I predicted the Tories would lose both seats but Boris would stay. Sadly - for the Conservative Party - this appears to be accurate on all counts
Boris is clearly steering his Party to a catastrophic defeat. They need to oust him now
Recall the Golden Bough. The sacrifice of the king propitiates the angry gods, and thus the tribe is saved. It is time to propitiate; because the gods - AKA the voters - are VERY angry
And if, in the process, the Tory core has to put up with some social liberalism that it finds distasteful, then tough. If it should come to pass, a heavy Conservative defeat at the next election that allows this to happen will be as much a monument to their greed as it will be to Johnson's self-absorption and venality.
Wokeness is not “social liberalism”, it is much more sinister than that
I entirely agree with you on the predatory pensioners. We need a government for the young
Unfortunately I don’t think Starmer’s Labour is it. They are as clueless - policy wise - as the Tories.
But then, looking at the headlines in today’s FT, with emergencies across the world from humble Sri Lanka to mighty America, with the EU warning of “terrible splits” in the bloc as Russia shuts off the gas, I wonder if any politician anywhere has even a vague idea how to handle what’s coming our way
Brace
I really hate the way particular groups are described in offensive ways - "feckless young", "predatory pensioners" etc. This sort of tribal culture war language will do nothing to repair society.
The current Tory party is exhausted and out of good ideas. Boris is a disgrace to his office and his government is degrading our democracy. His MPs should grow a spine, throw him out and start the process of rebuilding a Tory party that does not shame Britain. I doubt they will. But it is what they ought to do.if they don't the Tories will be out of power for a long time which will lead to the same problems with Labour. Parties that stay in power for too long become a menace.
We need policies for the hard-working of all ages, the young and those who are poor and just about managing. We need proper housebuilding, to do something about the grotesque interest rates on student loans and the absurd obstacles we have put in the way of those who try to export. We need proper investment in infrastructure in all parts of the country and we need to repair relations with our nearest neighbours.
We do not need more constitutional jiggery-pokery.
What we need above all is a government which explains clearly that times are going to be hard for the next few years as we deal with the consequences of Brexit, Covid and world instabilities so that all of us will have to tighten our belts but that this will need to be done fairly. No-one will be immune but we will try our damndest to make sure that those with the greatest wealth pay their fair share. For a start, NI on everyone who works, no matter what their age , rises in pensions should be no higher than what is offered to other public sector workers and council tax bands above the current highest levels to capture the increase in house values in recent years. I'd hugely increase the amount non-doms have to pay for their status as well and limit the amount rich people can give to charities and claim back from their tax as well.
Others will have other policies but they need to be presented as part of a narrative which explains that the next few years will be tough and that no-one will be exempt. Labour and the Lib Dems are still proposing to do something for the WASPI women, for instance - who have no legal case and are about as undeserving a group as you could find. This idea that you can throw sweeties at your favoured groups needs to be quashed.
We have to think hard about how we are going to earn our living and start doing it. For all of Labour's success so far I am not at all sure that there is much of a narrative from them on this. And if they don't develop one - with the policies to match and the steel to resist all the many claims made on them - they will end up being buffeted by events when in power.
The problem with this is that the pensioners are leeching from younger generations through rent and imposing huge pension rises on working age people, either via the state pension or RPI increases on final salary schemes that are paid for by current employees of companies. A tax on higher earning pensioners and clawbacks of the state pension would allow for taxes to be cut for working age people but Labour are simply too weak to pursue this policy.
Younger generations pointing out, fairly, that pensioners are predatory and thieving from younger generations to fund their retirements. Making it prohibitively expensive to own additional properties is the best way to solve this as it frees up millions of houses for purchase by young people who are currently priced out of the market by landlords and second home owners.
You want everyone to "get along" but while older generations are monopolising wealth and prosperity I see no reason for young people to be part of this grand bargain of "getting along" for the sake of it. It's up to older people to realise their selfishness is the cause of friction between the generations, they are leeching from their children and grandchildren yet want all of us to play nice because their parents made sacrifices while they made none.
I am not a pensioner and am very concerned about the future for the young. I don't think rude language helps, that's all. There are poor pensioners and rich young. You are one of the latter. I know quite a few poor pensioners in Millom who have not been stealing anything from anyone and have little in the way of assets. People like you should be taxed more to help people like them.
I have proposed both below the line and above it a number of proposals which would shift the balance away from the wealthy to those who work, especially the young.
We are I think broadly in agreement that too much policy has been aimed at only one group of favoured voters which is bad policy and bad for the economy and society. But I find it grimly amusing that it is you which has been a cheerleader for the Tory party and its policies which have largely been responsible for this for the last 12 years.
Rather than castigating me perhaps you might reflect on whether your support for that party has been in part responsible for the policies you now say you dislike.
Firstly, I already pay significant tax, at last count more than 45% of my gross income was spent on income and other taxes last year. The top 1% of earners in this country contribute ever more in tax, it was 27% two years ago. The idea that high earners don't contribute enough is frankly ridiculous. Let's start with NI on pension income, state pension clawback for higher rate pensioners before we start increasing the burden, yet again, on working people. Let's increase tax on unproductive and unearned income like dividends, rent and some forms of capital before attacking working people (either via income taxes or corporate taxes that will drag on pay growth). Lets bloody put a super-tax on cruises if we need to claw back money from wealthy old people.
What we also don't do us tax accumulated lifetime wealth during retirement and we should. We have trillions of non-primary housing assets locked up by older people who don't spend it and it isn't properly taxed. Even if we looked at how discretionary trusts are taxed that would be a start. If taxes go up on older wealthy people then that's taxes which don't have to go up on working age people, it also means older people will self fund their generation's health and care needs rather than putting the burden onto working age people.
Labour needs a radical approach on the generational wealth gap and to "speak truth to power" call out the older generation as selfish, make them look at themselves in the mirror and ask how they think their 11% pension rises will be funded, are they impoverishing their children and grandchildren in the process. Ask them if they are as selfish as everyone believes or are they willing to make the same sacrifices as everyone else is being asked? I think a bout of honesty for older people is necessary but Starmer isn't a strong enough leader to do it. Neither is Boris, of course.
That's a very long way of saying "more tax needs to be paid but not by me".
True, but the fact remains that those in “ordinary” working PAYE jobs are paying much, much more tax as a portion of their income that almost any other segment of the tax paying classes.
Eg, Wealthy pensioners pay only income tax & make no NI contributions despite being those responsible for the heaviest burden on the NHS. Wealthly pensioners could certainly be paying more.
Any of the groups of society who manage to camoflage profit as capital gains (BTL types, private equity groups etc etc) are paying half the tax on their income that the PAYE classes are.
MaxPB is not alone in wondering where all this massive rental income flow is going & whether any of it is being taxed.
And so on...
Some questionable reasoning there, I'd say.
The so-called "massive rental income flow" is a bit of a self-perpetuating myth. The *entire turnover* of the Private Rental Sector - not the tax revenue which is a substantial fraction of it - is of the same order as the tax foregone on CGT on main dwellings to create *that* tax loophole.
I too find the hate politics visited on pensioners to be despicable, especially since millions of them only have the basic state pension.
Suspect that the 'evil wealthy thieving pensioners' that exist in the minds of bigots (think Fred the Shred) are a tiny, tiny fraction - perhaps 1-5% - of all pensioners.
Far better to boost wealth taxes on an equitable basis across the board, rather than generate inter-generational hate.
I would say that NI on pensioner earnings, Basic Rate tax relief only on pension contributions, and perhaps the removal of the lower NI insurance ceiling on higher incomes are relative no brainers.
Former Tory Leader Michael Howard asked if PM should continue: “I’m afraid I’ve very reluctantly come to the conclusion that he shouldn’t. His biggest asset has always been his ability to win votes but I’m afraid yesterday’s results make it clear he no longer has that ability.”
He tells @BBCWorldatOne: “the best person in the Conservative Party to judge the mood of both the electorate and the party is its Chairman…and the implications of his letter are very clear…the party and more importantly the country would be better off under new leadership.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1540307862295126016
- Ministers planning fresh cull of deer as population reaches a staggering 2million... - Will urge supermarkets to buy and sell - Farmers could get grants to shoot more - shake up deer act
Really got the priorities in order
"Boss, I'm a bit worried that our party brand is being retoxified and that, as the Nasty Party once more, we're heading for a crushing election defeat. What should we do?"
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
Do we know anything about the Independent in Wakefield who got 7% (above David Herdson)?
Basically a Tory. Former tory councillor. Which detracts a bit from the winning margin
Oh wow, so two former Tory councillors 3rd and 4th.
Yes. Labour didn't quite get back to 2017 levels on a low turnout against an outgoing party who foisted a child sexual assaulter on the city. The Tory collapse in vote flattered them somewhat and id expect this to be a Labour held marginal (less than 5%) at a GE. On this sort of result, against this specific backdrop id say labour will struggle to retake the larger majoritues in the red wall on current boundaries like Bishop Auckland and Rother Valley
so far the psephologiy from this parliament, including last night as you describe and last months locals, fills us with little confidence the red wall is clearly coming home to Labour.
If anyone wants to turn up at next GE certain of change of government, not for a nervous night of close results in key places, they need to think again. The psephologiy isn’t supporting the Labour spin.
Agreed. Labour did not do as well last night as in the locals in May in Wakefield, there is no clamour for a Labour government. There IS clamour for Johnson to be gone. Now. In the South, however........
The independent candidate who came third in Wakefield is a conservative I think?
Yes a former councillor for the Tories
So, all in all, Labour didn't exactly hit the ball out the park in Wakefield did they?
No, but a crisp late cut down to 3rd man for a very comfortable single. Starmer will think he's on course for PM and with some justification.
Max definitely has a bee in his bonnet about landlords, I’m convinced he had a massive argument with one in a previous life. Making it impossible to be a landlord, would simply raise rents for those who can’t afford to buy, or don’t want to buy - rents that, in London, are already unaffordable for many.
The current government’s biggest failing has been on planning reform, the whole point of a majority is to push through the necessary but unpopular. Gove’s reforms on rentals are a good start though, he’s the one minister with a pile of well-thought-through ideas.
I have zero problems with landlords - I have a big problem with BTL landlords as most of them are amateurville and anything for an extra buck.
We really do need an awful lot more build to rent property funded for and managed professional on behalf of pension funds.....
With suitable incentive / changes to the market so that private owner occupier residential property is kept as private (owner occupier) property with amateur landlords discouraged.
Yes, there's a lot in that. I've lived for many years in small flats with excellent landlords, but usually because they were run by professional agencies who generally responded to issues within 24 hours.
And, as I've said before, you can assign Gove to anything at all and he will *always* come up with something interesting - not always right, but always innovative. He's one of the most under-estimated people in government. On this issue, though, there's not enough money behind the initiative to make a significant difference.
That cuts both ways, though - when I rented, my landlady was a decent woman but she lived abroad and had left the house being managed by a letting agency who were absolute shysters.
In practice, the most senior public sector roles are accountable to government and FAR more accountable to politicians and media than private sector equivs. In some professions like medicine you can be struck off. The pleb grade staff surely can't be blamed. And you have the project management class attaching itself to costly overruns as consultants to both sectors. Not sure who is left in the public sector who really deserves more punishment.
This Michael Howard interview on @BBCWorldatOne is absolutely brutal for Boris Johnson.
"I remain completely loyal to the Conservative Party but I think the party and, even more importantly the country, would be better off under new leadership."
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
You only have to be less toxic than your opponent and Labour is far less toxic than the Conservative Party as this result shows.
That's true at by elections.
A general election is a different kettle of fish.
What worries me about these results is that SKS might see it as a vindication of his strategy to have no policies and just win by default.
SKS certainly ought to see a recovery of this scale in a Red Wall seat as vindication of his strategy to try and leave Brexit and all things EU on the back burner.
Yes there's a need for Labour to be developing policies for this point on, but I don't think a smorgasbord of detail is what needed. What's more important is to have a clear restatement of values and to crystallise those into a relatively small number of well-understood headline policies that put those values into practice.
There needs to be positivity for the future, more than anything else. Cameron had it, as did Blair - and yes, as did Johnson.
Labour still presents itself as a group of worthy metropolitan lawyers, backed up by angry social activists and trade unionists. They need to have someone being positive.
I think whatever face Labour presents you'll manage to see that one.
So what are the positive reasons to vote Labour?
What’s their vision, their dream?
A society free of privilege and prejudice!
But you were talking about 'types' - worthy metropolitan lawyers, angry social activists and (shock horror) trade unionists. All just sounds a bit like Daily Telegraph chuntering to me.
I mean, is there any Labour politician you rate?
Dream on with those 1960s fantasies
Well I don't want to succumb to nihilism. Enjoyable but too easy.
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
Do we know anything about the Independent in Wakefield who got 7% (above David Herdson)?
Basically a Tory. Former tory councillor. Which detracts a bit from the winning margin
Oh wow, so two former Tory councillors 3rd and 4th.
Yes. Labour didn't quite get back to 2017 levels on a low turnout against an outgoing party who foisted a child sexual assaulter on the city. The Tory collapse in vote flattered them somewhat and id expect this to be a Labour held marginal (less than 5%) at a GE. On this sort of result, against this specific backdrop id say labour will struggle to retake the larger majoritues in the red wall on current boundaries like Bishop Auckland and Rother Valley
so far the psephologiy from this parliament, including last night as you describe and last months locals, fills us with little confidence the red wall is clearly coming home to Labour.
If anyone wants to turn up at next GE certain of change of government, not for a nervous night of close results in key places, they need to think again. The psephologiy isn’t supporting the Labour spin.
Agreed. Labour did not do as well last night as in the locals in May in Wakefield, there is no clamour for a Labour government. There IS clamour for Johnson to be gone. Now. In the South, however........
The independent candidate who came third in Wakefield is a conservative I think?
Yes a former councillor for the Tories
So, all in all, Labour didn't exactly hit the ball out the park in Wakefield did they?
No, but a crisp late cut down to 3rd man for a very comfortable single. Starmer will think he's on course for PM and with some justification.
I sense that Wakefield wouldn't be reversed at a GE whilst Johnson is in charge. What about PM Mordaunt though? Or Sunak?
Max definitely has a bee in his bonnet about landlords, I’m convinced he had a massive argument with one in a previous life. Making it impossible to be a landlord, would simply raise rents for those who can’t afford to buy, or don’t want to buy - rents that, in London, are already unaffordable for many.
The current government’s biggest failing has been on planning reform, the whole point of a majority is to push through the necessary but unpopular. Gove’s reforms on rentals are a good start though, he’s the one minister with a pile of well-thought-through ideas.
I have zero problems with landlords - I have a big problem with BTL landlords as most of them are amateurville and anything for an extra buck.
We really do need an awful lot more build to rent property funded for and managed professional on behalf of pension funds.....
With suitable incentive / changes to the market so that private owner occupier residential property is kept as private (owner occupier) property with amateur landlords discouraged.
Yes, there's a lot in that. I've lived for many years in small flats with excellent landlords, but usually because they were run by professional agencies who generally responded to issues within 24 hours.
And, as I've said before, you can assign Gove to anything at all and he will *always* come up with something interesting - not always right, but always innovative. He's one of the most under-estimated people in government. On this issue, though, there's not enough money behind the initiative to make a significant difference.
That cuts both ways, though - when I rented, my landlady was a decent woman but she lived abroad and had left the house being managed by a letting agency who were absolute shysters.
Letting agents are just as much of a nightmare from the absent landlord side. I’ve just had to hire a lawyer, because the idiots forgot to pay the service charges and the management company got a CCJ against me before I knew about it.
I’m done with being a landlord, am selling up in the UK and buying to live in something out here.
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
You only have to be less toxic than your opponent and Labour is far less toxic than the Conservative Party as this result shows.
That's true at by elections.
A general election is a different kettle of fish.
What worries me about these results is that SKS might see it as a vindication of his strategy to have no policies and just win by default.
SKS certainly ought to see a recovery of this scale in a Red Wall seat as vindication of his strategy to try and leave Brexit and all things EU on the back burner.
Yes there's a need for Labour to be developing policies for this point on, but I don't think a smorgasbord of detail is what needed. What's more important is to have a clear restatement of values and to crystallise those into a relatively small number of well-understood headline policies that put those values into practice.
There needs to be positivity for the future, more than anything else. Cameron had it, as did Blair - and yes, as did Johnson.
Labour still presents itself as a group of worthy metropolitan lawyers, backed up by angry social activists and trade unionists. They need to have someone being positive.
I think whatever face Labour presents you'll manage to see that one.
So what are the positive reasons to vote Labour?
What’s their vision, their dream?
A society free of privilege and prejudice!
But you were talking about 'types' - worthy metropolitan lawyers, angry social activists and (shock horror) trade unionists. All just sounds a bit like Daily Telegraph chuntering to me.
I mean, is there any Labour politician you rate?
Without being depressing I cannot see any politician either at home or abroad that are credible
And the only leader worthy of mention is Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine
Oh come on, Big G. "Boris" has polluted the pond, yes, but there's still some fish in there.
You are a high maintenance horse. If you were on my team we would have to hug you all the time to keep your spirits up? If I was your counsellor I’d be pushing building up your resilience - and you would hate me for it.
Boris is looking to preserve his ability to earn money once he leaves office.
As I have said before, he should agree to resign in x months time, once the party has elected his successor. Too tight now to have that successor ready by the autumn conference. But going "on his terms" (not really!) seems about the best he can engineer. No way he fights the next election as PM. Even if he were to be insane enough to call one now (which he isn't).
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
You only have to be less toxic than your opponent and Labour is far less toxic than the Conservative Party as this result shows.
That's true at by elections.
A general election is a different kettle of fish.
What worries me about these results is that SKS might see it as a vindication of his strategy to have no policies and just win by default.
SKS certainly ought to see a recovery of this scale in a Red Wall seat as vindication of his strategy to try and leave Brexit and all things EU on the back burner.
Yes there's a need for Labour to be developing policies for this point on, but I don't think a smorgasbord of detail is what needed. What's more important is to have a clear restatement of values and to crystallise those into a relatively small number of well-understood headline policies that put those values into practice.
There needs to be positivity for the future, more than anything else. Cameron had it, as did Blair - and yes, as did Johnson.
Labour still presents itself as a group of worthy metropolitan lawyers, backed up by angry social activists and trade unionists. They need to have someone being positive.
I think whatever face Labour presents you'll manage to see that one.
So what are the positive reasons to vote Labour?
What’s their vision, their dream?
A society free of privilege and prejudice!
But you were talking about 'types' - worthy metropolitan lawyers, angry social activists and (shock horror) trade unionists. All just sounds a bit like Daily Telegraph chuntering to me.
I mean, is there any Labour politician you rate?
Without being depressing I cannot see any politician either at home or abroad that are credible
And the only leader worthy of mention is Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine
Oh come on, Big G. "Boris" has polluted the pond, yes, but there's still some fish in there.
East African Indians. Part of the reason I take the view of the establishment I do is because I have an outsider's perspective on it.
You haven't answered my question on whether you take personal risks with your money I assume you don't therefore and are just risking the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario correct
Why are you being so aggressive to Max?
It's not been aggressive to ask if he risks his own money He earns the big bucks so if he's that good he would be comfortable risking his own money if not ,,
And ti be fairhe was quite aggressive towards pensioners even if some of the ire is deserved
I think it's generally agreed by most people on this site that rich pensioners need to pay more and that there is a limit on the percentage of total income that you can expect working people to contribute.
Elsewhere (and partly it's local because being up north many people own their outright by the time they hit their early 50's) I'm seeing more and more people switching to part time work because they don't need that much cash to live on.
Yes. Which begs the question.What is it about the country that so many are prepared to take a hit on their incomes to cut down hours or quit? Why do so many hate what they do?
They don't hate it, they just know they have won the house price lottery so can back-peddle a bit.
I think it's more to do with a product of life stage and where you are with your mortgage. Housing costs and keeping children fed, clothed and entertained are both huge drains on people's incomes - if the mortgage is small or already paid, and you either don't have kids or they've left home, your outgoings are bound to be very much lower than someone who has to deal with those things.
A modest but comfortable lifestyle can then be had for a much smaller income - so if people don't want to work themselves into the ground until state pension age then they don't have to. That kind of choice is becoming more common where I work. Might even do it myself in another few years' time.
You are a high maintenance horse. If you were on my team we would have to hug you all the time to keep your spirits up? If I was your counsellor I’d be pushing building up your resilience - and you would hate me for it.
I look after myself and after seeing my counsellor for a good few months I have the skills and strength to be my best
You are a high maintenance horse. If you were on my team we would have to hug you all the time to keep your spirits up? If I was your counsellor I’d be pushing building up your resilience - and you would hate me for it.
Resilience and self-esteem. They are linked, of course.
But the minds of the MPs and potential leadership candidates might be in a different place right now, waiting till after the GE for their next go on the greasy poll.
Half the polls at the moment aren't too bad for the Tories.
All the polls are saying the same thing in broad terms: Lab/LD/Green - 55% to 60% Tories - 30% to 35%.
The Tories just have to hope that the tactical voting we have seen in recent by-elections is not repeated in a general election. If it is they are in deep, deep trouble.
You are a high maintenance horse. If you were on my team we would have to hug you all the time to keep your spirits up? If I was your counsellor I’d be pushing building up your resilience - and you would hate me for it.
I look after myself and after seeing my counsellor for a good few months I have the skills and strength to be my best
Sounds good - and long may you coast along feeling great. 🙂 But we can’t lapse from the never ending need of doing all the right things to feel resilient. Got to keep up the hard work hence the motto happiness must be earned.
East African Indians. Part of the reason I take the view of the establishment I do is because I have an outsider's perspective on it.
You haven't answered my question on whether you take personal risks with your money I assume you don't therefore and are just risking the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario correct
Why are you being so aggressive to Max?
It's not been aggressive to ask if he risks his own money He earns the big bucks so if he's that good he would be comfortable risking his own money if not ,,
And ti be fairhe was quite aggressive towards pensioners even if some of the ire is deserved
I think it's generally agreed by most people on this site that rich pensioners need to pay more and that there is a limit on the percentage of total income that you can expect working people to contribute.
Elsewhere (and partly it's local because being up north many people own their outright by the time they hit their early 50's) I'm seeing more and more people switching to part time work because they don't need that much cash to live on.
Yes. Which begs the question.What is it about the country that so many are prepared to take a hit on their incomes to cut down hours or quit? Why do so many hate what they do?
They don't hate it, they just know they have won the house price lottery so can back-peddle a bit.
I think it's more to do with a product of life stage and where you are with your mortgage. Housing costs and keeping children fed, clothed and entertained are both huge drains on people's incomes - if the mortgage is small or already paid, and you either don't have kids or they've left home, your outgoings are bound to be very much lower than someone who has to deal with those things.
A modest but comfortable lifestyle can then be had for a much smaller income - so if people don't want to work themselves into the ground until state pension age then they don't have to. That kind of choice is becoming more common where I work. Might even do it myself in another few years' time.
well quite - but then you look at the under 40s who can't buy a house unless they have wealthy parents/grandparents, crap dc pension if at all, wage restraint, constantly looking for the next employer and the prospect of looking at working well into their 70s......
Exactly what happened in Australia. From the same people. There are only two issues. The PM and his character, and the economy. Talking about anything else appears out of touch.
In Australia a result of 52/48 to the Liberals/Nationals was replaced by a 52/48 result for Labor. Not a huge shift in opinion.
No indeed. But a relentless focus on wedge issues of little relevance to most people drove away centrists to Independents. The Labor primary vote fell. Yet led to a majority. Others have noted that third and fourth in Wakefield were ex-Tories. And are already adding their votes to the Tory pile. It doesn't work like that
David Herdson has observed that although the independent who finished third was an ex-Tory he got his support principally from a usually strong Labour area. His votes are not going to go back to the Tories at any point because they were never with them in the first place.
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
Do we know anything about the Independent in Wakefield who got 7% (above David Herdson)?
Basically a Tory. Former tory councillor. Which detracts a bit from the winning margin
Oh wow, so two former Tory councillors 3rd and 4th.
Yes. Labour didn't quite get back to 2017 levels on a low turnout against an outgoing party who foisted a child sexual assaulter on the city. The Tory collapse in vote flattered them somewhat and id expect this to be a Labour held marginal (less than 5%) at a GE. On this sort of result, against this specific backdrop id say labour will struggle to retake the larger majoritues in the red wall on current boundaries like Bishop Auckland and Rother Valley
so far the psephologiy from this parliament, including last night as you describe and last months locals, fills us with little confidence the red wall is clearly coming home to Labour.
If anyone wants to turn up at next GE certain of change of government, not for a nervous night of close results in key places, they need to think again. The psephologiy isn’t supporting the Labour spin.
Agreed. Labour did not do as well last night as in the locals in May in Wakefield, there is no clamour for a Labour government. There IS clamour for Johnson to be gone. Now. In the South, however........
The independent candidate who came third in Wakefield is a conservative I think?
Yes a former councillor for the Tories
So, all in all, Labour didn't exactly hit the ball out the park in Wakefield did they?
No, but a crisp late cut down to 3rd man for a very comfortable single. Starmer will think he's on course for PM and with some justification.
I sense that Wakefield wouldn't be reversed at a GE whilst Johnson is in charge. What about PM Mordaunt though? Or Sunak?
Boris is looking to preserve his ability to earn money once he leaves office.
As I have said before, he should agree to resign in x months time, once the party has elected his successor. Too tight now to have that successor ready by the autumn conference. But going "on his terms" (not really!) seems about the best he can engineer. No way he fights the next election as PM. Even if he were to be insane enough to call one now (which he isn't).
I think you should keep him. He’s the man for the job! Let him stay! Poor Boris, he’s trying his best.
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
Do we know anything about the Independent in Wakefield who got 7% (above David Herdson)?
Basically a Tory. Former tory councillor. Which detracts a bit from the winning margin
Oh wow, so two former Tory councillors 3rd and 4th.
Yes. Labour didn't quite get back to 2017 levels on a low turnout against an outgoing party who foisted a child sexual assaulter on the city. The Tory collapse in vote flattered them somewhat and id expect this to be a Labour held marginal (less than 5%) at a GE. On this sort of result, against this specific backdrop id say labour will struggle to retake the larger majoritues in the red wall on current boundaries like Bishop Auckland and Rother Valley
so far the psephologiy from this parliament, including last night as you describe and last months locals, fills us with little confidence the red wall is clearly coming home to Labour.
If anyone wants to turn up at next GE certain of change of government, not for a nervous night of close results in key places, they need to think again. The psephologiy isn’t supporting the Labour spin.
Agreed. Labour did not do as well last night as in the locals in May in Wakefield, there is no clamour for a Labour government. There IS clamour for Johnson to be gone. Now. In the South, however........
The independent candidate who came third in Wakefield is a conservative I think?
Yes a former councillor for the Tories
So, all in all, Labour didn't exactly hit the ball out the park in Wakefield did they?
No, but a crisp late cut down to 3rd man for a very comfortable single. Starmer will think he's on course for PM and with some justification.
I sense that Wakefield wouldn't be reversed at a GE whilst Johnson is in charge. What about PM Mordaunt though? Or Sunak?
Ah well exactly - that's the question. Do the Tories get to lose the stench of Johnson by dropping him and pressing Flush? Not sure but I think perhaps not.
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
Do we know anything about the Independent in Wakefield who got 7% (above David Herdson)?
Basically a Tory. Former tory councillor. Which detracts a bit from the winning margin
Oh wow, so two former Tory councillors 3rd and 4th.
Yes. Labour didn't quite get back to 2017 levels on a low turnout against an outgoing party who foisted a child sexual assaulter on the city. The Tory collapse in vote flattered them somewhat and id expect this to be a Labour held marginal (less than 5%) at a GE. On this sort of result, against this specific backdrop id say labour will struggle to retake the larger majoritues in the red wall on current boundaries like Bishop Auckland and Rother Valley
so far the psephologiy from this parliament, including last night as you describe and last months locals, fills us with little confidence the red wall is clearly coming home to Labour.
If anyone wants to turn up at next GE certain of change of government, not for a nervous night of close results in key places, they need to think again. The psephologiy isn’t supporting the Labour spin.
Agreed. Labour did not do as well last night as in the locals in May in Wakefield, there is no clamour for a Labour government. There IS clamour for Johnson to be gone. Now. In the South, however........
The independent candidate who came third in Wakefield is a conservative I think?
Yes a former councillor for the Tories
So, all in all, Labour didn't exactly hit the ball out the park in Wakefield did they?
No, but a crisp late cut down to 3rd man for a very comfortable single. Starmer will think he's on course for PM and with some justification.
I sense that Wakefield wouldn't be reversed at a GE whilst Johnson is in charge. What about PM Mordaunt though? Or Sunak?
Ah well exactly - that's the question. Do the Tories get to lose the stench of Johnson by dropping him and pressing Flush? Not sure but I think perhaps not.
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
You only have to be less toxic than your opponent and Labour is far less toxic than the Conservative Party as this result shows.
That's true at by elections.
A general election is a different kettle of fish.
What worries me about these results is that SKS might see it as a vindication of his strategy to have no policies and just win by default.
SKS certainly ought to see a recovery of this scale in a Red Wall seat as vindication of his strategy to try and leave Brexit and all things EU on the back burner.
Yes there's a need for Labour to be developing policies for this point on, but I don't think a smorgasbord of detail is what needed. What's more important is to have a clear restatement of values and to crystallise those into a relatively small number of well-understood headline policies that put those values into practice.
There needs to be positivity for the future, more than anything else. Cameron had it, as did Blair - and yes, as did Johnson.
Labour still presents itself as a group of worthy metropolitan lawyers, backed up by angry social activists and trade unionists. They need to have someone being positive.
I think whatever face Labour presents you'll manage to see that one.
So what are the positive reasons to vote Labour?
What’s their vision, their dream?
A society free of privilege and prejudice!
But you were talking about 'types' - worthy metropolitan lawyers, angry social activists and (shock horror) trade unionists. All just sounds a bit like Daily Telegraph chuntering to me.
I mean, is there any Labour politician you rate?
Without being depressing I cannot see any politician either at home or abroad that are credible
And the only leader worthy of mention is Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine
Oh come on, Big G. "Boris" has polluted the pond, yes, but there's still some fish in there.
I'm quite taken by the Estonian PM.
Yep, some great policies there. You can just tell.
After the GFC and the rise of social media, in most rich democracies, voters started voting for more self-interested, absolutist and irreconcilable positions, not limited to economics but also culturally. I don't think current Western leaders should take the blame for that, and think that Western leaders whose policies caused the GFC should take much more of the blame.
I wonder if the keenness of Ukraine to join the EU will shift opinion in the UK a tad towards re-join or closer cooperation? Ukrainians are pretty popular and their heroic struggle is supported by a majority. The only dissenters are classic "the West is always wrong" loons, "realists" with a very poor understanding of reality and petty minded opponents of any overseas expenditure who little realise that if Russia wins the cost will be a thousand fold higher and may well involve British lives.
The thing is that it is evidence that the UK doesn't need to be in the EU in order to cooperate with Europe and help provide assistance to Ukraine.
I would hope it would help the debate a bit, by making it obvious that the EU is an ally, and countries like Russia are our enemy, but I don't think it will alone shift the dial.
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
You only have to be less toxic than your opponent and Labour is far less toxic than the Conservative Party as this result shows.
That's true at by elections.
A general election is a different kettle of fish.
What worries me about these results is that SKS might see it as a vindication of his strategy to have no policies and just win by default.
SKS certainly ought to see a recovery of this scale in a Red Wall seat as vindication of his strategy to try and leave Brexit and all things EU on the back burner.
Yes there's a need for Labour to be developing policies for this point on, but I don't think a smorgasbord of detail is what needed. What's more important is to have a clear restatement of values and to crystallise those into a relatively small number of well-understood headline policies that put those values into practice.
There needs to be positivity for the future, more than anything else. Cameron had it, as did Blair - and yes, as did Johnson.
Labour still presents itself as a group of worthy metropolitan lawyers, backed up by angry social activists and trade unionists. They need to have someone being positive.
I think whatever face Labour presents you'll manage to see that one.
So what are the positive reasons to vote Labour?
What’s their vision, their dream?
A society free of privilege and prejudice!
But you were talking about 'types' - worthy metropolitan lawyers, angry social activists and (shock horror) trade unionists. All just sounds a bit like Daily Telegraph chuntering to me.
I mean, is there any Labour politician you rate?
Without being depressing I cannot see any politician either at home or abroad that are credible
And the only leader worthy of mention is Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine
Oh come on, Big G. "Boris" has polluted the pond, yes, but there's still some fish in there.
I'm quite taken by the Estonian PM.
Yep, some great policies there. You can just tell.
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
Do we know anything about the Independent in Wakefield who got 7% (above David Herdson)?
Basically a Tory. Former tory councillor. Which detracts a bit from the winning margin
Oh wow, so two former Tory councillors 3rd and 4th.
Yes. Labour didn't quite get back to 2017 levels on a low turnout against an outgoing party who foisted a child sexual assaulter on the city. The Tory collapse in vote flattered them somewhat and id expect this to be a Labour held marginal (less than 5%) at a GE. On this sort of result, against this specific backdrop id say labour will struggle to retake the larger majoritues in the red wall on current boundaries like Bishop Auckland and Rother Valley
so far the psephologiy from this parliament, including last night as you describe and last months locals, fills us with little confidence the red wall is clearly coming home to Labour.
If anyone wants to turn up at next GE certain of change of government, not for a nervous night of close results in key places, they need to think again. The psephologiy isn’t supporting the Labour spin.
Agreed. Labour did not do as well last night as in the locals in May in Wakefield, there is no clamour for a Labour government. There IS clamour for Johnson to be gone. Now. In the South, however........
The independent candidate who came third in Wakefield is a conservative I think?
Yes a former councillor for the Tories
So, all in all, Labour didn't exactly hit the ball out the park in Wakefield did they?
No, but a crisp late cut down to 3rd man for a very comfortable single. Starmer will think he's on course for PM and with some justification.
I think you'll find it was slightly to the left of third man. If it had been a bit more to the left, they could have run two.
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
Do we know anything about the Independent in Wakefield who got 7% (above David Herdson)?
Basically a Tory. Former tory councillor. Which detracts a bit from the winning margin
Oh wow, so two former Tory councillors 3rd and 4th.
Yes. Labour didn't quite get back to 2017 levels on a low turnout against an outgoing party who foisted a child sexual assaulter on the city. The Tory collapse in vote flattered them somewhat and id expect this to be a Labour held marginal (less than 5%) at a GE. On this sort of result, against this specific backdrop id say labour will struggle to retake the larger majoritues in the red wall on current boundaries like Bishop Auckland and Rother Valley
so far the psephologiy from this parliament, including last night as you describe and last months locals, fills us with little confidence the red wall is clearly coming home to Labour.
If anyone wants to turn up at next GE certain of change of government, not for a nervous night of close results in key places, they need to think again. The psephologiy isn’t supporting the Labour spin.
Agreed. Labour did not do as well last night as in the locals in May in Wakefield, there is no clamour for a Labour government. There IS clamour for Johnson to be gone. Now. In the South, however........
The independent candidate who came third in Wakefield is a conservative I think?
Yes a former councillor for the Tories
So, all in all, Labour didn't exactly hit the ball out the park in Wakefield did they?
No, but a crisp late cut down to 3rd man for a very comfortable single. Starmer will think he's on course for PM and with some justification.
I think you'll find it was slightly to the left of third man. If it had been a bit more to the left, they could have run two.
Ha, yes. I dare to think that too. Let's unbutton just a touch. Just the top one for starters. See what happens.
East African Indians. Part of the reason I take the view of the establishment I do is because I have an outsider's perspective on it.
You haven't answered my question on whether you take personal risks with your money I assume you don't therefore and are just risking the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario correct
Why are you being so aggressive to Max?
It's not been aggressive to ask if he risks his own money He earns the big bucks so if he's that good he would be comfortable risking his own money if not ,,
And ti be fairhe was quite aggressive towards pensioners even if some of the ire is deserved
I think it's generally agreed by most people on this site that rich pensioners need to pay more and that there is a limit on the percentage of total income that you can expect working people to contribute.
Elsewhere (and partly it's local because being up north many people own their outright by the time they hit their early 50's) I'm seeing more and more people switching to part time work because they don't need that much cash to live on.
Yes. Which begs the question.What is it about the country that so many are prepared to take a hit on their incomes to cut down hours or quit? Why do so many hate what they do?
They don't hate it, they just know they have won the house price lottery so can back-peddle a bit.
I think it's more to do with a product of life stage and where you are with your mortgage. Housing costs and keeping children fed, clothed and entertained are both huge drains on people's incomes - if the mortgage is small or already paid, and you either don't have kids or they've left home, your outgoings are bound to be very much lower than someone who has to deal with those things.
A modest but comfortable lifestyle can then be had for a much smaller income - so if people don't want to work themselves into the ground until state pension age then they don't have to. That kind of choice is becoming more common where I work. Might even do it myself in another few years' time.
well quite - but then you look at the under 40s who can't buy a house unless they have wealthy parents/grandparents, crap dc pension if at all, wage restraint, constantly looking for the next employer and the prospect of looking at working well into their 70s......
Indeed. What we're liable to see more of in this country is the phenomenon of people who are stuck permanently in private rented accommodation, or who become first time buyers with long term mortgages in middle age, working into their dotage because their housing costs make it impossible for them to retire. This sort of thing happens a lot in the States apparently - a nominally richer society than ours, but where wealth is even more unevenly distributed.
Tory MP Geoffrey Clifton Brown spells out to me on @timesradio what the 1922 committee will do next:
"There are there are two routes by which he could be persuaded to resign...1/4
"One is by the whole executive of the 1922 Committee, having taken into account the wider views of the entire parliamentary party, and then decide to change the rules. That is quite difficult, I think to change the rules in mid contest." 2/4
"Or the other way is for the majority of the cabinet to say that they have no confidence in the Prime Minister, in which case he would not be able to carry on. So I think there will be a lot of conversations taking place next week. And we'll have to see what happens." 3/4
Clifton-Brown adds: "I think what the prime minister needs to do is to come home and set out for the party, and for the country, how he intends to resolve the really serious situation that country is in."
East African Indians. Part of the reason I take the view of the establishment I do is because I have an outsider's perspective on it.
You haven't answered my question on whether you take personal risks with your money I assume you don't therefore and are just risking the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario correct
Why are you being so aggressive to Max?
It's not been aggressive to ask if he risks his own money He earns the big bucks so if he's that good he would be comfortable risking his own money if not ,,
And ti be fairhe was quite aggressive towards pensioners even if some of the ire is deserved
I think it's generally agreed by most people on this site that rich pensioners need to pay more and that there is a limit on the percentage of total income that you can expect working people to contribute.
Elsewhere (and partly it's local because being up north many people own their outright by the time they hit their early 50's) I'm seeing more and more people switching to part time work because they don't need that much cash to live on.
Yes. Which begs the question.What is it about the country that so many are prepared to take a hit on their incomes to cut down hours or quit? Why do so many hate what they do?
They don't hate it, they just know they have won the house price lottery so can back-peddle a bit.
I think it's more to do with a product of life stage and where you are with your mortgage. Housing costs and keeping children fed, clothed and entertained are both huge drains on people's incomes - if the mortgage is small or already paid, and you either don't have kids or they've left home, your outgoings are bound to be very much lower than someone who has to deal with those things.
A modest but comfortable lifestyle can then be had for a much smaller income - so if people don't want to work themselves into the ground until state pension age then they don't have to. That kind of choice is becoming more common where I work. Might even do it myself in another few years' time.
One life hack is to move to a cheap part of the country and get a small place in a reasonable area You can then work a relatively menial job provided you don't have kids Income by itself is a pathetic measure of wellbeing 50 grand a year in SE plus big mortgage and kids =misery 25 grand a year in North no mortgage or kids=happiness
In practice, the most senior public sector roles are accountable to government and FAR more accountable to politicians and media than private sector equivs. In some professions like medicine you can be struck off. The pleb grade staff surely can't be blamed. And you have the project management class attaching itself to costly overruns as consultants to both sectors. Not sure who is left in the public sector who really deserves more punishment.
That too, also because of the Blairite and Tory merging of the sectors. Vide academies and free schools in England - commercial experiments for private beliefs and theories at public cost.
Minister for Trade Penny Mordaunt says on by-election results:
“I’m disappointed for our candidates and our party, but I’m getting on with my job of serving my constituents and seeking new trade opportunities. They and the country want delivery.”
East African Indians. Part of the reason I take the view of the establishment I do is because I have an outsider's perspective on it.
You haven't answered my question on whether you take personal risks with your money I assume you don't therefore and are just risking the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario correct
Why are you being so aggressive to Max?
It's not been aggressive to ask if he risks his own money He earns the big bucks so if he's that good he would be comfortable risking his own money if not ,,
And ti be fairhe was quite aggressive towards pensioners even if some of the ire is deserved
I think it's generally agreed by most people on this site that rich pensioners need to pay more and that there is a limit on the percentage of total income that you can expect working people to contribute.
Elsewhere (and partly it's local because being up north many people own their outright by the time they hit their early 50's) I'm seeing more and more people switching to part time work because they don't need that much cash to live on.
Yes. Which begs the question.What is it about the country that so many are prepared to take a hit on their incomes to cut down hours or quit? Why do so many hate what they do?
They don't hate it, they just know they have won the house price lottery so can back-peddle a bit.
I think it's more to do with a product of life stage and where you are with your mortgage. Housing costs and keeping children fed, clothed and entertained are both huge drains on people's incomes - if the mortgage is small or already paid, and you either don't have kids or they've left home, your outgoings are bound to be very much lower than someone who has to deal with those things.
A modest but comfortable lifestyle can then be had for a much smaller income - so if people don't want to work themselves into the ground until state pension age then they don't have to. That kind of choice is becoming more common where I work. Might even do it myself in another few years' time.
Work and money are not everything. I'm reminded of the Quakers of the C18 and C19 - and presumably today. They did not fetishise work and money. They were great believers in hard and honest work and because of the C of E monopoly they weren't allowed any public sector sinecures of the kind that the aristos and their hangers on saved for themselves. Yet when many had made a decent sufficiency and established their children in life they were happy to retire and do whatever they preferred to do - garden, or amateur science, or deal with Quaker business or public affairs.
Full interview on WATO later today. ...Former Leader of Conservative Party Michael Howard has told BBC Radio 4's World at One that Boris Johnson should resign.
"The party, and more importantly the country, would be better off under new leadership."
"Members of the Cabinet should very carefully consider their positions," he told the programme.
On speculation about how the Conservatives could remove the PM - after Johnson won a no confidence vote on 6 June - Howard said "it may be necessary for the executive of the 1922 committee to meet and to decide to change the rules so another leadership [election] could take place"...
The problem then is, where do the 1922 and rebels go if Boris gets same win as a few weeks ago? Surely, not least for the 22’s credibility, they would need to be pretty confident of numbers for victory before gerrymandering another go?
At some point the cabinet will move against him. In the first vote they undoubtedly felt obliged to support him, but should there be further votes then that'll possibly change, and once he starts to lose parts of the cabinet then the rest will decide that enough is enough and tell him to go.
(That's surely the mechanism, but how long it might take to play out is anyone's guess)
But it’s a cheerleading cabinet? Maggie major Cameron and May cabinets had best in the show from across the party? Boris killed that approach so very early on with a cheerleading cabinet, as befits Populism approach based around The Great Leader - the difference between Conservatism and right wing populism described here. So in in this different type of politics, does a cheerleading cabinet bring down its leader? Surely by this approaches design, it’s not supposed to?
You're right of course, but I still think this will be the path - probably just travelled more slowly.
East African Indians. Part of the reason I take the view of the establishment I do is because I have an outsider's perspective on it.
You haven't answered my question on whether you take personal risks with your money I assume you don't therefore and are just risking the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario correct
Why are you being so aggressive to Max?
It's not been aggressive to ask if he risks his own money He earns the big bucks so if he's that good he would be comfortable risking his own money if not ,,
And ti be fairhe was quite aggressive towards pensioners even if some of the ire is deserved
I think it's generally agreed by most people on this site that rich pensioners need to pay more and that there is a limit on the percentage of total income that you can expect working people to contribute.
Elsewhere (and partly it's local because being up north many people own their outright by the time they hit their early 50's) I'm seeing more and more people switching to part time work because they don't need that much cash to live on.
Yes. Which begs the question.What is it about the country that so many are prepared to take a hit on their incomes to cut down hours or quit? Why do so many hate what they do?
They don't hate it, they just know they have won the house price lottery so can back-peddle a bit.
I think it's more to do with a product of life stage and where you are with your mortgage. Housing costs and keeping children fed, clothed and entertained are both huge drains on people's incomes - if the mortgage is small or already paid, and you either don't have kids or they've left home, your outgoings are bound to be very much lower than someone who has to deal with those things.
A modest but comfortable lifestyle can then be had for a much smaller income - so if people don't want to work themselves into the ground until state pension age then they don't have to. That kind of choice is becoming more common where I work. Might even do it myself in another few years' time.
One life hack is to move to a cheap part of the country and get a small place in a reasonable area You can then work a relatively menial job provided you don't have kids Income by itself is a pathetic measure of wellbeing 50 grand a year in SE plus big mortgage and kids =misery 25 grand a year in North no mortgage or kids=happiness
Which of course explains a lot about the way both the economy and politics is working out right now. Economic activity sucks young (which nowadays means of working age) people toward the cities - and away from areas like Wakefield, as the old cash in on their property gains in the cities and move back to the less urban areas of their youth.
PB occasionally digresses into utterly pointless discussions. One of the most pointless is "will Boris call an early GE?".
It is a not-happening event, as I believe young people say. No way. Apologies for contributing to the pointlessness.
Yes it's one of those on my classic list of things PB always predicts but which never happen. There really are some quite tiresome examples:
• A 2022 general election • The United States splitting • A nationwide house price crash • The Bakerloo line closing down • Hillary Clinton being the 2024 Democratic candidate
There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.
Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.
And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.
But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.
The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.
See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:
There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.
Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.
And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.
But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.
The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.
See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:
East African Indians. Part of the reason I take the view of the establishment I do is because I have an outsider's perspective on it.
You haven't answered my question on whether you take personal risks with your money I assume you don't therefore and are just risking the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario correct
Why are you being so aggressive to Max?
It's not been aggressive to ask if he risks his own money He earns the big bucks so if he's that good he would be comfortable risking his own money if not ,,
And ti be fairhe was quite aggressive towards pensioners even if some of the ire is deserved
I think it's generally agreed by most people on this site that rich pensioners need to pay more and that there is a limit on the percentage of total income that you can expect working people to contribute.
Elsewhere (and partly it's local because being up north many people own their outright by the time they hit their early 50's) I'm seeing more and more people switching to part time work because they don't need that much cash to live on.
Yes. Which begs the question.What is it about the country that so many are prepared to take a hit on their incomes to cut down hours or quit? Why do so many hate what they do?
They don't hate it, they just know they have won the house price lottery so can back-peddle a bit.
I think it's more to do with a product of life stage and where you are with your mortgage. Housing costs and keeping children fed, clothed and entertained are both huge drains on people's incomes - if the mortgage is small or already paid, and you either don't have kids or they've left home, your outgoings are bound to be very much lower than someone who has to deal with those things.
A modest but comfortable lifestyle can then be had for a much smaller income - so if people don't want to work themselves into the ground until state pension age then they don't have to. That kind of choice is becoming more common where I work. Might even do it myself in another few years' time.
One life hack is to move to a cheap part of the country and get a small place in a reasonable area You can then work a relatively menial job provided you don't have kids Income by itself is a pathetic measure of wellbeing 50 grand a year in SE plus big mortgage and kids =misery 25 grand a year in North no mortgage or kids=happiness
No kids, though, is not a universally sustainable social or economic policy.
What do you contribute to the country mate I take it you work in financial services so are likely vastly overpaid yourself given your abilities, Maybe you take too much out of the country Whilst the old are a problem a lot of our problems stem from the massive bailout of the banks in 2008
Investing money in UK based tech startups, literally job creation in the UKs fastest growing sector.
I agree, the government should have stood behind depositors and let RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock go to the wall. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling couldn't let both major Scottish banks go bankrupt so they bailed them out. Blame them not me.
But do you take personal risk with your money in these investments or do you just invest the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario
It's investor money (we don't proprietary invest), and don't blame me for the changing of bonus rules that made my salary very high and performance pay much lower. Both TSE and I pointed out this would be the result of the idiotic bonus cap the EU introduced.
And the tails for me is losing my job, so the idea that I win either way is frankly ridiculous. You seem to be a very bitter and jealous person, did you, by any chance, not cut it in financial services and now hate everyone who did make it?
Yes. If you fuck up, you lose your job, potentially your career
Unlike about 90% of the people in the public sector…
This is a bit of a myth. The City can be a very forgiving place. Quite soft in fact. You can stuff up badly and be back in the saddle in no time.
There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.
Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.
And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.
But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.
The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.
See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:
PB occasionally digresses into utterly pointless discussions. One of the most pointless is "will Boris call an early GE?".
It is a not-happening event, as I believe young people say. No way. Apologies for contributing to the pointlessness.
Yes it's one of those on my classic list of things PB always predicts but which never happen. There really are some quite tiresome examples:
• A 2022 general election • The United States splitting • A nationwide house price crash • The Bakerloo line closing down • Hillary Clinton being the 2024 Democratic candidate
Nobody has predicted Clinton as the 2024 candidate, but now you would have it that the whole of PB does continually?
There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.
Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.
And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.
But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.
The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.
See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:
It wasn't disappointing as long as you don't want Labour to win a majority at the next election.
They need a swing of 10.4% on the current boundaries, probably slightly more on the new boundaries. If the most they can get at a by-election is 12.7% it's very unlikely they would get 10.4% at a general election.
It's going to have to be a progressive alliance / rainbow coalition.
PB occasionally digresses into utterly pointless discussions. One of the most pointless is "will Boris call an early GE?".
It is a not-happening event, as I believe young people say. No way. Apologies for contributing to the pointlessness.
Yes it's one of those on my classic list of things PB always predicts but which never happen. There really are some quite tiresome examples:
• A 2022 general election • The United States splitting • A nationwide house price crash • The Bakerloo line closing down • Hillary Clinton being the 2024 Democratic candidate
Nobody has predicted Clinton as the 2024 candidate, but now you would have it that the whole of PB does continually?
It frequently comes up I can assure you – have a search
Minister for Trade Penny Mordaunt says on by-election results:
“I’m disappointed for our candidates and our party, but I’m getting on with my job of serving my constituents and seeking new trade opportunities. They and the country want delivery.”
Ministers who fancy their chances as next leader are inhibited by the "he who wields the knife" mythology re. Heseltine. The mechanics of forcing him out are interesting. Collective action by cabinet, in private then public if he refuses? Cabinet ministers who know they have no chance putting the knife in (paging Gove)? Change the rules? Enough men in grey coats? I think that although Johnson is obviously arrogant he is a coward in situations of political conflict. I think he might crack. He can't show his face in front of journalists or do any sort of public event and I don't think that is going to change. A little carrot like House of Lords and special emissary to Ukraine might tip the balance? (The Ukrainians deserve better but I think all senior politicians are fairly solid for them in UK. Can't blame 'em for liking Boris as face of UK.
PB occasionally digresses into utterly pointless discussions. One of the most pointless is "will Boris call an early GE?".
It is a not-happening event, as I believe young people say. No way. Apologies for contributing to the pointlessness.
Yes it's one of those on my classic list of things PB always predicts but which never happen. There really are some quite tiresome examples:
• A 2022 general election • The United States splitting • A nationwide house price crash • The Bakerloo line closing down • Hillary Clinton being the 2024 Democratic candidate
They can't shut the Bakerloo Line. It's like London Underground's heritage line. Those 50 year old trains have such amazing retro styling, you could easily imagine you've gone back to a time of strikes, double digit inflation and a country adrift from the European economy and in terminal decline.
East African Indians. Part of the reason I take the view of the establishment I do is because I have an outsider's perspective on it.
You haven't answered my question on whether you take personal risks with your money I assume you don't therefore and are just risking the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario correct
Why are you being so aggressive to Max?
It's not been aggressive to ask if he risks his own money He earns the big bucks so if he's that good he would be comfortable risking his own money if not ,,
And ti be fairhe was quite aggressive towards pensioners even if some of the ire is deserved
I think it's generally agreed by most people on this site that rich pensioners need to pay more and that there is a limit on the percentage of total income that you can expect working people to contribute.
Elsewhere (and partly it's local because being up north many people own their outright by the time they hit their early 50's) I'm seeing more and more people switching to part time work because they don't need that much cash to live on.
Yes. Which begs the question.What is it about the country that so many are prepared to take a hit on their incomes to cut down hours or quit? Why do so many hate what they do?
They don't hate it, they just know they have won the house price lottery so can back-peddle a bit.
I think it's more to do with a product of life stage and where you are with your mortgage. Housing costs and keeping children fed, clothed and entertained are both huge drains on people's incomes - if the mortgage is small or already paid, and you either don't have kids or they've left home, your outgoings are bound to be very much lower than someone who has to deal with those things.
A modest but comfortable lifestyle can then be had for a much smaller income - so if people don't want to work themselves into the ground until state pension age then they don't have to. That kind of choice is becoming more common where I work. Might even do it myself in another few years' time.
well quite - but then you look at the under 40s who can't buy a house unless they have wealthy parents/grandparents, crap dc pension if at all, wage restraint, constantly looking for the next employer and the prospect of looking at working well into their 70s......
To borrow a PB trope - not really. There has been (not sure where we are at present) around.
And there have been more or less continuous aiui schemes available to make saving a 5% deposit tax free, and providing a loan for another 20% (40% in London) at no interest for 5 years.
The underlying issue is demand / supply balance, and (ironically) demand side subsidy of house price inflation, which needs to be unwound.
East African Indians. Part of the reason I take the view of the establishment I do is because I have an outsider's perspective on it.
You haven't answered my question on whether you take personal risks with your money I assume you don't therefore and are just risking the banks money in a heads I win tails you lose scenario correct
Why are you being so aggressive to Max?
It's not been aggressive to ask if he risks his own money He earns the big bucks so if he's that good he would be comfortable risking his own money if not ,,
And ti be fairhe was quite aggressive towards pensioners even if some of the ire is deserved
I think it's generally agreed by most people on this site that rich pensioners need to pay more and that there is a limit on the percentage of total income that you can expect working people to contribute.
Elsewhere (and partly it's local because being up north many people own their outright by the time they hit their early 50's) I'm seeing more and more people switching to part time work because they don't need that much cash to live on.
Yes. Which begs the question.What is it about the country that so many are prepared to take a hit on their incomes to cut down hours or quit? Why do so many hate what they do?
They don't hate it, they just know they have won the house price lottery so can back-peddle a bit.
I think it's more to do with a product of life stage and where you are with your mortgage. Housing costs and keeping children fed, clothed and entertained are both huge drains on people's incomes - if the mortgage is small or already paid, and you either don't have kids or they've left home, your outgoings are bound to be very much lower than someone who has to deal with those things.
A modest but comfortable lifestyle can then be had for a much smaller income - so if people don't want to work themselves into the ground until state pension age then they don't have to. That kind of choice is becoming more common where I work. Might even do it myself in another few years' time.
One life hack is to move to a cheap part of the country and get a small place in a reasonable area You can then work a relatively menial job provided you don't have kids Income by itself is a pathetic measure of wellbeing 50 grand a year in SE plus big mortgage and kids =misery 25 grand a year in North no mortgage or kids=happiness
No kids, though, is not a universally sustainable social or economic policy.
oh i agree its terrible for the country....which is why the housing market needs to be sorted out
OGH is right on this. The next election will see massive anit Tory tactical voting which will benefit Labour in the Red Wall and the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall. A pincer movement that will lock the Tories out of power, maybe for a generation. The Lib Dems should demand electoral reform as a condition of supporting a minority Labour government, and then people can vote for their first choice again, confident it won't result in their last choice getting elected.
OGH is wrong about Wakefield. There was no tactical vote surge there. Tories lost 17%, Labour gained 8%. Blue wall, yes, big problems. Red wall, much less so. Labour are still toxic
You only have to be less toxic than your opponent and Labour is far less toxic than the Conservative Party as this result shows.
In the interests of balance BBC R4 WATO is calling the Wakefield result for Labour "unconvincing" and the Tories "got a drubbing in Honiton and Tiverton".
If you listened to WATO didn't you think Lisa Nandy was good? I'd never particularly rated her but if SKS is looking for a Shadow Minister for the Red Wall he couldn't do better. Articulate and open and she seemed genuinely enthused
There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.
Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.
And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.
But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.
The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.
See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:
The hot takes from @MoonRabbit in particular were completely bizarre. I assume it was sleep deprivation.
The BBC nonetheless ran with the narrative at lunchtime.
I am less inclined to believe this was pro-Conservative, anti-Labour bias but this foolish notion that some at the BBC have for absolute balance. "The Conservatives were hammered, and we have to report this, how can we balance the story? Ah yes..."
There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.
Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.
And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.
But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.
The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.
See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:
It wasn't disappointing as long as you don't want Labour to win a majority at the next election.
They need a swing of 10.4% on the current boundaries, probably slightly more on the new boundaries. If the most they can get at a by-election is 12.7% it's very unlikely they would get 10.4% at a general election.
It's going to have to be a progressive alliance / rainbow coalition.
The SNP is the potential problem there. I think a lot of centrist voters would put Lib/Lab, Lab majority and Lab/Lib/SNP in that order of preference so might peel off if the latter looks a likely outcome.
There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.
Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.
And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.
But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.
The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.
See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:
It wasn't disappointing as long as you don't want Labour to win a majority at the next election.
They need a swing of 10.4% on the current boundaries, probably slightly more on the new boundaries. If the most they can get at a by-election is 12.7% it's very unlikely they would get 10.4% at a general election.
It's going to have to be a progressive alliance / rainbow coalition.
The SNP is the potential problem there. I think a lot of centrist voters would put Lib/Lab, Lab majority and Lab/Lib/SNP in that order of preference so might peel off if the latter looks a likely outcome.
That only becomes an issue if the polls narrow, currently Labour wouldn't need the SNP.
And with Sarwar taking on the SNP, that narrative becomes less relevant
Comments
The so-called "massive rental income flow" is a bit of a self-perpetuating myth. The *entire turnover* of the Private Rental Sector - not the tax revenue which is a substantial fraction of it - is of the same order as the tax foregone on CGT on main dwellings to create *that* tax loophole.
I too find the hate politics visited on pensioners to be despicable, especially since millions of them only have the basic state pension.
Suspect that the 'evil wealthy thieving pensioners' that exist in the minds of bigots (think Fred the Shred) are a tiny, tiny fraction - perhaps 1-5% - of all pensioners.
Far better to boost wealth taxes on an equitable basis across the board, rather than generate inter-generational hate.
I would say that NI on pensioner earnings, Basic Rate tax relief only on pension contributions, and perhaps the removal of the lower NI insurance ceiling on higher incomes are relative no brainers.
He tells @BBCWorldatOne: “the best person in the Conservative Party to judge the mood of both the electorate and the party is its Chairman…and the implications of his letter are very clear…the party and more importantly the country would be better off under new leadership.”
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1540307862295126016
"Shoot Bambi?"
‘This hasn’t happened before, despite everything’
https://twitter.com/alethaadu/status/1540308927082012672
"I remain completely loyal to the Conservative Party but I think the party and, even more importantly the country, would be better off under new leadership."
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/michael-howard-calls-for-boris-johnson-to-resign_uk_62b59c91e4b0cdccbe6a2879
Will Walden - Boris Johnson's former right hand man - doesn't hold back on his analysis.
#KayBurley FC https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1540263539646074881/video/1
I’m done with being a landlord, am selling up in the UK and buying to live in something out here.
If I was your counsellor I’d be pushing building up your resilience - and you would hate me for it.
As I have said before, he should agree to resign in x months time, once the party has elected his successor. Too tight now to have that successor ready by the autumn conference. But going "on his terms" (not really!) seems about the best he can engineer. No way he fights the next election as PM. Even if he were to be insane enough to call one now (which he isn't).
A modest but comfortable lifestyle can then be had for a much smaller income - so if people don't want to work themselves into the ground until state pension age then they don't have to. That kind of choice is becoming more common where I work. Might even do it myself in another few years' time.
The Tory assumption seems to be that only Tories stayed at home or voted for David Herdson, are we sure this is true?
Nandy is very good on WATO.
Lab/LD/Green - 55% to 60%
Tories - 30% to 35%.
The Tories just have to hope that the tactical voting we have seen in recent by-elections is not repeated in a general election. If it is they are in deep, deep trouble.
He uses it as an election starting gun...
But we can’t lapse from the never ending need of doing all the right things to feel resilient. Got to keep up the hard work hence the motto happiness must be earned.
I would hope it would help the debate a bit, by making it obvious that the EU is an ally, and countries like Russia are our enemy, but I don't think it will alone shift the dial.
https://twitter.com/BNHWalker/status/1540314893911457793
So Tories actually doing a lot worse than was predicted. Staying home is a route to a large Labour majority as in 1997
I didn't even get that far, I wondered whether Howard came out for remain and I missed it!
Tory MP Geoffrey Clifton Brown spells out to me on @timesradio what the 1922 committee will do next:
"There are there are two routes by which he could be persuaded to resign...1/4
"One is by the whole executive of the 1922 Committee, having taken into account the wider views of the entire parliamentary party, and then decide to change the rules. That is quite difficult, I think to change the rules in mid contest." 2/4
"Or the other way is for the majority of the cabinet to say that they have no confidence in the Prime Minister, in which case he would not be able to carry on. So I think there will be a lot of conversations taking place next week. And we'll have to see what happens." 3/4
Clifton-Brown adds: "I think what the prime minister needs to do is to come home and set out for the party, and for the country, how he intends to resolve the really serious situation that country is in."
No10 say PM is NOT coming home 4/4
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1540316123979292673
It is a not-happening event, as I believe young people say. No way. Apologies for contributing to the pointlessness.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1540313136967946243
25 grand a year in North no mortgage or kids=happiness
“I’m disappointed for our candidates and our party, but I’m getting on with my job of serving my constituents and seeking new trade opportunities. They and the country want delivery.”
Like Sunak, no mention of PM...
https://twitter.com/ionewells/status/1540319107605794816
• A 2022 general election
• The United States splitting
• A nationwide house price crash
• The Bakerloo line closing down
• Hillary Clinton being the 2024 Democratic candidate
Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.
And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.
But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.
The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.
See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:
https://news.sky.com/story/by-election-results-were-awful-for-the-tories-and-among-their-worst-defeats-since-1945-12639491
I'm guessing Test cricket is not your strongest suit
They need a swing of 10.4% on the current boundaries, probably slightly more on the new boundaries. If the most they can get at a by-election is 12.7% it's very unlikely they would get 10.4% at a general election.
It's going to have to be a progressive alliance / rainbow coalition.
The average age of a First Time Buyer currently ranges between about 30 (some provincial regions) and 33 (London), which means that around half are younger than that.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/jan/22/average-uk-first-time-buyer-is-now-older-than-30-says-halifax
And there have been more or less continuous aiui schemes available to make saving a 5% deposit tax free, and providing a loan for another 20% (40% in London) at no interest for 5 years.
The underlying issue is demand / supply balance, and (ironically) demand side subsidy of house price inflation, which needs to be unwound.
I am less inclined to believe this was pro-Conservative, anti-Labour bias but this foolish notion that some at the BBC have for absolute balance. "The Conservatives were hammered, and we have to report this, how can we balance the story? Ah yes..."
And with Sarwar taking on the SNP, that narrative becomes less relevant