable*
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,840
    edited June 20
    kyf_100 said:

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    It needs to be a headline grabber and it needs to say "you can trust us not to squeeze you until the pips squeak".

    Reduction in VAT to 15% would be an interesting one, it says we're a tax cutting party, but the tax we're cutting is the regressive one that hurts the poor the most. It would also help bring the cost of living down.
    That would cost HMG 25% of £132 billion per annum.

    Expensive, and they would need £33 bn of extra taxes just for a baseline.

    About the same as the amount spent on the zero rate CGT on Main dwellings loophole for owner occupiers, the wealthier parts of society.

    Hmmm. An interesting shift of resources. It would be noticed.
  • FPT

    Ooh! I’ve just been given two tickets to see Diana Ross at the O2 on Friday. I’m told they were rather expensive tickets too - £250 each. I should probably try to sell them to pay next month’s rent, but that might upset the donor if they found out so I’m going!

    Diana Ross headlined a festival just outside our village last week...
    Childerley Hall? A friend of mine was singing on the main stage the night before.
    Yep, Childerley.

    My cousin is playing Glastonbury this year with the band he is in.

    https://www.ridingthelow.co.uk/
    Ooooh I’ve listened to them before, they’re good. The singer’s that actor who’s very good but whose name escapes me. He does a lot of Shane Meadows stuff.
    I'll pass your praise onto him. :)

    Yep, Paddy Considine. A much-underrated actor IMO.

    Coincidentally, I went to school with Shane Meadows. The odd thing is I cannot remember him, but I do remember the stigma that sadly surrounded him. I always wonder if he'd remember me.

    It was not one of the private schools I went to, but a state middle school. So the most famous person I went to school with was from the state school... ;)
    Yes please do :smile: Me and Paddy have a shared love of a prolific and criminally under appreciated band called Guided by Voices. You can hear the influence in his songs.

    I didn’t go to school with anyone famous. Couple of minor rugby league players, that’s about it.

    My missus’s brother has been mates for years with Dave Hemingway, from the Beautiful South. I got on the guest list to a few of their gigs before they split. Loads of free booze! He’s a nice bloke, very shy and unassuming.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,028
    kyf_100 said:

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    It needs to be a headline grabber and it needs to say "you can trust us not to squeeze you until the pips squeak".

    Reduction in VAT to 15% would be an interesting one, it says we're a tax cutting party, but the tax we're cutting is the regressive one that hurts the poor the most. It would also help bring the cost of living down.
    FUEL DUTY. 52p a litre, plus VAT.

    It’s the most regressive tax in the country right now (apart from the TV Tax), and it’s feeding into inflation on everything that needs transport.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,148
    TimS said:

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    Kicking out Corbyn was the break from the past. Needs policies that work for the future next and the obvious ones are a wealth tax and merging NI and IT to lower taxes for workers (i.e. labour) and restore the balance between those earning from existing assets and working.
    Whereas all the Tories need to do is spend a few days not acting like total plonkers and everyone declares “they’ve changed” and prepares to put their x in the conservative box at the next election.
    One thing that is really obvious but not given sufficient weight on this site is that there are more natural Tory voters than natural Labour voters in the country. A Tory win is the natural state of play, and this seems to be regularly forgotten when discussing party leaders performances and poll differentials between the two. So, yes, the Tories just need to avoid being corrupt and incompetent. Either on their own seem fine.....
  • kyf_100 said:

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    It needs to be a headline grabber and it needs to say "you can trust us not to squeeze you until the pips squeak".

    Reduction in VAT to 15% would be an interesting one, it says we're a tax cutting party, but the tax we're cutting is the regressive one that hurts the poor the most. It would also help bring the cost of living down.
    That was my proposal the other day. I’d go to 5% though
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,785
    Sandpit said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    It needs to be a headline grabber and it needs to say "you can trust us not to squeeze you until the pips squeak".

    Reduction in VAT to 15% would be an interesting one, it says we're a tax cutting party, but the tax we're cutting is the regressive one that hurts the poor the most. It would also help bring the cost of living down.
    FUEL DUTY. 52p a litre, plus VAT.

    It’s the most regressive tax in the country right now (apart from the TV Tax), and it’s feeding into inflation on everything that needs transport.
    If Boris calls a snap election in October, and that's his one and only policy, written in the manifesto in 300 point type, followed by "the end", he will walk home with an increased majority.

    That is how much pain is being felt at the pump. It's literally all my non-London friends talk about any more. And, as you say, it makes everything else more expensive due to increased transportation costs.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,115
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Renting is an organised scam.

    Not enough houses = charge as much as they want or you're homeless

    The key point - which is not a very complicated one - is that housing prices are set ultimately by supply and demand.

    And history suggests, it's much more pleasant to bring house prices into line by increasing supply, than by reducing incomes (and therefore demand).

    WRT renting: there are good reasons for people to rent. Owning a home is great if it's somewhere you plan on being for a long, long time. It's not such a great idea if you think your needs might change in the near future, or that you may need to move somewhere else. It's also (almost) always going to be the case that people moving out of home/university aren't immediately in a place (financially) to buy their own home.
    There's a reason why most of Europe rents (though it's starting to change). Typically they solve the housing problem with lots of blocks of flats, and owning a flat in a block is a pain as everything around you is out of your control. Moreover, they are generally less wedded to the DIY cult, so the idea of owning a place and gradually doing it up yourself is pretty alien.

    Basically, though, you need to put aside or borrow around 20 years' rent to buy somewhere. Unless you plan to have somewhere to pass on to family, why would you want to spend 20 years focusing on acquiring one asset which you'll finally own when you're old? Why not just rent and enjoy life in lots of different ways, all of them costing smaller amounts? Yes, when you're 75 you'll still have rent to pay, but by then maybe you won't miss the other joys of an active life so much?

    The point is simply that it's daft to be dogmatic about it. Some people want to focus on owning their home, some don't. There's no right or wrong to it.
  • Sandpit said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    It needs to be a headline grabber and it needs to say "you can trust us not to squeeze you until the pips squeak".

    Reduction in VAT to 15% would be an interesting one, it says we're a tax cutting party, but the tax we're cutting is the regressive one that hurts the poor the most. It would also help bring the cost of living down.
    FUEL DUTY. 52p a litre, plus VAT.

    It’s the most regressive tax in the country right now (apart from the TV Tax), and it’s feeding into inflation on everything that needs transport.
    If Starmer suggests that now then the timeline is something like this:

    June 22 - Starmer proposes massive cut or end of fuel duty. Sunak declares it a joke policy and shows Labour are not serious about managing finances.
    Sept 22 - Johnson announces the massive cut or end of fuel duty. Sunak proclaims him a genius and fully backs the policy.
    GE - Everyone remembers Bozo's fuel duty cut and people say why dont the opposition have any original policies?
    Indeed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,028
    edited June 20
    kyf_100 said:

    Sandpit said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    It needs to be a headline grabber and it needs to say "you can trust us not to squeeze you until the pips squeak".

    Reduction in VAT to 15% would be an interesting one, it says we're a tax cutting party, but the tax we're cutting is the regressive one that hurts the poor the most. It would also help bring the cost of living down.
    FUEL DUTY. 52p a litre, plus VAT.

    It’s the most regressive tax in the country right now (apart from the TV Tax), and it’s feeding into inflation on everything that needs transport.
    If Boris calls a snap election in October, and that's his one and only policy, written in the manifesto in 300 point type, followed by "the end", he will walk home with an increased majority.

    That is how much pain is being felt at the pump. It's literally all my non-London friends talk about any more. And, as you say, it makes everything else more expensive due to increased transportation costs.
    I don’t think there will be an election this year, but your point stands.

    In the US last week, even some of the ‘friendly’ news networks dropped the stage-managed prime-time “January 6” hearings, to switch to “Gas Is Five Bucks A Gallon!”

    I live in one of the cheapest places to buy petrol, but it’s still more than doubled in the last six months - to 90p a litre, so I’m not really complaining - but the lower-paid staff, often with longer commutes from the suburbs, are definitely noticing it.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 276
    I see from the Wikipedia article that the LDs have internal polling showing a tie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Tiverton_and_Honiton_by-election
    (I checked because a swing that large is, uh, unusual.)

    Anyone know how good that polling is?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Renting is an organised scam.

    Not enough houses = charge as much as they want or you're homeless

    The key point - which is not a very complicated one - is that housing prices are set ultimately by supply and demand.

    And history suggests, it's much more pleasant to bring house prices into line by increasing supply, than by reducing incomes (and therefore demand).

    WRT renting: there are good reasons for people to rent. Owning a home is great if it's somewhere you plan on being for a long, long time. It's not such a great idea if you think your needs might change in the near future, or that you may need to move somewhere else. It's also (almost) always going to be the case that people moving out of home/university aren't immediately in a place (financially) to buy their own home.
    There's a reason why most of Europe rents (though it's starting to change). Typically they solve the housing problem with lots of blocks of flats, and owning a flat in a block is a pain as everything around you is out of your control. Moreover, they are generally less wedded to the DIY cult, so the idea of owning a place and gradually doing it up yourself is pretty alien.

    Basically, though, you need to put aside or borrow around 20 years' rent to buy somewhere. Unless you plan to have somewhere to pass on to family, why would you want to spend 20 years focusing on acquiring one asset which you'll finally own when you're old? Why not just rent and enjoy life in lots of different ways, all of them costing smaller amounts? Yes, when you're 75 you'll still have rent to pay, but by then maybe you won't miss the other joys of an active life so much?

    The point is simply that it's daft to be dogmatic about it. Some people want to focus on owning their home, some don't. There's no right or wrong to it.
    Renting is fine but it requires a legal guarantee of never being turfed out unless in breach of agreement. It should be a guaranteed home for life if thats what the renter wants. And all newly developed rented property should have outside space be that balcony, garden or communal outdoor areas.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,965
    My god. The Oldham report gets worse


    The Left has to be crushed, for all time, and everywhere
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939

    I see from the Wikipedia article that the LDs have internal polling showing a tie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Tiverton_and_Honiton_by-election
    (I checked because a swing that large is, uh, unusual.)

    Anyone know how good that polling is?

    How unbearably exciting and utterly unpredicted!
    LDs, the little boy who cried too close to call
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 7,804

    I see from the Wikipedia article that the LDs have internal polling showing a tie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Tiverton_and_Honiton_by-election
    (I checked because a swing that large is, uh, unusual.)

    Anyone know how good that polling is?

    How unbearably exciting and utterly unpredicted!
    LDs, the little boy who cried too close to call
    Some people do, rather bafflingly, vote LD though.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,944
    edited June 20
    Used to catch the bus home from school with Monica Ali. Was good mates with her brother.
    She was in the year below me.
    DJ Mark Radcliffe was a couple of years above.
    He was too cool for me though.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    I see from the Wikipedia article that the LDs have internal polling showing a tie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Tiverton_and_Honiton_by-election
    (I checked because a swing that large is, uh, unusual.)

    Anyone know how good that polling is?

    Take it with a shovel full of salt. It is a GOTV tactic used most by elections. It could mean they have it in the bag, and want it nailed on or that they are in second place so want a final push, or it could even mean they are neck and neck!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,944
    Sandpit said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    It needs to be a headline grabber and it needs to say "you can trust us not to squeeze you until the pips squeak".

    Reduction in VAT to 15% would be an interesting one, it says we're a tax cutting party, but the tax we're cutting is the regressive one that hurts the poor the most. It would also help bring the cost of living down.
    FUEL DUTY. 52p a litre, plus VAT.

    It’s the most regressive tax in the country right now (apart from the TV Tax), and it’s feeding into inflation on everything that needs transport.
    Not that regressive.
    The very poorest don't have cars.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 276
    Demography and housing choices: Since some of you are still discussing housing questions, I'll ask for some related information. It looks to me as if people are more willing to form "pair bonds" (as a biologist might say) and have chilren in rural areas, than urban areas, pretty universally. That appears to be true, for example, in both the US and Japan, two very different nations.

    Is that true in Britain? (And, other nations, if you happen to know?)

    (This is important, whether you think declining fertility rates in industrial nations is mostly a problem, or mostly a solution.)

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383

    I see from the Wikipedia article that the LDs have internal polling showing a tie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Tiverton_and_Honiton_by-election
    (I checked because a swing that large is, uh, unusual.)

    Anyone know how good that polling is?

    The LibDems always release an internal poll on the eve of byelections that show that - shock - it's incredibly tight and only they can beat the Conservatives.

    It's amazing how their polling always picks up these incredibly tight contests.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,028
    edited June 20
    dixiedean said:

    Sandpit said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    It needs to be a headline grabber and it needs to say "you can trust us not to squeeze you until the pips squeak".

    Reduction in VAT to 15% would be an interesting one, it says we're a tax cutting party, but the tax we're cutting is the regressive one that hurts the poor the most. It would also help bring the cost of living down.
    FUEL DUTY. 52p a litre, plus VAT.

    It’s the most regressive tax in the country right now (apart from the TV Tax), and it’s feeding into inflation on everything that needs transport.
    Not that regressive.
    The very poorest don't have cars.
    And neither do they need to get to work.

    People working low-paid shift work, with no public transport options, are those being completely screwed by what will next week be £2/litre petrol.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Renting is an organised scam.

    Not enough houses = charge as much as they want or you're homeless

    The key point - which is not a very complicated one - is that housing prices are set ultimately by supply and demand.

    And history suggests, it's much more pleasant to bring house prices into line by increasing supply, than by reducing incomes (and therefore demand).

    WRT renting: there are good reasons for people to rent. Owning a home is great if it's somewhere you plan on being for a long, long time. It's not such a great idea if you think your needs might change in the near future, or that you may need to move somewhere else. It's also (almost) always going to be the case that people moving out of home/university aren't immediately in a place (financially) to buy their own home.
    There's a reason why most of Europe rents (though it's starting to change). Typically they solve the housing problem with lots of blocks of flats, and owning a flat in a block is a pain as everything around you is out of your control. Moreover, they are generally less wedded to the DIY cult, so the idea of owning a place and gradually doing it up yourself is pretty alien.

    Basically, though, you need to put aside or borrow around 20 years' rent to buy somewhere. Unless you plan to have somewhere to pass on to family, why would you want to spend 20 years focusing on acquiring one asset which you'll finally own when you're old? Why not just rent and enjoy life in lots of different ways, all of them costing smaller amounts? Yes, when you're 75 you'll still have rent to pay, but by then maybe you won't miss the other joys of an active life so much?

    The point is simply that it's daft to be dogmatic about it. Some people want to focus on owning their home, some don't. There's no right or wrong to it.
    I do wonder whether there is a correlation between high percentage of renting and economic growth for 2 reasons:

    1) greater labour mobility
    2) savings and other capital are invested in productive businesses rather than bricks and mortar.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,944
    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sandpit said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    It needs to be a headline grabber and it needs to say "you can trust us not to squeeze you until the pips squeak".

    Reduction in VAT to 15% would be an interesting one, it says we're a tax cutting party, but the tax we're cutting is the regressive one that hurts the poor the most. It would also help bring the cost of living down.
    FUEL DUTY. 52p a litre, plus VAT.

    It’s the most regressive tax in the country right now (apart from the TV Tax), and it’s feeding into inflation on everything that needs transport.
    Not that regressive.
    The very poorest don't have cars.
    And neither do they need to get to work.
    Not really. One fifth of the adult population doesn't have access to a car. Plenty of them work.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939
    rcs1000 said:

    I see from the Wikipedia article that the LDs have internal polling showing a tie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Tiverton_and_Honiton_by-election
    (I checked because a swing that large is, uh, unusual.)

    Anyone know how good that polling is?

    The LibDems always release an internal poll on the eve of byelections that show that - shock - it's incredibly tight and only they can beat the Conservatives.

    It's amazing how their polling always picks up these incredibly tight contests.
    And when they win easily they claim 'we really noticed a change in mood over the last week of the campaign'
    In Venn Diagram terms Lib Dem campaigning is a completely enclosed subset of Bullshit
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,496

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    I don't think we live in Clause 4 moment days. When that happened people believed that it marked a real shift in Labour to centrist social democracy, and it was both credible and mattered.

    A policy that can be enshrined in a single action, vote or strapline for today?

    It would not be about basic ideology. There are no important differences between the main parties (Nats excepted). It would have to be about these things: Competence. Truthfulness. Honesty. Long term plan.

    There would be millions and milliosn of votes for any party that could get all state managed/funded institutions to just: Answer the phone, be accessible by email and respond, deal with issues rapidly end effectively, and do brilliantly the many millions of jobs they purport to do.

    But there is at the moment no belief that this sort of competence is possible.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 7,804
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Renting is an organised scam.

    Not enough houses = charge as much as they want or you're homeless

    The key point - which is not a very complicated one - is that housing prices are set ultimately by supply and demand.

    And history suggests, it's much more pleasant to bring house prices into line by increasing supply, than by reducing incomes (and therefore demand).

    WRT renting: there are good reasons for people to rent. Owning a home is great if it's somewhere you plan on being for a long, long time. It's not such a great idea if you think your needs might change in the near future, or that you may need to move somewhere else. It's also (almost) always going to be the case that people moving out of home/university aren't immediately in a place (financially) to buy their own home.
    There's a reason why most of Europe rents (though it's starting to change). Typically they solve the housing problem with lots of blocks of flats, and owning a flat in a block is a pain as everything around you is out of your control. Moreover, they are generally less wedded to the DIY cult, so the idea of owning a place and gradually doing it up yourself is pretty alien.

    Basically, though, you need to put aside or borrow around 20 years' rent to buy somewhere. Unless you plan to have somewhere to pass on to family, why would you want to spend 20 years focusing on acquiring one asset which you'll finally own when you're old? Why not just rent and enjoy life in lots of different ways, all of them costing smaller amounts? Yes, when you're 75 you'll still have rent to pay, but by then maybe you won't miss the other joys of an active life so much?

    The point is simply that it's daft to be dogmatic about it. Some people want to focus on owning their home, some don't. There's no right or wrong to it.
    I do wonder whether there is a correlation between high percentage of renting and economic growth for 2 reasons:

    1) greater labour mobility
    2) savings and other capital are invested in productive businesses rather than bricks and mortar.
    I'd guess the main thing is that the young are attracted to the flame. So they get paid well, but can't afford to buy just yet.

  • IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Renting is an organised scam.

    Not enough houses = charge as much as they want or you're homeless

    The key point - which is not a very complicated one - is that housing prices are set ultimately by supply and demand.

    And history suggests, it's much more pleasant to bring house prices into line by increasing supply, than by reducing incomes (and therefore demand).

    WRT renting: there are good reasons for people to rent. Owning a home is great if it's somewhere you plan on being for a long, long time. It's not such a great idea if you think your needs might change in the near future, or that you may need to move somewhere else. It's also (almost) always going to be the case that people moving out of home/university aren't immediately in a place (financially) to buy their own home.
    Lots of talk about imminent house price fall, I am unconvinced as are E&Y Item Club

    To understand the housing market all you have to do is ask yourself: on the night of 15 April 1912 were the officers of RMS Titanic saying to one another We must do something to make lifeboat places more *affordable*
    Not certain what the point of that analogy is.

    If there were enough lifeboats then more lives would have been saved, that was lesson from RMS Titanic.

    If there were more houses then more houses would be affordable.

    Current "planning" policy is designed to constrain houses/lifeboats in order to make the houses/lifeboats that people already are in possession of more valuable, rather than ensuring there is an adequate supply for everyone.
  • FlannerFlanner Posts: 335

    I see from the Wikipedia article that the LDs have internal polling showing a tie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Tiverton_and_Honiton_by-election
    (I checked because a swing that large is, uh, unusual.)

    Anyone know how good that polling is?

    45% (the predicted LD and Tory shares according to the survey the Guardian quotes) of a 35,000 poll (by-elections typically get 60% or so of the previous GE turnout) is about 15,750. So the likelihood of a tie is very, very remote - though the likelihood of a majority of less than 100 (which would still give both sides 45%) is quite high.

    Internal LD forecasting, according to the internal rumour mill, has correctly forecast ALL the LD gains - and ALL the near-misses - since the 2016 referendum. How accurately these numbers have been leaked or reported is a separate question. The players - LD and their rivals - are always going to say "we're very close, but it's all about what we do on the day, and that's looking a lot closer than the polls seem to be saying"

    Personally, I'd still say the odds for a Tory hold are still good value.

    And a Tory hold would merely make Johnson safe till his next foulup. Which we can confidently expect by the end of July.
  • Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sandpit said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    It needs to be a headline grabber and it needs to say "you can trust us not to squeeze you until the pips squeak".

    Reduction in VAT to 15% would be an interesting one, it says we're a tax cutting party, but the tax we're cutting is the regressive one that hurts the poor the most. It would also help bring the cost of living down.
    FUEL DUTY. 52p a litre, plus VAT.

    It’s the most regressive tax in the country right now (apart from the TV Tax), and it’s feeding into inflation on everything that needs transport.
    Not that regressive.
    The very poorest don't have cars.
    And neither do they need to get to work.
    Lazy stereotype which just show how little you know about the lives of the poorest.

    A lot of low income people are working in shitty low-paid jobs, to which they need to travel. Many of those not working have to travel regularly to attend job centre interviews, job interviews etc, or if they are ill, work capability assessments and/or medical appointments.
    Yes and many will do so in shitty, beaten up old bangers that they need to put fuel into.

    Getting an electric car isn't a viable option for the low income people, but getting a beaten up old car and putting fuel into it is.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934
    edited June 20

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Renting is an organised scam.

    Not enough houses = charge as much as they want or you're homeless

    The key point - which is not a very complicated one - is that housing prices are set ultimately by supply and demand.

    And history suggests, it's much more pleasant to bring house prices into line by increasing supply, than by reducing incomes (and therefore demand).

    WRT renting: there are good reasons for people to rent. Owning a home is great if it's somewhere you plan on being for a long, long time. It's not such a great idea if you think your needs might change in the near future, or that you may need to move somewhere else. It's also (almost) always going to be the case that people moving out of home/university aren't immediately in a place (financially) to buy their own home.
    Lots of talk about imminent house price fall, I am unconvinced as are E&Y Item Club

    To understand the housing market all you have to do is ask yourself: on the night of 15 April 1912 were the officers of RMS Titanic saying to one another We must do something to make lifeboat places more *affordable*
    Not certain what the point of that analogy is.

    If there were enough lifeboats then more lives would have been saved, that was lesson from RMS Titanic.

    If there were more houses then more houses would be affordable.

    Current "planning" policy is designed to constrain houses/lifeboats in order to make the houses/lifeboats that people already are in possession of more valuable, rather than ensuring there is an adequate supply for everyone.
    To take that a bit further quite a few people have more than one lifeboat.

    How many lifeboats does one family need?
  • dixiedean said:

    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sandpit said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    It needs to be a headline grabber and it needs to say "you can trust us not to squeeze you until the pips squeak".

    Reduction in VAT to 15% would be an interesting one, it says we're a tax cutting party, but the tax we're cutting is the regressive one that hurts the poor the most. It would also help bring the cost of living down.
    FUEL DUTY. 52p a litre, plus VAT.

    It’s the most regressive tax in the country right now (apart from the TV Tax), and it’s feeding into inflation on everything that needs transport.
    Not that regressive.
    The very poorest don't have cars.
    And neither do they need to get to work.
    Not really. One fifth of the adult population doesn't have access to a car. Plenty of them work.
    That fifth will primarily be by choice, because they've chosen not to learn or not to drive, not because they can't afford to do so.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 276
    Foxy asked: "I do wonder whether there is a correlation between high percentage of renting and economic growth for 2 reasons:"

    I haven't seen any formal studies, but I have long thought, on general economics grounds, that the US tax system, by encouraging the wealthy to invest immense sums in mansions, has hurt our economic growth.

    (Elon Musk set a good example, recently, by living in an inexpensive, innovative, manufactured home. The video of it being set up is entertaining, I think.)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,028

    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sandpit said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    It needs to be a headline grabber and it needs to say "you can trust us not to squeeze you until the pips squeak".

    Reduction in VAT to 15% would be an interesting one, it says we're a tax cutting party, but the tax we're cutting is the regressive one that hurts the poor the most. It would also help bring the cost of living down.
    FUEL DUTY. 52p a litre, plus VAT.

    It’s the most regressive tax in the country right now (apart from the TV Tax), and it’s feeding into inflation on everything that needs transport.
    Not that regressive.
    The very poorest don't have cars.
    And neither do they need to get to work.
    Lazy stereotype which just show how little you know about the lives of the poorest.

    A lot of low income people are working in shitty low-paid jobs, to which they need to travel. Many of those not working have to travel regularly to attend job centre interviews, job interviews etc, or if they are ill, work capability assessments and/or medical appointments.
    That was an over-generalisation to which I added an edit.

    Yes, the real problem is the low-income people who have no public transport options. They are being seriously affected by the price of petrol.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934

    rcs1000 said:

    I see from the Wikipedia article that the LDs have internal polling showing a tie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Tiverton_and_Honiton_by-election
    (I checked because a swing that large is, uh, unusual.)

    Anyone know how good that polling is?

    The LibDems always release an internal poll on the eve of byelections that show that - shock - it's incredibly tight and only they can beat the Conservatives.

    It's amazing how their polling always picks up these incredibly tight contests.
    And when they win easily they claim 'we really noticed a change in mood over the last week of the campaign'
    In Venn Diagram terms Lib Dem campaigning is a completely enclosed subset of Bullshit
    I think that subset is actually called 'Bullshit but effective'
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790

    Foxy asked: "I do wonder whether there is a correlation between high percentage of renting and economic growth for 2 reasons:"

    I haven't seen any formal studies, but I have long thought, on general economics grounds, that the US tax system, by encouraging the wealthy to invest immense sums in mansions, has hurt our economic growth.

    (Elon Musk set a good example, recently, by living in an inexpensive, innovative, manufactured home. The video of it being set up is entertaining, I think.)

    Elon Musk is a sh*t part 12241243 of 3342423o09767tqwe:

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/06/spacex-fired-employees-who-wrote-letter-slamming-musks-embarrassing-behavior/

    Free speech is fine and dandy for multi billionaires. Their employees... less so.

    Don't believe the hype about Musk.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sandpit said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    It needs to be a headline grabber and it needs to say "you can trust us not to squeeze you until the pips squeak".

    Reduction in VAT to 15% would be an interesting one, it says we're a tax cutting party, but the tax we're cutting is the regressive one that hurts the poor the most. It would also help bring the cost of living down.
    FUEL DUTY. 52p a litre, plus VAT.

    It’s the most regressive tax in the country right now (apart from the TV Tax), and it’s feeding into inflation on everything that needs transport.
    Not that regressive.
    The very poorest don't have cars.
    And neither do they need to get to work.
    Lazy stereotype which just show how little you know about the lives of the poorest.

    A lot of low income people are working in shitty low-paid jobs, to which they need to travel. Many of those not working have to travel regularly to attend job centre interviews, job interviews etc, or if they are ill, work capability assessments and/or medical appointments.
    That was an over-generalisation to which I added an edit.

    Yes, the real problem is the low-income people who have no public transport options. They are being seriously affected by the price of petrol.
    Fair point - apologies for my snappy reply.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939

    rcs1000 said:

    I see from the Wikipedia article that the LDs have internal polling showing a tie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Tiverton_and_Honiton_by-election
    (I checked because a swing that large is, uh, unusual.)

    Anyone know how good that polling is?

    The LibDems always release an internal poll on the eve of byelections that show that - shock - it's incredibly tight and only they can beat the Conservatives.

    It's amazing how their polling always picks up these incredibly tight contests.
    And when they win easily they claim 'we really noticed a change in mood over the last week of the campaign'
    In Venn Diagram terms Lib Dem campaigning is a completely enclosed subset of Bullshit
    I think that subset is actually called 'Bullshit but effective'
    'Bullshit but effective when it really doesnt matter'
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,148

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Renting is an organised scam.

    Not enough houses = charge as much as they want or you're homeless

    The key point - which is not a very complicated one - is that housing prices are set ultimately by supply and demand.

    And history suggests, it's much more pleasant to bring house prices into line by increasing supply, than by reducing incomes (and therefore demand).

    WRT renting: there are good reasons for people to rent. Owning a home is great if it's somewhere you plan on being for a long, long time. It's not such a great idea if you think your needs might change in the near future, or that you may need to move somewhere else. It's also (almost) always going to be the case that people moving out of home/university aren't immediately in a place (financially) to buy their own home.
    Lots of talk about imminent house price fall, I am unconvinced as are E&Y Item Club

    To understand the housing market all you have to do is ask yourself: on the night of 15 April 1912 were the officers of RMS Titanic saying to one another We must do something to make lifeboat places more *affordable*
    Not certain what the point of that analogy is.

    If there were enough lifeboats then more lives would have been saved, that was lesson from RMS Titanic.

    If there were more houses then more houses would be affordable.

    Current "planning" policy is designed to constrain houses/lifeboats in order to make the houses/lifeboats that people already are in possession of more valuable, rather than ensuring there is an adequate supply for everyone.
    To take that a bit further quite a few people have more than one lifeboat.

    How many lifeboats does one family need?
    And the government are offering people an extra free £400 for each lifeboat they hoard......
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sandpit said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Not sure what a Clause 4 moment for Keir would be tbh

    It needs to be a headline grabber and it needs to say "you can trust us not to squeeze you until the pips squeak".

    Reduction in VAT to 15% would be an interesting one, it says we're a tax cutting party, but the tax we're cutting is the regressive one that hurts the poor the most. It would also help bring the cost of living down.
    FUEL DUTY. 52p a litre, plus VAT.

    It’s the most regressive tax in the country right now (apart from the TV Tax), and it’s feeding into inflation on everything that needs transport.
    Not that regressive.
    The very poorest don't have cars.
    And neither do they need to get to work.
    Lazy stereotype which just show how little you know about the lives of the poorest.

    A lot of low income people are working in shitty low-paid jobs, to which they need to travel. Many of those not working have to travel regularly to attend job centre interviews, job interviews etc, or if they are ill, work capability assessments and/or medical appointments.
    That was an over-generalisation to which I added an edit.

    Yes, the real problem is the low-income people who have no public transport options. They are being seriously affected by the price of petrol.
    Indeed. Who's more affected by the price of petrol? A high flying city professional that can work from home or get into work via the DLR? Or a minimum wage Northern service worker who doesn't get paid if they don't get into work?

    The idea that fuel prices are not regressive is very droll.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,007
    This Carrie Johnson / Times story is the Streisand Effect in action isn’t it
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934

    rcs1000 said:

    I see from the Wikipedia article that the LDs have internal polling showing a tie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Tiverton_and_Honiton_by-election
    (I checked because a swing that large is, uh, unusual.)

    Anyone know how good that polling is?

    The LibDems always release an internal poll on the eve of byelections that show that - shock - it's incredibly tight and only they can beat the Conservatives.

    It's amazing how their polling always picks up these incredibly tight contests.
    And when they win easily they claim 'we really noticed a change in mood over the last week of the campaign'
    In Venn Diagram terms Lib Dem campaigning is a completely enclosed subset of Bullshit
    I think that subset is actually called 'Bullshit but effective'
    'Bullshit but effective when it really doesnt matter'
    It might matter, if losing T&H leads to Johnson's demise. That could then affect the next GE.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,843

    It appears all the idiots who have spent $100ks on NFTs of Apes have bought into a 4Chan alt-right meme fest...

    Not really new info, but first time I have seen it all put together in such detail.

    BORED APE NAZI CLUB
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpH3O6mnZvw

    Wow. There's some serious puzzle solving involved in all that. I though Wordle was difficult.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,965
    I mean, can we just step back and absorb the enormity of this


    “Grooming gang ringleader was employed by Oldham Council as welfare officer, major report reveals”

    The guy who was revealed as a mass rapist and sexual terrorist in Rochdale was also employed by Oldham council. As a “welfare officer”. How the fuck does something like that happen without incredible levels of corruption and back-scratching, with added rape? Indeed, thousands of rapes over many years?

    We bleat on and on about fucking wallpaper in Number 10, but this is off the dial

    https://news.sky.com/story/oldham-grooming-report-finds-police-and-councils-failed-to-protect-some-children-from-sexual-exploitation-12637246

    “The ringleader of a notorious grooming gang was employed as a welfare rights officer by Oldham Council, a major report has revealed.

    An independent review said Shabir Ahmed, who led the sexual abuse ring in Rochdale, was seconded to the Oldham Pakistani Community Centre during his time working for the local authority.

    Despite multiple concerns being raised about him and his arrest for the sexual assault of children, police failed to tell his employers.

    "If this had happened, it may have potentially avoided the tragic abuse of other children..." the report states, citing "serious multiple failures" by both GMP and the local authority.”
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939

    rcs1000 said:

    I see from the Wikipedia article that the LDs have internal polling showing a tie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Tiverton_and_Honiton_by-election
    (I checked because a swing that large is, uh, unusual.)

    Anyone know how good that polling is?

    The LibDems always release an internal poll on the eve of byelections that show that - shock - it's incredibly tight and only they can beat the Conservatives.

    It's amazing how their polling always picks up these incredibly tight contests.
    And when they win easily they claim 'we really noticed a change in mood over the last week of the campaign'
    In Venn Diagram terms Lib Dem campaigning is a completely enclosed subset of Bullshit
    I think that subset is actually called 'Bullshit but effective'
    'Bullshit but effective when it really doesnt matter'
    It might matter, if losing T&H leads to Johnson's demise. That could then affect the next GE.
    Almost certainly to the disadvantage of LDs
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,007

    Foxy asked: "I do wonder whether there is a correlation between high percentage of renting and economic growth for 2 reasons:"

    I haven't seen any formal studies, but I have long thought, on general economics grounds, that the US tax system, by encouraging the wealthy to invest immense sums in mansions, has hurt our economic growth.

    (Elon Musk set a good example, recently, by living in an inexpensive, innovative, manufactured home. The video of it being set up is entertaining, I think.)

    Elon Musk is a sh*t part 12241243 of 3342423o09767tqwe:

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/06/spacex-fired-employees-who-wrote-letter-slamming-musks-embarrassing-behavior/

    Free speech is fine and dandy for multi billionaires. Their employees... less so.

    Don't believe the hype about Musk.
    I dunno dude. If I used work resources to organise colleagues in an attempt to get rid of the ceo / majority owner of my employer I’d expect to be given my P45 too.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,041

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Renting is an organised scam.

    Not enough houses = charge as much as they want or you're homeless

    The key point - which is not a very complicated one - is that housing prices are set ultimately by supply and demand.

    And history suggests, it's much more pleasant to bring house prices into line by increasing supply, than by reducing incomes (and therefore demand).

    WRT renting: there are good reasons for people to rent. Owning a home is great if it's somewhere you plan on being for a long, long time. It's not such a great idea if you think your needs might change in the near future, or that you may need to move somewhere else. It's also (almost) always going to be the case that people moving out of home/university aren't immediately in a place (financially) to buy their own home.
    Lots of talk about imminent house price fall, I am unconvinced as are E&Y Item Club

    To understand the housing market all you have to do is ask yourself: on the night of 15 April 1912 were the officers of RMS Titanic saying to one another We must do something to make lifeboat places more *affordable*
    Not certain what the point of that analogy is.

    If there were enough lifeboats then more lives would have been saved, that was lesson from RMS Titanic.

    If there were more houses then more houses would be affordable.

    Current "planning" policy is designed to constrain houses/lifeboats in order to make the houses/lifeboats that people already are in possession of more valuable, rather than ensuring there is an adequate supply for everyone.
    The point is, your fourth paragraph
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,028

    Foxy asked: "I do wonder whether there is a correlation between high percentage of renting and economic growth for 2 reasons:"

    I haven't seen any formal studies, but I have long thought, on general economics grounds, that the US tax system, by encouraging the wealthy to invest immense sums in mansions, has hurt our economic growth.

    (Elon Musk set a good example, recently, by living in an inexpensive, innovative, manufactured home. The video of it being set up is entertaining, I think.)

    Elon Musk is a sh*t part 12241243 of 3342423o09767tqwe:

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/06/spacex-fired-employees-who-wrote-letter-slamming-musks-embarrassing-behavior/

    Free speech is fine and dandy for multi billionaires. Their employees... less so.

    Don't believe the hype about Musk.
    Not a massive Musk fan, but using the company email system to rile up employees against the CEO for his personal views, does sound like something for which one can expect to be fired at any employer.

    Look at the chaos that was The Washington post last week, for another example of how corporate America is going mad at the moment.

    Or look at the chaos that was Disney a few weeks earlier, with employees threatening to quit en masse unless the company took a particular stance on a controversial piece of legislation in Florida - for which the company lost a massive tax exemption they’d enjoyed for decades.
  • rcs1000 said:

    I see from the Wikipedia article that the LDs have internal polling showing a tie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Tiverton_and_Honiton_by-election
    (I checked because a swing that large is, uh, unusual.)

    Anyone know how good that polling is?

    The LibDems always release an internal poll on the eve of byelections that show that - shock - it's incredibly tight and only they can beat the Conservatives.

    It's amazing how their polling always picks up these incredibly tight contests.
    And when they win easily they claim 'we really noticed a change in mood over the last week of the campaign'
    In Venn Diagram terms Lib Dem campaigning is a completely enclosed subset of Bullshit
    I think that subset is actually called 'Bullshit but effective'
    'Bullshit but effective when it really doesnt matter'
    It might matter, if losing T&H leads to Johnson's demise. That could then affect the next GE.
    Governmental by election losses are like economists who have consistently predicted ten of the last two recessions.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,007
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy asked: "I do wonder whether there is a correlation between high percentage of renting and economic growth for 2 reasons:"

    I haven't seen any formal studies, but I have long thought, on general economics grounds, that the US tax system, by encouraging the wealthy to invest immense sums in mansions, has hurt our economic growth.

    (Elon Musk set a good example, recently, by living in an inexpensive, innovative, manufactured home. The video of it being set up is entertaining, I think.)

    Elon Musk is a sh*t part 12241243 of 3342423o09767tqwe:

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/06/spacex-fired-employees-who-wrote-letter-slamming-musks-embarrassing-behavior/

    Free speech is fine and dandy for multi billionaires. Their employees... less so.

    Don't believe the hype about Musk.
    Not a massive Musk fan, but using the company email system to rile up employees against the CEO for his personal views, does sound like something for which one can expect to be fired at any employer.

    Look at the chaos that was The Washington post last week, for another example of how corporate America is going mad at the moment.

    Or look at the chaos that was Disney a few weeks earlier, with employees threatening to quit en masse unless the company took a particular stance on a controversial piece of legislation in Florida - for which the company lost a massive tax exemption they’d enjoyed for decades.
    If I worked at my local grocers and did this I’d expect to be fired for it. No idea why JJ thinks it should work differently at a rocket company
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,028

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    Renting is an organised scam.

    Not enough houses = charge as much as they want or you're homeless

    The key point - which is not a very complicated one - is that housing prices are set ultimately by supply and demand.

    And history suggests, it's much more pleasant to bring house prices into line by increasing supply, than by reducing incomes (and therefore demand).

    WRT renting: there are good reasons for people to rent. Owning a home is great if it's somewhere you plan on being for a long, long time. It's not such a great idea if you think your needs might change in the near future, or that you may need to move somewhere else. It's also (almost) always going to be the case that people moving out of home/university aren't immediately in a place (financially) to buy their own home.
    Lots of talk about imminent house price fall, I am unconvinced as are E&Y Item Club

    To understand the housing market all you have to do is ask yourself: on the night of 15 April 1912 were the officers of RMS Titanic saying to one another We must do something to make lifeboat places more *affordable*
    Not certain what the point of that analogy is.

    If there were enough lifeboats then more lives would have been saved, that was lesson from RMS Titanic.

    If there were more houses then more houses would be affordable.

    Current "planning" policy is designed to constrain houses/lifeboats in order to make the houses/lifeboats that people already are in possession of more valuable, rather than ensuring there is an adequate supply for everyone.
    Building lots more houses is not necessarily sufficient to fix the problem, but it’s absolutely a pre-requisite.
Sign In or Register to comment.