On topic there is more chance of Elvis headlining Glastonbury next year with Buddy Holly and Eddy Cochrane.
If Boris is really saying that, it is nothing more than a mischievous sense of humour. He'll take the Chiltern Hundreds as soon as his successor is PM.
If Margaret didn't come back in the 90s I doubt Boris will in the 20s.
Winston did come back, which was a big mistake for the country as he was much too old and apathetic on domestic policy. But he didn't resign as party leader, had a huge and largely untarnished brand, and even with that didn't win the popular vote in '51.
It may be memories of when Cameron and Davis went to the membership. I think Cameron was behind then but turned it around to win convincingly. It could also be that on most scores Sunak does well (interview/debate performances, coming across as likeable, apparently persuasive in person).
Cameron was ahead among the members following his party conference speech, so it isn’t that.
It’s more likely that Truss is such a weirdo that (a) there’s a high chance of her doing something mind-blowingly stupid and ruling herself out and (b) nobody can quite believe the membership are going to be quite so stupid as to elect her plus (c) Sunak still has a clear lead among MPs which punters think may sway the members.
We have seen a turnaround already in this leadership election. Penny Mordaunt was cruising to the runoffs until she was done over by the papers.
Did she ever actually have the numbers with MPs though ? The papers (that the members read) are, unfortunately for Sunak, pretty much in the Truss camp
Penny Mordaunt, who reached odds-on in the betting for next Prime Minister, did have MPs' support. She was runner-up (to Rishi) in the first, second, third and forth ballots. In the fifth and final round, she was eight votes behind Liz Truss.
Mordaunt rather blew it with her relationship with the truth. She would have been better sticking to her mainstream views on trans issues and arguing that case. Alternatively she could have made the case that her views had shifted, instead she gave in to the Wokefinder General and humiliated herself.
I think she would have been found out fairly quickly in the top job if that was a representative bit of behaviour.
Mordaunt could have gotten away with it if it weren't for the pesky Mail and Sunday Times and leaks that definitely did not come from the Truss camp. Even then, it was noticeable that other ministers backed Mordaunt's account.
OT rant-ette: has anyone noticed the American "gotten" has crept back across the Atlantic and is now in common use by younger politicians and pundits?
Anyone beyond Barty think Truss would do a good job? Would be interested to hear why
I think she could do well enough to win the next election. This isn't the same as doing a good job, as the two things are distinct, but political parties often confused them for understandable reasons.
The why is that I think she shares some of the qualities that enabled Johnson to win the 2019 general election. Shamelessness, audacity, telling people what they want to hear, being among the most notable.
I see the moron Bravermans own department have contradicted the latest garbage spewing out of her mouth .
During the leadership campaign she said that the UK would have to leave the ECHR as the Rwanda policy could fall foul of that , only a few weeks earlier apparently the policy wouldn’t clash with that .
Now her dept have said the Rwanda policy is legal and the ECHR isn’t an issue .
We are likely to see much more of Braverman as she’s likely to remain in the cabinet and possibly get a promotion !
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
I don't think that's it.
In party primaries, it's much more common to see a big change in support than in General Elections.
Truss has already been seen in two TV debates, and, although there are two more to come, they are unlikely to move the dial unless she soils herself on stage.
There are twelve hustings across the UK with (what?) a capacity of 400-500 people in each? So, that might reach 6,000 members direct - max - out of nearly 200,000, or about 3% of them, assuming they're filled to capacity.
The markets keep pricing in a big event or revelation to move the dial.
I don't think there is one.
Be aware, the hustings are available on Zoom to those who haven't yet made up their minds.....
(Although how there is anybody who thinks Truss better than Sunak is the mystery of our times.)
🙋♂️
I stopped supporting the Tories because less than 12 months ago Sunak hiked taxes, which I thought was a gross mistake.
Liz is promising to reverse those tax hikes. I support that.
I think it would be better if those taxes were never hiked, but I don't think reducing tax hikes that were announced less than a year ago is a bad idea.
Truss is promising unicorns for all. She'll end up saying "Oh, the tax rises were needed after all. Who knew?"
I have zero confidence in her ability as PM. End of.
Didn't you vehemently oppose the tax rises at the time? Do you now think they were needed after all?
Even without Laffer effects cancelling Sunaks planned pre election Income Tax cut would raise more than half the money for reversing the NI tax hike and crucially would take a small step restore the balance towards those who work for a living rather than living off unearned incomes that don't face NI.
What's missing from Truss is her plan to balance the books.
I don't have any issue with reversing the NI tax rise (only 3 months old) nor cancelling the planned increase in corporation tax.
But, if she's going to do that, she has to say how she's going to get public debt under control - and not just say it'll sort itself out.
Last night I had an experience (tm). On three occasions over the last ten or so years, I have eaten rich, dark chocolate at a restaurant and almost immediately become ill. In one case before I finished the pudding, I feel nauseous (though I am never sick), and light-headed. About half an hour to two hours later, I start shivering and shaking and become disoriented. My BP is relatively normal, as are my oxygen levels. In all cases I had had either no alcohol with the meal, or small amounts.
It happened again last night. We were out for a meal with my parents, and Mrs J and I had a very delicious dark chocolate pudding. I was too unwell to drive home, and went straight to bed. Apparently I started shaking violently - Mrs J said it was like a fit - whilst I was asleep, which I cannot remember. I am absolutely fine this morning.
I eat various rich foods on occasion, but it only seems to be dark chocolate puddings that cause it, especially at good restaurants (the one we were at last night is in the 'Top 50 Gastropubs 2022'). Am I allergic to large restaurant bills?
I've had a couple of diabetes tests during that time, and they show no problems. Has anyone any idea what else it might be, or experienced similar? I *think* I'm fairly fit and healthy.
I'm with the others - allergy test and ask the restaurant for a list of ingredients.
All the best.
I'm quite enjoying the posts backhandedly questioning whether you are some exotic variety of labrador .
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
I have a bridge for sale.
To be fair, my firm (one of the Big 4) has said tax cuts could act as a stimulus.
Wow! 👉 “Even cabinet ministers are openly speculating about whether the party needs a period in opposition to regroup after becoming marred by scandal.”👇
Classic error: thinking that Opposition helps your party. Examples of the opposite are rife. Just ask Cathy Jamieson, Wendy Alexander, Iain Gray, Johann Lamont, Jim Murphy, Kezia Dugdale, Alex Rowley, Jackie Baillie, Richard Leonard and Anas Sarwar.
In this case you need clean skins; as in long enough that the next tory PM is from the 2019 or later intake.
One problem with that theory: by the 2030s PR will disallow single-party majorities. Without thuggery holding them together, the Tories will simply drift apart. The ones not frothing at the mouth will survive.
In Ireland FF and FG have often been able to govern in coalition with relatively minor parties, or Independents, despite the use of STV in Irish general elections. The same would be true in Britain, as there are often enough votes for the Tories in Britain.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
It’s hard to see how Boris comes back. Because the next PM is going to fight the election most surely. And even if not, this group of MPs would not bring him back to face the members.
So let’s say Truss / Rishi lose the election. Boris is not going to be a LOTO figure for a 4-5 year stint. He wouldn’t want it and wouldn’t ever be given the job.
So it would need just the right balance in Parliament that forebodes a terminally short Starmer govt. But with just the right mix of MPs eliminated from the voting pool for him to make it past the vote.
Or, for him to quietly sit on the backbenchers for 3-4 years, hope that the successor to Truss/Rishi does an Amber Heard to the bed and then he takes over just before a putative 2029 election.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
I don't think that's it.
In party primaries, it's much more common to see a big change in support than in General Elections.
Truss has already been seen in two TV debates, and, although there are two more to come, they are unlikely to move the dial unless she soils herself on stage.
There are twelve hustings across the UK with (what?) a capacity of 400-500 people in each? So, that might reach 6,000 members direct - max - out of nearly 200,000, or about 3% of them, assuming they're filled to capacity.
The markets keep pricing in a big event or revelation to move the dial.
I don't think there is one.
Be aware, the hustings are available on Zoom to those who haven't yet made up their minds.....
(Although how there is anybody who thinks Truss better than Sunak is the mystery of our times.)
🙋♂️
I stopped supporting the Tories because less than 12 months ago Sunak hiked taxes, which I thought was a gross mistake.
Liz is promising to reverse those tax hikes. I support that.
I think it would be better if those taxes were never hiked, but I don't think reducing tax hikes that were announced less than a year ago is a bad idea.
Truss is promising unicorns for all. She'll end up saying "Oh, the tax rises were needed after all. Who knew?"
I have zero confidence in her ability as PM. End of.
Didn't you vehemently oppose the tax rises at the time? Do you now think they were needed after all?
Even without Laffer effects cancelling Sunaks planned pre election Income Tax cut would raise more than half the money for reversing the NI tax hike and crucially would take a small step restore the balance towards those who work for a living rather than living off unearned incomes that don't face NI.
What's missing from Truss is her plan to balance the books.
I don't have any issue with reversing the NI tax rise (only 3 months old) nor cancelling the planned increase in corporation tax.
But, if she's going to do that, she has to say how she's going to get public debt under control - and not just say it'll sort itself out.
All leaders will make tough choices in office. I doubt Liz wants to say what they are now if she can get away with not saying them, but that doesn't mean she won't make any.
The difference is for me Sunak chose the worst possible taxes to hike for all the reasons we discussed at the time. I'd rather see Income Tax raised because that falls on everyone's shoulders than NI. Sunak is compounding that mistake by pre scheduling a pre election giveaway to those who aren't working by slashing Income Tax while hiking NI.
Yes backing Liz is a bit of a gamble as to what tough choices she'd make instead. It's a gamble I'd be prepared to take.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
I don't think that's it.
In party primaries, it's much more common to see a big change in support than in General Elections.
Truss has already been seen in two TV debates, and, although there are two more to come, they are unlikely to move the dial unless she soils herself on stage.
There are twelve hustings across the UK with (what?) a capacity of 400-500 people in each? So, that might reach 6,000 members direct - max - out of nearly 200,000, or about 3% of them, assuming they're filled to capacity.
The markets keep pricing in a big event or revelation to move the dial.
I don't think there is one.
Be aware, the hustings are available on Zoom to those who haven't yet made up their minds.....
(Although how there is anybody who thinks Truss better than Sunak is the mystery of our times.)
🙋♂️
I stopped supporting the Tories because less than 12 months ago Sunak hiked taxes, which I thought was a gross mistake.
Liz is promising to reverse those tax hikes. I support that.
I think it would be better if those taxes were never hiked, but I don't think reducing tax hikes that were announced less than a year ago is a bad idea.
Truss is promising unicorns for all. She'll end up saying "Oh, the tax rises were needed after all. Who knew?"
I have zero confidence in her ability as PM. End of.
Didn't you vehemently oppose the tax rises at the time? Do you now think they were needed after all?
Even without Laffer effects cancelling Sunaks planned pre election Income Tax cut would raise more than half the money for reversing the NI tax hike and crucially would take a small step restore the balance towards those who work for a living rather than living off unearned incomes that don't face NI.
What's missing from Truss is her plan to balance the books.
I don't have any issue with reversing the NI tax rise (only 3 months old) nor cancelling the planned increase in corporation tax.
But, if she's going to do that, she has to say how she's going to get public debt under control - and not just say it'll sort itself out.
Absolutely. It's here where Sunak could prosper in the debates. Assuming, of course, that enough members care enough.
It may be memories of when Cameron and Davis went to the membership. I think Cameron was behind then but turned it around to win convincingly. It could also be that on most scores Sunak does well (interview/debate performances, coming across as likeable, apparently persuasive in person).
Cameron was ahead among the members following his party conference speech, so it isn’t that.
It’s more likely that Truss is such a weirdo that (a) there’s a high chance of her doing something mind-blowingly stupid and ruling herself out and (b) nobody can quite believe the membership are going to be quite so stupid as to elect her plus (c) Sunak still has a clear lead among MPs which punters think may sway the members.
We have seen a turnaround already in this leadership election. Penny Mordaunt was cruising to the runoffs until she was done over by the papers.
Did she ever actually have the numbers with MPs though ? The papers (that the members read) are, unfortunately for Sunak, pretty much in the Truss camp
Penny Mordaunt, who reached odds-on in the betting for next Prime Minister, did have MPs' support. She was runner-up (to Rishi) in the first, second, third and forth ballots. In the fifth and final round, she was eight votes behind Liz Truss.
Mordaunt rather blew it with her relationship with the truth. She would have been better sticking to her mainstream views on trans issues and arguing that case. Alternatively she could have made the case that her views had shifted, instead she gave in to the Wokefinder General and humiliated herself.
I think she would have been found out fairly quickly in the top job if that was a representative bit of behaviour.
Mordaunt could have gotten away with it if it weren't for the pesky Mail and Sunday Times and leaks that definitely did not come from the Truss camp. Even then, it was noticeable that other ministers backed Mordaunt's account.
OT rant-ette: has anyone noticed the American "gotten" has crept back across the Atlantic and is now in common use by younger politicians and pundits?
Gotten is a venerable form used in Old English, and the King James Bible, so crept back is correct. It is an archaic form that survived in America.
I'm more interested in the "Second Going of Boris Johnson".
In the hugely unlikely event he comes back how long will the Conservatives or the country realise he's even worse than first time round and give him the boot?
How often when a football club brings back a previously successful Manager for a second spell is it as successful as the first time?
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
"If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely. "
Am I alone in thinking that this so-called yearning for and possible return of Johnson is a kind of a rewind of Trumpism? If so, are we going to see our own January 6th?
What I'd find really helpful for my betting is a breakdown of Conservative Party membership demographics.
I'm assuming those still in work and paying off mortgages will go for Sunak, but will be outnumbered by those 55+ who do neither and rather fancy higher interest on their savings.
Last night I had an experience (tm). On three occasions over the last ten or so years, I have eaten rich, dark chocolate at a restaurant and almost immediately become ill. In one case before I finished the pudding, I feel nauseous (though I am never sick), and light-headed. About half an hour to two hours later, I start shivering and shaking and become disoriented. My BP is relatively normal, as are my oxygen levels. In all cases I had had either no alcohol with the meal, or small amounts.
It happened again last night. We were out for a meal with my parents, and Mrs J and I had a very delicious dark chocolate pudding. I was too unwell to drive home, and went straight to bed. Apparently I started shaking violently - Mrs J said it was like a fit - whilst I was asleep, which I cannot remember. I am absolutely fine this morning.
I eat various rich foods on occasion, but it only seems to be dark chocolate puddings that cause it, especially at good restaurants (the one we were at last night is in the 'Top 50 Gastropubs 2022'). Am I allergic to large restaurant bills?
I've had a couple of diabetes tests during that time, and they show no problems. Has anyone any idea what else it might be, or experienced similar? I *think* I'm fairly fit and healthy.
I'm with the others - allergy test and ask the restaurant for a list of ingredients.
All the best.
I'm quite enjoying the posts backhandedly questioning whether you are some exotic variety of labrador .
Thanks.
Which advert had a byline of 'I'll be your dog' ? Kia-ora?
I have one existing allergy; to E102 Tartrazine, which used to bring me out in rashes and make me hyperactive. Nowadays it just makes me hyperactive, but I think it's pretty rare in foodstuffs now. It use to be in the really yellow fake ice creams back in the 1980s. Yes, I was allergic to some ice creams...
It appears I'm still not quite right this am - I went to the shop, and on the way back I walked into a hedge. This is not quite normal behaviour, even for me ...
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Indeed there's no units because it's a theoretical concept and theoretical concepts don't come with units. You need a plethora of further data to plot out the chart and it's shape.
Supply and demand doesn't come with generic units on the axes either because supply and demand will chart differently depending many factors but that doesn't mean the concept isn't legitimate.
If you want take home pay to go up then cutting NI is giving a pay hike to everyone who works, and doing so outside of pay negotiating schedules so that everyone working benefits. It is better than uplifting base pay rates which will need negotiations all over the economy and will set an inflationary baseline and expectations for future negotiations too.
If/When Truss is made leader there will be a leadership election next summer imho.
She will be a disaster. Out of her depth. She the worst of Johnson's fantasy politics combined with robotic May Bot public skills and the likely popularity of IDS.
Truss will totally bomb with the public.
The membership must be mad to be even considering her let alone make her favourite.
These days I am hearing of more and more people having their solar power not "measurable" ie not connected to the grid. And used in combination with battery or heat battery storage to cover regular loads. The costs of grid connection add quite a lot, but some special tariffs for eg electric cars are becoming available.
Suspect it also used to happen in Spain when they used to have a special tax on people with solar panels to make up for the income they were no longer providing to the state electricity company. If your panels were not grid connected, the tax was not levied.
A similar thing happens with heat pumps - DIY installs are attractive because most of the grant seems to go on installer charges suddenly increasing. There are also some peculiar restrictions on whether you can run it backwards in cooling mode under certain conditions. Some heat pumps for the UK market are deliberately crippled in software (or hardware) to prevent use of cooling mode - with eg maintainer level access needed to get around the restriction.
What I'd find really helpful for my betting is a breakdown of Conservative Party membership demographics.
I'm assuming those still in work and paying off mortgages will go for Sunak, but will be outnumbered by those 55+ who do neither and rather fancy higher interest on their savings.
Am I alone in thinking that this so-called yearning for and possible return of Johnson is a kind of a rewind of Trumpism? If so, are we going to see our own January 6th?
Doubt it. No one owns guns in this country and the number of members of loony alt-right militias can be counted in the low dozens and all are being watched by MI5 I suspect.
But is a version of Trump in the sense of not accepting defeat.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Indeed there's no units because it's a theoretical concept and theoretical concepts don't come with units. You need a plethora of further data to plot out the chart and it's shape.
Supply and demand doesn't come with generic units on the axes either because supply and demand will chart differently depending many factors but that doesn't mean the concept isn't legitimate.
If you want take home pay to go up then cutting NI is giving a pay hike to everyone who works, and doing so outside of pay negotiating schedules so that everyone working benefits. It is better than uplifting base pay rates which will need negotiations all over the economy and will set an inflationary baseline and expectations for future negotiations too.
Telepathy is a theoretical concept and you're not convincing me of that one either.
What I'd find really helpful for my betting is a breakdown of Conservative Party membership demographics.
I'm assuming those still in work and paying off mortgages will go for Sunak, but will be outnumbered by those 55+ who do neither and rather fancy higher interest on their savings.
Actually Truss wins 53% of Tory members 18 to 49, 69% of Tory members 50 to 64 and 64% of Tory members over 65
Am I alone in thinking that this so-called yearning for and possible return of Johnson is a kind of a rewind of Trumpism? If so, are we going to see our own January 6th?
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
I don't think that's it.
In party primaries, it's much more common to see a big change in support than in General Elections.
Truss has already been seen in two TV debates, and, although there are two more to come, they are unlikely to move the dial unless she soils herself on stage.
There are twelve hustings across the UK with (what?) a capacity of 400-500 people in each? So, that might reach 6,000 members direct - max - out of nearly 200,000, or about 3% of them, assuming they're filled to capacity.
The markets keep pricing in a big event or revelation to move the dial.
I don't think there is one.
Be aware, the hustings are available on Zoom to those who haven't yet made up their minds.....
(Although how there is anybody who thinks Truss better than Sunak is the mystery of our times.)
🙋♂️
I stopped supporting the Tories because less than 12 months ago Sunak hiked taxes, which I thought was a gross mistake.
Liz is promising to reverse those tax hikes. I support that.
I think it would be better if those taxes were never hiked, but I don't think reducing tax hikes that were announced less than a year ago is a bad idea.
Truss is promising unicorns for all. She'll end up saying "Oh, the tax rises were needed after all. Who knew?"
I have zero confidence in her ability as PM. End of.
Didn't you vehemently oppose the tax rises at the time? Do you now think they were needed after all?
Even without Laffer effects cancelling Sunaks planned pre election Income Tax cut would raise more than half the money for reversing the NI tax hike and crucially would take a small step restore the balance towards those who work for a living rather than living off unearned incomes that don't face NI.
What's missing from Truss is her plan to balance the books.
I don't have any issue with reversing the NI tax rise (only 3 months old) nor cancelling the planned increase in corporation tax.
But, if she's going to do that, she has to say how she's going to get public debt under control - and not just say it'll sort itself out.
Absolutely. It's here where Sunak could prosper in the debates. Assuming, of course, that enough members care enough.
They don't. They just want to be tucked up under their blankets and told a nice fairytale and reassured that pension is safe and their property wealth is protected from IHT and the migrants will all be sent packing.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
It definitely exists, the problem being that there are no units on either axis, so no one knows at what point we are on the curve, so it is not a useful tool in deciding whether higher or lower taxes would be better for government revenue.
The demographic aging, and need to fund decent pensions, health care and other services as a result means that state spending will have to go up in the next decade. Financing that gap is not easily matched with tax cuts.
All parties claim that economic growth because of their wise economic management will close that gap, but the evidence of that being possible is not well grounded in recent economic history. We have not grown enough, look like we are going to contract GDP on current trajectory, have failed on productivity, hence the combination of high taxes and threadbare public services.
As Mrs Thatcher might say, we have been living beyond our means, and must tighten our belts.
It definitely exists, the problem being that there are no units on either axis, so no one knows at what point we are on the curve, so it is not a useful tool in deciding whether higher or lower taxes would be better for government revenue.
We also don't know if it is a curve. The only 2 points we know for sure are 0% and 100%. Everything inbetween is a guess.
An ally of the former leadership contender suggested that as education secretary she could be a significant reforming figure like Michael Gove, who held the post between 2010 and 2014.
Can anyone think of an ally of Kemi who talks to the press and was previously an education secretary called Michael Gove?
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Yes - that's great, assuming that you do not lose one storey of the car park.
The best places are warehouse, shopping centre roofs and so on, and perhaps airfields - rather than preventing food production.
Another exellent idea is embedded in-roof, where the same area of roof tiles is not used.
I know of one case where in a Conservation Area opposite a listed building, the Conservation Officer fought a battle to prevent solar panels, then in-roof were installed (black panels in a tiled roof. CO visited owner after the build and commented how glad he was they had been prevented. When it was pointed out that they were there and he had not noticed, CO had the good sense to change his policy.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
I don't think that's it.
In party primaries, it's much more common to see a big change in support than in General Elections.
Truss has already been seen in two TV debates, and, although there are two more to come, they are unlikely to move the dial unless she soils herself on stage.
There are twelve hustings across the UK with (what?) a capacity of 400-500 people in each? So, that might reach 6,000 members direct - max - out of nearly 200,000, or about 3% of them, assuming they're filled to capacity.
The markets keep pricing in a big event or revelation to move the dial.
I don't think there is one.
Be aware, the hustings are available on Zoom to those who haven't yet made up their minds.....
(Although how there is anybody who thinks Truss better than Sunak is the mystery of our times.)
Thanks. That being the case, I might watch one.
I certainly think Truss will be better than Sunak in foreign policy and defence, but I think her economic policy reckless - so it will be Sunak for me.
Maybe it's comments like this from me, you and other longstanding members that align with the predispositions of centrist-pundits that are deflating her price?
I'm bemused by you and others suggesting that her reversing tax hikes made less than twelve months ago is reckless.
At the time of the tax hikes you, me and almost every independently thinking right wingers said the tax hikes were a terrible, terrible idea.
I stand by what I said then and want them reversed. Given less than twelve months have passed, why don't you want them reversing anymore? Do you now think hiking those taxes was the right idea, or do you just think it's too late to reverse the mistake now?
I think the problem is now one of timing. Tax cuts as proposed cannot affect the CoL before the autumn cap hits, and it will be a big rise. Cuts in petrol/diesel are about the only one that could impact in time.
It is more a matter of bracing for impact, everything else is cloud cuckoo land.
Reverting NI so that everyone who works for a living keeps more of their own money absolutely does help with CoL.
Especially reverting back to a tax rate that existed only a few months ago.
You make a strong case, but what about the reason why tax rates were put up? How does the Government balance income vs. spending? There are 3 options: borrow money, cut spending, raise tax income. Truss’s choice of the first is novel territory for the Conservative Party. Her argument that cutting taxes will raise tax income via greater growth is risible.
It definitely exists, the problem being that there are no units on either axis, so no one knows at what point we are on the curve, so it is not a useful tool in deciding whether higher or lower taxes would be better for government revenue.
We also don't know if it is a curve. The only 2 points we know for sure are 0% and 100%. Everything inbetween is a guess.
Well. Unless it's a straight line (and it isn't because the government does raise tax revenue) it must be some kind of curve. I presume you mean smooth? I have my doubts about the 100% too.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
One of my Greek colleagues has a poor quality wheat farm in Greek Macedonia, with no irrigation apart from natural rain, so low yield. He has just signed a 30 year lease with an electricity company for a solar farm. Much better income and much less work than harvesting in the sun, even with current wheat prices.
In response to criticism of Liz Truss's tax plans from Thatcher-era ministers, Therese Coffey says "I'm not going to exchange comments with people who haven't been in govt for a very long time" & suggests the Tory grandees in question weren't in the original 1979 cabinet. https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1551126819826458624
Somebody who hasn't been in cabinet recently can't criticise my opinion of someone who is long dead...
In response to criticism of Liz Truss's tax plans from Thatcher-era ministers, Therese Coffey says "I'm not going to exchange comments with people who haven't been in govt for a very long time" & suggests the Tory grandees in question weren't in the original 1979 cabinet. https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1551126819826458624
Somebody who hasn't been in cabinet recently can't criticise my opinion of someone who is long dead...
But you and Liz have been in Government for a long time and what you've done has failed, by your own admission.
It seems to me that Liz Truss has fundamental disagreements with Tory policy since 2010, where if she'd been running as leader in that election she'd have been closer to Brown than Cameron.
So my question is, why would you run and praise a platform for 13 years afterwards, if you feel so strongly the country is going in the wrong direction?
Well. Unless it's a straight line (and it isn't because the government does raise tax revenue) it must be some kind of curve. I presume you mean smooth? I have my doubts about the 100% too.
I mean we don't know if it rises and falls in a single smooth curve, or if there are peaks and valleys. There may in fact be step changes. Can it go below zero?
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
I don't think that's it.
In party primaries, it's much more common to see a big change in support than in General Elections.
Truss has already been seen in two TV debates, and, although there are two more to come, they are unlikely to move the dial unless she soils herself on stage.
There are twelve hustings across the UK with (what?) a capacity of 400-500 people in each? So, that might reach 6,000 members direct - max - out of nearly 200,000, or about 3% of them, assuming they're filled to capacity.
The markets keep pricing in a big event or revelation to move the dial.
I don't think there is one.
Be aware, the hustings are available on Zoom to those who haven't yet made up their minds.....
(Although how there is anybody who thinks Truss better than Sunak is the mystery of our times.)
🙋♂️
I stopped supporting the Tories because less than 12 months ago Sunak hiked taxes, which I thought was a gross mistake.
Liz is promising to reverse those tax hikes. I support that.
I think it would be better if those taxes were never hiked, but I don't think reducing tax hikes that were announced less than a year ago is a bad idea.
Truss is promising unicorns for all. She'll end up saying "Oh, the tax rises were needed after all. Who knew?"
I have zero confidence in her ability as PM. End of.
You are in very much the same predicament many of us on the other side of the fence were in during the Corbyn nightmare. In my case I stopped delivering leaflets and paying my subscription. I have done neither since, and I doubt I will ever do so again.
When one realises one's own side is absolutely useless one becomes more open minded and less partisan. I doubt I could ever vote Conservative, but I am open to persuasion should the left of both Labour and the Conservatives retake their respective parties at the same time.
There is also I suspect some satisfaction in drawing a huge c*ck and balls on the ballot paper. In Wales we don't have to do that as we can just put a cross next to the Plaid Cymru candidate's name. It's much the same thing though
What I'd find really helpful for my betting is a breakdown of Conservative Party membership demographics.
I'm assuming those still in work and paying off mortgages will go for Sunak, but will be outnumbered by those 55+ who do neither and rather fancy higher interest on their savings.
It did occur to me the other day that much of the tory payroll vote have got to the point where they would privately benefit from higher interest rates.
Well. Unless it's a straight line (and it isn't because the government does raise tax revenue) it must be some kind of curve. I presume you mean smooth? I have my doubts about the 100% too.
I mean we don't know if it rises and falls in a single smooth curve, or if there are peaks and valleys. There may in fact be step changes. Can it go below zero?
We know almost nothing about it, as it is only a theory.
The reason Boris won't be coming back is he hitched his wagon to the Net Zero 2050 hard target.
I suspect events this winter will make that policy rather less appealing than it is right now. To put it very mildly.
Net Zero 2050 is popular with Conservative voters, according to the polls.
The sooner we end our dependence on imported fossil fuels the better for economic and energy security, quite apart from the environmental benefits. Hydrocarbons are too valuable chemically to just burn.
It seems to me that Liz Truss has fundamental disagreements with Tory policy since 2010, where if she'd been running as leader in that election she'd have been closer to Brown than Cameron.
So my question is, why would you run and praise a platform for 13 years afterwards, if you feel so strongly the country is going in the wrong direction?
She is just a massive opportunist who will say whatever is needed at a particular time.
Rawnsley in today's Observer lays out all the twists and u-turns she has taken in her political life.
What I'd find really helpful for my betting is a breakdown of Conservative Party membership demographics.
I'm assuming those still in work and paying off mortgages will go for Sunak, but will be outnumbered by those 55+ who do neither and rather fancy higher interest on their savings.
Actually Truss wins 53% of Tory members 18 to 49, 69% of Tory members 50 to 64 and 64% of Tory members over 65
Thanks, but that sort of supports my point - her lead in working age Tories is tiny, and could easily slip to Sunak, whereas it is massive for over 50s.
It seems to me that Liz Truss has fundamental disagreements with Tory policy since 2010, where if she'd been running as leader in that election she'd have been closer to Brown than Cameron.
So my question is, why would you run and praise a platform for 13 years afterwards, if you feel so strongly the country is going in the wrong direction?
Collective responsibility. Boris ran for election against the Cameron and May governments that he had, at least in principle, supported. Probably something similar is true in most cases.
Johnson could well come back. If you think about his resignation speech, he said that the party had got it wrong because he was a winner. Cummings has also been saying that Johnson will try and stay. He is passing on a poisoned chalice to Truss. If she bombs in the polls he can present himself as the parties saviour again.... well it could all happen couldn't it. It is a long shot but an easily foreseeable scenario.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
It seems to me that Liz Truss has fundamental disagreements with Tory policy since 2010, where if she'd been running as leader in that election she'd have been closer to Brown than Cameron.
So my question is, why would you run and praise a platform for 13 years afterwards, if you feel so strongly the country is going in the wrong direction?
Collective responsibility. Boris ran for election against the Cameron and May governments that he had, at least in principle, supported. Probably something similar is true in most cases.
Being in company with Johnson isn't a good thing?
It seems like Truss is contrary to the Tory Party itself?
This isn't policy differences, this feels like fundamental ideological differences with the party and what it stood/stands for.
The reason Boris won't be coming back is he hitched his wagon to the Net Zero 2050 hard target.
I suspect events this winter will make that policy rather less appealing than it is right now. To put it very mildly.
You do talk some nonsense.
You must be disappointed all the Tory candidates pledged to support net zero.
Supporting net zero is one thing. Supporting a hard target by 2050 at all costs is quite another.
Prepare to be disappointed in those tory 'pledges' when government is pleading with people to freeze themselves for the planet in January and the rolling blackouts start.
It definitely exists, the problem being that there are no units on either axis, so no one knows at what point we are on the curve, so it is not a useful tool in deciding whether higher or lower taxes would be better for government revenue.
We also don't know if it is a curve. The only 2 points we know for sure are 0% and 100%. Everything inbetween is a guess.
Even 100% you can't be sure of.
A totalitarian state that taxed at 100% and distributed all food goods etc to the people and would not have zero income.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
It definitely exists, the problem being that there are no units on either axis, so no one knows at what point we are on the curve, so it is not a useful tool in deciding whether higher or lower taxes would be better for government revenue.
The demographic aging, and need to fund decent pensions, health care and other services as a result means that state spending will have to go up in the next decade. Financing that gap is not easily matched with tax cuts.
All parties claim that economic growth because of their wise economic management will close that gap, but the evidence of that being possible is not well grounded in recent economic history. We have not grown enough, look like we are going to contract GDP on current trajectory, have failed on productivity, hence the combination of high taxes and threadbare public services.
As Mrs Thatcher might say, we have been living beyond our means, and must tighten our belts.
But, then it acts as a general drag on the economy.
If you increase tax to pay, say, for extra spending on pensions and the NHS, then you are taking resources away from the productive part of the economy to pay for the non-productive, which will lower growth.
Johnson could well come back. If you think about his resignation speech, he said that the party had got it wrong because he was a winner. Cummings has also been saying that Johnson will try and stay. He is passing on a poisoned chalice to Truss. If she bombs in the polls he can present himself as the parties saviour again.... well it could all happen couldn't it. It is a long shot but an easily foreseeable scenario.
It's one reason why saner tories may be hoping the that Standards Committee gives Bozo a 10+ day ban from the commons.
It seems to me that Liz Truss has fundamental disagreements with Tory policy since 2010, where if she'd been running as leader in that election she'd have been closer to Brown than Cameron.
So my question is, why would you run and praise a platform for 13 years afterwards, if you feel so strongly the country is going in the wrong direction?
The tax rises she's proposing reversing were put into place less than 12 months ago. So she's not looking at rolling back 12 years of policy.
Indeed amongst the first thing George Osborne did when becoming Chancellor at the point of there being "no money left" was to cut corporation tax and reverse an NI tax hike.
It amuses me those who held George Osborne in high esteem, some even calling him a "near perfect Chancellor" now chastising Truss for having the same policy of reversing the jobs tax hike and cutting corporation tax.
It seems to me that Liz Truss has fundamental disagreements with Tory policy since 2010, where if she'd been running as leader in that election she'd have been closer to Brown than Cameron.
So my question is, why would you run and praise a platform for 13 years afterwards, if you feel so strongly the country is going in the wrong direction?
The tax rises she's proposing reversing were put into place less than 12 months ago. So she's not looking at rolling back 12 years of policy.
Indeed amongst the first thing George Osborne did when becoming Chancellor at the point of there being "no money left" was to cut corporation tax and reverse an NI tax hike.
It amuses me those who held George Osborne in high esteem, some even calling him a "near perfect Chancellor" now chastising Truss for having the same policy of reversing the jobs tax hike and cutting corporation tax.
Osborne was awful, he implemented austerity and destroyed the economy.
It seems to me that Liz Truss has fundamental disagreements with Tory policy since 2010, where if she'd been running as leader in that election she'd have been closer to Brown than Cameron.
So my question is, why would you run and praise a platform for 13 years afterwards, if you feel so strongly the country is going in the wrong direction?
She is just a massive opportunist who will say whatever is needed at a particular time.
Rawnsley in today's Observer lays out all the twists and u-turns she has taken in her political life.
... and yet it could have been so much worse had Cruella prevailed.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
"If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely. "
95% of people don't have that luxury of course.
Oh, it exists at all levels.
For one thing, it prevents people moving from benefits into work at the lowest-end, because the benefit withdrawal rate is 60%+.
For regular average-Joe in the economy, it can be the difference between him deciding to take a risk to start-up a new business, work for a SME in a new technology field, or just that steady, predictable 9-5 in the local council.
Johnson could well come back. If you think about his resignation speech, he said that the party had got it wrong because he was a winner. Cummings has also been saying that Johnson will try and stay. He is passing on a poisoned chalice to Truss. If she bombs in the polls he can present himself as the parties saviour again.... well it could all happen couldn't it. It is a long shot but an easily foreseeable scenario.
It's one reason why saner tories may be hoping the that Standards Committee gives Bozo a 10+ day ban from the commons.
That wouldn't necessarily be terminal for him though would it?
If I were the next Tory leader I'd find a way to take the whip away from Johnson and/or prevent him being selected for another seat in the future.
Johnson could well come back. If you think about his resignation speech, he said that the party had got it wrong because he was a winner. Cummings has also been saying that Johnson will try and stay. He is passing on a poisoned chalice to Truss. If she bombs in the polls he can present himself as the parties saviour again.... well it could all happen couldn't it. It is a long shot but an easily foreseeable scenario.
By the time he thinks about coming back Kemi will be the established leader in waiting.
Politicians cannot grasp that, in a democracy, the public uses them as tools. The voters used Johnson to get Brexit done. He did. Now they want other things that he cannot or will not deliver.
It seems to me that Liz Truss has fundamental disagreements with Tory policy since 2010, where if she'd been running as leader in that election she'd have been closer to Brown than Cameron.
So my question is, why would you run and praise a platform for 13 years afterwards, if you feel so strongly the country is going in the wrong direction?
The tax rises she's proposing reversing were put into place less than 12 months ago. So she's not looking at rolling back 12 years of policy.
Indeed amongst the first thing George Osborne did when becoming Chancellor at the point of there being "no money left" was to cut corporation tax and reverse an NI tax hike.
It amuses me those who held George Osborne in high esteem, some even calling him a "near perfect Chancellor" now chastising Truss for having the same policy of reversing the jobs tax hike and cutting corporation tax.
Osborne was awful, he implemented austerity and destroyed the economy.
But he was competent at that.
What austerity? Spending rose.
If you want to look at real austerity look on the continent at Greece etc where spending actually fell.
It seems to me that Liz Truss has fundamental disagreements with Tory policy since 2010, where if she'd been running as leader in that election she'd have been closer to Brown than Cameron.
So my question is, why would you run and praise a platform for 13 years afterwards, if you feel so strongly the country is going in the wrong direction?
The tax rises she's proposing reversing were put into place less than 12 months ago. So she's not looking at rolling back 12 years of policy.
Indeed amongst the first thing George Osborne did when becoming Chancellor at the point of there being "no money left" was to cut corporation tax and reverse an NI tax hike.
It amuses me those who held George Osborne in high esteem, some even calling him a "near perfect Chancellor" now chastising Truss for having the same policy of reversing the jobs tax hike and cutting corporation tax.
Osborne was awful, he implemented austerity and destroyed the economy.
But he was competent at that.
What austerity? Spending rose.
If you want to look at real austerity look on the continent at Greece etc where spending actually fell.
I'll ask the local councils how their spending rose during that period. Let's ask the SureStart centres how they're doing.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
It definitely exists, the problem being that there are no units on either axis, so no one knows at what point we are on the curve, so it is not a useful tool in deciding whether higher or lower taxes would be better for government revenue.
The demographic aging, and need to fund decent pensions, health care and other services as a result means that state spending will have to go up in the next decade. Financing that gap is not easily matched with tax cuts.
All parties claim that economic growth because of their wise economic management will close that gap, but the evidence of that being possible is not well grounded in recent economic history. We have not grown enough, look like we are going to contract GDP on current trajectory, have failed on productivity, hence the combination of high taxes and threadbare public services.
As Mrs Thatcher might say, we have been living beyond our means, and must tighten our belts.
But, then it acts as a general drag on the economy.
If you increase tax to pay, say, for extra spending on pensions and the NHS, then you are taking resources away from the productive part of the economy to pay for the non-productive, which will lower growth.
Not nessecarily. Just because an economic activity takes place in the state sector doesn't mean it is unproductive. Much of the increase in GDP in recent figures were due to increased numbers of GP appointments for example.
Why should a private consultation with me be considered a productive task, but an NHS one not? Both are more economically useful than some private sector middleman taking financial benefit from a transaction while producing nothing but cost.
Well. Unless it's a straight line (and it isn't because the government does raise tax revenue) it must be some kind of curve. I presume you mean smooth? I have my doubts about the 100% too.
I mean we don't know if it rises and falls in a single smooth curve, or if there are peaks and valleys. There may in fact be step changes. Can it go below zero?
We know almost nothing about it, as it is only a theory.
We have lots of data from lots of countries and sub-national regions putting taxes up and down and then what happened subsequently. There are a small number of cases where a tax rise seemed not to increase tax income, but a larger number of cases where a tax rise increased income. There’s a large number of cases where tax cuts produced falls in tax income. The Laffer-approved Kansas experiment stands out here. Kansas slashed taxes and rapidly ran out of money.
It seems to me that Liz Truss has fundamental disagreements with Tory policy since 2010, where if she'd been running as leader in that election she'd have been closer to Brown than Cameron.
So my question is, why would you run and praise a platform for 13 years afterwards, if you feel so strongly the country is going in the wrong direction?
The tax rises she's proposing reversing were put into place less than 12 months ago. So she's not looking at rolling back 12 years of policy.
Indeed amongst the first thing George Osborne did when becoming Chancellor at the point of there being "no money left" was to cut corporation tax and reverse an NI tax hike.
It amuses me those who held George Osborne in high esteem, some even calling him a "near perfect Chancellor" now chastising Truss for having the same policy of reversing the jobs tax hike and cutting corporation tax.
Osborne was awful, he implemented austerity and destroyed the economy.
But he was competent at that.
What austerity? Spending rose.
If you want to look at real austerity look on the continent at Greece etc where spending actually fell.
Erm, for the most part spending on government programmes only rose in cash terms, at best. So it fell. Sometimes actually in cash terms, which is pretty draconian.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
"If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely. "
95% of people don't have that luxury of course.
Oh, it exists at all levels.
For one thing, it prevents people moving from benefits into work at the lowest-end, because the benefit withdrawal rate is 60%+.
For regular average-Joe in the economy, it can be the difference between him deciding to take a risk to start-up a new business, work for a SME in a new technology field, or just that steady, predictable 9-5 in the local council.
The regular average-Joe in the economy would never take a risk to start-up a new business; those that do are, by definition, not 'average'.
However, my 95% figure is too high. '75% of people don't have that luxury' would have been better.
Then again, I believe we should reduce tax on earned income, align tax on non-earned income to the same level, and increase tax on wealth.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Johnson could well come back. If you think about his resignation speech, he said that the party had got it wrong because he was a winner. Cummings has also been saying that Johnson will try and stay. He is passing on a poisoned chalice to Truss. If she bombs in the polls he can present himself as the parties saviour again.... well it could all happen couldn't it. It is a long shot but an easily foreseeable scenario.
By the time he thinks about coming back Kemi will be the established leader in waiting.
Politicians cannot grasp that, in a democracy, the public uses them as tools. The voters used Johnson to get Brexit done. He did. Now they want other things that he cannot or will not deliver.
And so he is out.
I think he’ll have much more fun as king across the water for the next 30 years, writing a Telegraph column and influencing Tory thought. I would think that’s what he actually wants. The “doing government” bit is too much like hard work.
It may be memories of when Cameron and Davis went to the membership. I think Cameron was behind then but turned it around to win convincingly. It could also be that on most scores Sunak does well (interview/debate performances, coming across as likeable, apparently persuasive in person).
Cameron was ahead among the members following his party conference speech, so it isn’t that.
It’s more likely that Truss is such a weirdo that (a) there’s a high chance of her doing something mind-blowingly stupid and ruling herself out and (b) nobody can quite believe the membership are going to be quite so stupid as to elect her plus (c) Sunak still has a clear lead among MPs which punters think may sway the members.
We have seen a turnaround already in this leadership election. Penny Mordaunt was cruising to the runoffs until she was done over by the papers.
Did she ever actually have the numbers with MPs though ? The papers (that the members read) are, unfortunately for Sunak, pretty much in the Truss camp
Penny Mordaunt, who reached odds-on in the betting for next Prime Minister, did have MPs' support. She was runner-up (to Rishi) in the first, second, third and forth ballots. In the fifth and final round, she was eight votes behind Liz Truss.
Mordaunt rather blew it with her relationship with the truth. She would have been better sticking to her mainstream views on trans issues and arguing that case. Alternatively she could have made the case that her views had shifted, instead she gave in to the Wokefinder General and humiliated herself.
I think she would have been found out fairly quickly in the top job if that was a representative bit of behaviour.
Mordaunt could have gotten away with it if it weren't for the pesky Mail and Sunday Times and leaks that definitely did not come from the Truss camp. Even then, it was noticeable that other ministers backed Mordaunt's account.
OT rant-ette: has anyone noticed the American "gotten" has crept back across the Atlantic and is now in common use by younger politicians and pundits?
Loathsome isn't it. Some of the more American-TV influenced amongst our own posters do it too. Kill it with fire.
Well. Unless it's a straight line (and it isn't because the government does raise tax revenue) it must be some kind of curve. I presume you mean smooth? I have my doubts about the 100% too.
I mean we don't know if it rises and falls in a single smooth curve, or if there are peaks and valleys. There may in fact be step changes. Can it go below zero?
We know almost nothing about it, as it is only a theory.
We have lots of data from lots of countries and sub-national regions putting taxes up and down and then what happened subsequently. There are a small number of cases where a tax rise seemed not to increase tax income, but a larger number of cases where a tax rise increased income. There’s a large number of cases where tax cuts produced falls in tax income. The Laffer-approved Kansas experiment stands out here. Kansas slashed taxes and rapidly ran out of money.
Oh indeed. But those examples are all subject to huge variables. It doesn't function as a predictive tool. Which is handy for politicians. Ironically Laffer's Kansas experiment may we'll have shown him to have been theoretically right.
Well. Unless it's a straight line (and it isn't because the government does raise tax revenue) it must be some kind of curve. I presume you mean smooth? I have my doubts about the 100% too.
I mean we don't know if it rises and falls in a single smooth curve, or if there are peaks and valleys. There may in fact be step changes. Can it go below zero?
We know almost nothing about it, as it is only a theory.
We have lots of data from lots of countries and sub-national regions putting taxes up and down and then what happened subsequently. There are a small number of cases where a tax rise seemed not to increase tax income, but a larger number of cases where a tax rise increased income. There’s a large number of cases where tax cuts produced falls in tax income. The Laffer-approved Kansas experiment stands out here. Kansas slashed taxes and rapidly ran out of money.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Johnson could well come back. If you think about his resignation speech, he said that the party had got it wrong because he was a winner. Cummings has also been saying that Johnson will try and stay. He is passing on a poisoned chalice to Truss. If she bombs in the polls he can present himself as the parties saviour again.... well it could all happen couldn't it. It is a long shot but an easily foreseeable scenario.
By the time he thinks about coming back Kemi will be the established leader in waiting.
Politicians cannot grasp that, in a democracy, the public uses them as tools. The voters used Johnson to get Brexit done. He did. Now they want other things that he cannot or will not deliver.
And so he is out.
I think he’ll have much more fun as king across the water for the next 30 years, writing a Telegraph column and influencing Tory thought. I would think that’s what he actually wants. The “doing government” bit is too much like hard work.
He didn't seem to understand that being prime minister does not make you world king it brings a huge amount of scrutiny which he can avoid in various other influential roles.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Amazon are installing solar panels on their fulfilment centres. They must see a business case for it.
As I said, if its economic then go for it!
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Solar panels are clearly a solution to climate change, this is a consensus position.
I don't remember where, but at least one Country is installing solar farms over car parks, which seems like a genius plan
Early on there was a suggestion of using solar panels to run charging points for electric cars, so it is all coming together.
They do already in the US. Tesla charging points have massive battery storage, fed by the Grid and solar panels at optimum times.
Of course solar power in California where its reliably sunny all year round and energy demand spikes in the sunshine to feed air conditioning is different to solar power in the UK when energy demand peaks in the winter and it's night-time by 4pm.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
The Laffer curve has no units on the X axis, or for that matter the Y axis. Probably the apex of the curve varies over time and with other factors, being much to the right in wartime for example.
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
Yes, the Laffer Curve definitely exists.
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
"If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely. "
95% of people don't have that luxury of course.
Oh, it exists at all levels.
For one thing, it prevents people moving from benefits into work at the lowest-end, because the benefit withdrawal rate is 60%+.
For regular average-Joe in the economy, it can be the difference between him deciding to take a risk to start-up a new business, work for a SME in a new technology field, or just that steady, predictable 9-5 in the local council.
I've looked in to this a lot from my own personal point of view. As far as I can see it there is a good incentive to earn up to about 90k per year, you can take home about 3k per month and put away 40k per year in to a private pension; you could also get a decent lease car etc.
Many people earning at that level however will have expensive lifestyles, won't pay that much in to a pension, and will be blowing the money they are earning and paying a lot of tax. So they won't really be building up much in the way of wealth.
The incentives this system creates is to prioritise minimising your overheads, ideally by working at home, not take on work that it is too demanding or involves too much travelling around, and pursue second income streams (ie through self employment).
I am not sure if this is the best situation economically, surely it would be better to have people earning more and spending more?
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
I don't think that's it.
In party primaries, it's much more common to see a big change in support than in General Elections.
Truss has already been seen in two TV debates, and, although there are two more to come, they are unlikely to move the dial unless she soils herself on stage.
There are twelve hustings across the UK with (what?) a capacity of 400-500 people in each? So, that might reach 6,000 members direct - max - out of nearly 200,000, or about 3% of them, assuming they're filled to capacity.
The markets keep pricing in a big event or revelation to move the dial.
I don't think there is one.
Be aware, the hustings are available on Zoom to those who haven't yet made up their minds.....
(Although how there is anybody who thinks Truss better than Sunak is the mystery of our times.)
🙋♂️
I stopped supporting the Tories because less than 12 months ago Sunak hiked taxes, which I thought was a gross mistake.
Liz is promising to reverse those tax hikes. I support that.
I think it would be better if those taxes were never hiked, but I don't think reducing tax hikes that were announced less than a year ago is a bad idea.
Truss is promising unicorns for all. She'll end up saying "Oh, the tax rises were needed after all. Who knew?"
I have zero confidence in her ability as PM. End of.
Didn't you vehemently oppose the tax rises at the time? Do you now think they were needed after all?
Even without Laffer effects cancelling Sunaks planned pre election Income Tax cut would raise more than half the money for reversing the NI tax hike and crucially would take a small step restore the balance towards those who work for a living rather than living off unearned incomes that don't face NI.
What's missing from Truss is her plan to balance the books.
I don't have any issue with reversing the NI tax rise (only 3 months old) nor cancelling the planned increase in corporation tax.
But, if she's going to do that, she has to say how she's going to get public debt under control - and not just say it'll sort itself out.
Exactly so. My criticism was of the particular taxes that Rishi sought to increase, not the idea of increasing taxes at all when we had a very large deficit and inflationary pressures in the economy. Increasing NI was a terrible idea and increasing CT, along with ENI, seemed extremely unlikely to boost necessary investment. He should have increased capital taxes and IT instead, ideally be removing some of the tax advantages of well off pensioners.
Well. Unless it's a straight line (and it isn't because the government does raise tax revenue) it must be some kind of curve. I presume you mean smooth? I have my doubts about the 100% too.
I mean we don't know if it rises and falls in a single smooth curve, or if there are peaks and valleys. There may in fact be step changes. Can it go below zero?
We know almost nothing about it, as it is only a theory.
We have lots of data from lots of countries and sub-national regions putting taxes up and down and then what happened subsequently. There are a small number of cases where a tax rise seemed not to increase tax income, but a larger number of cases where a tax rise increased income. There’s a large number of cases where tax cuts produced falls in tax income. The Laffer-approved Kansas experiment stands out here. Kansas slashed taxes and rapidly ran out of money.
Kansas had relatively low taxes already compared to many states and nations before they were cut even further.
The UK presently has the highest tax rates we've seen in 74 years.
Entirely reasonable to think Kansas could have been below the peak and the UK is presently past it.
Ps the Laffer Curve may have Laffer's name to it but he didn't come up with the concept. It was understood for centuries including by people like Adam Smith and David Hume.
[BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.
My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?
Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.
A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.
So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?
I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
It's not a fairy.
Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.
Taxes aren't low.
I have a bridge for sale.
To be fair, my firm (one of the Big 4) has said tax cuts could act as a stimulus.
”Could”.
Eddie the eagle Edwards could have won an Olympic medal.
Has Truss said that she will reverse the NI rate increase announced in September 2021 and the increase in thresholds announced in this year’s spring statement? Or just the former? I had assumed the threshold increases were in response to the political fall out of the rate rise and so the two are linked.
Comments
Winston did come back, which was a big mistake for the country as he was much too old and apathetic on domestic policy. But he didn't resign as party leader, had a huge and largely untarnished brand, and even with that didn't win the popular vote in '51.
OT rant-ette: has anyone noticed the American "gotten" has crept back across the Atlantic and is now in common use by younger politicians and pundits?
The why is that I think she shares some of the qualities that enabled Johnson to win the 2019 general election. Shamelessness, audacity, telling people what they want to hear, being among the most notable.
During the leadership campaign she said that the UK would have to leave the ECHR as the Rwanda policy could fall foul of that , only a few weeks earlier apparently the policy wouldn’t clash with that .
Now her dept have said the Rwanda policy is legal and the ECHR isn’t an issue .
We are likely to see much more of Braverman as she’s likely to remain in the cabinet and possibly get a promotion !
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/24/liz-truss-reminds-me-of-a-tory-leader-but-its-not-margaret-thatcher https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1551117037040275456/photo/1
I don't have any issue with reversing the NI tax rise (only 3 months old) nor cancelling the planned increase in corporation tax.
But, if she's going to do that, she has to say how she's going to get public debt under control - and not just say it'll sort itself out.
All the best.
I'm quite enjoying the posts backhandedly questioning whether you are some exotic variety of labrador
Taxes are not low, but still could be well to the left of the apex of the curve.
I really don't think tax policy can impact the coming autumn winter CoL crisis in time. Only borrowing to allow public services to pay and recruit, and for an uplift in UC back to pandemic levels etc can do so. Inflationary for sure, but the alternative is a major winter crisis for many Britons, strikes and other industrial action, people defaulting on fuel bills, and a contraction of discretionary consumer spending that wrecks a fragile post covid economy.
So let’s say Truss / Rishi lose the election. Boris is not going to be a LOTO figure for a 4-5 year stint. He wouldn’t want it and wouldn’t ever be given the job.
So it would need just the right balance in Parliament that forebodes a terminally short Starmer govt. But with just the right mix of MPs eliminated from the voting pool for him to make it past the vote.
Or, for him to quietly sit on the backbenchers for 3-4 years, hope that the successor to Truss/Rishi does an Amber Heard to the bed and then he takes over just before a putative 2029 election.
Can’t see it myself.
The difference is for me Sunak chose the worst possible taxes to hike for all the reasons we discussed at the time. I'd rather see Income Tax raised because that falls on everyone's shoulders than NI. Sunak is compounding that mistake by pre scheduling a pre election giveaway to those who aren't working by slashing Income Tax while hiking NI.
Yes backing Liz is a bit of a gamble as to what tough choices she'd make instead. It's a gamble I'd be prepared to take.
It's here where Sunak could prosper in the debates.
Assuming, of course, that enough members care enough.
https://www.sarahwoodbury.com/on-the-use-of-the-word-gotten/
In the hugely unlikely event he comes back how long will the Conservatives or the country realise he's even worse than first time round and give him the boot?
How often when a football club brings back a previously successful Manager for a second spell is it as successful as the first time?
If taxes are so high that you don't get sufficient net salary from hard work to make it worth your while then you'll plump for an easier job, or not try quite as hard, or quit the labour market or country entirely.
Worth remembering Hollande had to scrap his 75% supertax in less than 2 years after implementing it due to the damage it did to France's economy.
entirely.
33% say he would be the best PM, then 26% for Truss and 24% for Sunak
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11042775/And-favourite-Boris-Grassroots-backlash-putsch-growing.html
The divide in the Conservative party: not leave vs remain but “the reality-based community” vs those who inhabit the realm of faith
God help us all
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/22/brexit-liz-truss-delusion-rishi-sunak-tory-members?CMP=share_btn_tw
95% of people don't have that luxury of course.
I'm assuming those still in work and paying off mortgages will go for Sunak, but will be outnumbered by those 55+ who do neither and rather fancy higher interest on their savings.
Which advert had a byline of 'I'll be your dog' ? Kia-ora?
I have one existing allergy; to E102 Tartrazine, which used to bring me out in rashes and make me hyperactive. Nowadays it just makes me hyperactive, but I think it's pretty rare in foodstuffs now. It use to be in the really yellow fake ice creams back in the 1980s. Yes, I was allergic to some ice creams...
It appears I'm still not quite right this am - I went to the shop, and on the way back I walked into a hedge. This is not quite normal behaviour, even for me ...
Supply and demand doesn't come with generic units on the axes either because supply and demand will chart differently depending many factors but that doesn't mean the concept isn't legitimate.
If you want take home pay to go up then cutting NI is giving a pay hike to everyone who works, and doing so outside of pay negotiating schedules so that everyone working benefits. It is better than uplifting base pay rates which will need negotiations all over the economy and will set an inflationary baseline and expectations for future negotiations too.
There is no evidence there is a single turning point.
She will be a disaster. Out of her depth. She the worst of Johnson's fantasy politics combined with robotic May Bot public skills and the likely popularity of IDS.
Truss will totally bomb with the public.
The membership must be mad to be even considering her let alone make her favourite.
These days I am hearing of more and more people having their solar power not "measurable" ie not connected to the grid. And used in combination with battery or heat battery storage to cover regular loads. The costs of grid connection add quite a lot, but some special tariffs for eg electric cars are becoming available.
Suspect it also used to happen in Spain when they used to have a special tax on people with solar panels to make up for the income they were no longer providing to the state electricity company. If your panels were not grid connected, the tax was not levied.
A similar thing happens with heat pumps - DIY installs are attractive because most of the grant seems to go on installer charges suddenly increasing. There are also some peculiar restrictions on whether you can run it backwards in cooling mode under certain conditions. Some heat pumps for the UK market are deliberately crippled in software (or hardware) to prevent use of cooling mode - with eg maintainer level access needed to get around the restriction.
But is a version of Trump in the sense of not accepting defeat.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/23/make-kemi-badenoch-education-secretary-allow-fight-culture-wars/
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/07/21/liz-truss-holds-24-point-lead-over-rishi-sunak-amo
No. And no.
The demographic aging, and need to fund decent pensions, health care and other services as a result means that state spending will have to go up in the next decade. Financing that gap is not easily matched with tax cuts.
All parties claim that economic growth because of their wise economic management will close that gap, but the evidence of that being possible is not well grounded in recent economic history. We have not grown enough, look like we are going to contract GDP on current trajectory, have failed on productivity, hence the combination of high taxes and threadbare public services.
As Mrs Thatcher might say, we have been living beyond our means, and must tighten our belts.
Great interview, Neil is where I am.
I suspect events this winter will make that policy rather less appealing than it is right now. To put it very mildly.
An ally of the former leadership contender suggested that as education secretary she could be a significant reforming figure like Michael Gove, who held the post between 2010 and 2014.
Can anyone think of an ally of Kemi who talks to the press and was previously an education secretary called Michael Gove?
The best places are warehouse, shopping centre roofs and so on, and perhaps airfields - rather than preventing food production.
Another exellent idea is embedded in-roof, where the same area of roof tiles is not used.
I know of one case where in a Conservation Area opposite a listed building, the Conservation Officer fought a battle to prevent solar panels, then in-roof were installed (black panels in a tiled roof. CO visited owner after the build and commented how glad he was they had been prevented. When it was pointed out that they were there and he had not noticed, CO had the good sense to change his policy.
Exeter has at least one example, but that was to get FIT subsidies:
https://www.google.com/maps/@50.7268306,-3.526291,122m/data=!3m1!1e3
I have my doubts about the 100% too.
In response to criticism of Liz Truss's tax plans from Thatcher-era ministers, Therese Coffey says "I'm not going to exchange comments with people who haven't been in govt for a very long time" & suggests the Tory grandees in question weren't in the original 1979 cabinet.
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1551126819826458624
Somebody who hasn't been in cabinet recently can't criticise my opinion of someone who is long dead...
So my question is, why would you run and praise a platform for 13 years afterwards, if you feel so strongly the country is going in the wrong direction?
When one realises one's own side is absolutely useless one becomes more open minded and less partisan. I doubt I could ever vote Conservative, but I am open to persuasion should the left of both Labour and the Conservatives retake their respective parties at the same time.
There is also I suspect some satisfaction in drawing a huge c*ck and balls on the ballot paper. In Wales we don't have to do that as we can just put a cross next to the Plaid Cymru candidate's name. It's much the same thing though
You must be disappointed all the Tory candidates pledged to support net zero.
Rawnsley in today's Observer lays out all the twists and u-turns she has taken in her political life.
It seems like Truss is contrary to the Tory Party itself?
This isn't policy differences, this feels like fundamental ideological differences with the party and what it stood/stands for.
Prepare to be disappointed in those tory 'pledges' when government is pleading with people to freeze themselves for the planet in January and the rolling blackouts start.
A totalitarian state that taxed at 100% and distributed all food goods etc to the people and would not have zero income.
If you increase tax to pay, say, for extra spending on pensions and the NHS, then you are taking resources away from the productive part of the economy to pay for the non-productive, which will lower growth.
Indeed amongst the first thing George Osborne did when becoming Chancellor at the point of there being "no money left" was to cut corporation tax and reverse an NI tax hike.
It amuses me those who held George Osborne in high esteem, some even calling him a "near perfect Chancellor" now chastising Truss for having the same policy of reversing the jobs tax hike and cutting corporation tax.
But he was competent at that.
For one thing, it prevents people moving from benefits into work at the lowest-end, because the benefit withdrawal rate is 60%+.
For regular average-Joe in the economy, it can be the difference between him deciding to take a risk to start-up a new business, work for a SME in a new technology field, or just that steady, predictable 9-5 in the local council.
If I were the next Tory leader I'd find a way to take the whip away from Johnson and/or prevent him being selected for another seat in the future.
Politicians cannot grasp that, in a democracy, the public uses them as tools. The voters used Johnson to get Brexit done. He did. Now they want other things that he cannot or will not deliver.
And so he is out.
If you want to look at real austerity look on the continent at Greece etc where spending actually fell.
Why should a private consultation with me be considered a productive task, but an NHS one not? Both are more economically useful than some private sector middleman taking financial benefit from a transaction while producing nothing but cost.
However, my 95% figure is too high. '75% of people don't have that luxury' would have been better.
Then again, I believe we should reduce tax on earned income, align tax on non-earned income to the same level, and increase tax on wealth.
If it's economical then great, invest in it if it pays for itself, but don't subsidise it for environmental reasons.
Which is handy for politicians.
Ironically Laffer's Kansas experiment may we'll have shown him to have been theoretically right.
Anything else is post-Brexit. Post-Brexit will never be done.
Rishi Sunak?
Yes 73%
No 27%
Liz Truss?
Yes 53%
No 47%
Keir Starmer?
Yes 62%
No 38%
Don't subsidise it though as a solution to climate change as it isn't. We need energy in the winter when the sun isn't shining.
Doesn't mean it can't be a good investment on purely economic as opposed to environmental grounds though.
Many people earning at that level however will have expensive lifestyles, won't pay that much in to a pension, and will be blowing the money they are earning and paying a lot of tax. So they won't really be building up much in the way of wealth.
The incentives this system creates is to prioritise minimising your overheads, ideally by working at home, not take on work that it is too demanding or involves too much travelling around, and pursue second income streams (ie through self employment).
I am not sure if this is the best situation economically, surely it would be better to have people earning more and spending more?
The UK presently has the highest tax rates we've seen in 74 years.
Entirely reasonable to think Kansas could have been below the peak and the UK is presently past it.
Ps the Laffer Curve may have Laffer's name to it but he didn't come up with the concept. It was understood for centuries including by people like Adam Smith and David Hume.
Eddie the eagle Edwards could have won an Olympic medal.
He didn’t.