You'd have to go back to 1931 for a landslide of such magnitude when the National Government won 554 seats, Labour 52 and Others 9. The National Government consisted of Conservative, Liberal, National Liberal, National Labour and plain National.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
I was referring to the 70's here which is when we last had the credo of managed decline and we had labour governements more often then. I am objecting to kinablu's assertion we need to go back to managed decline as that will end up badly
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
Yet an attempt to do the opposite doesn't seem to be working either.
Thats because the western world has a cosy consensus with politicians who really dont give a shit about the bottom 80%. They are funded by the rich that are immune from managed decline because it doesn't affect them. Back then I would have been solidly labour till I realized the left really doesnt give a shit about the poor it just posturing
Not sure that is true. Meloni, Sanders, Farage, Corbyn, Trump, Le Pen, Syriza, Melenchon etc all won votes and even power in the case of Meloni, Trump and Syriza on an anti global corporatist elite agenda.
However the populist mix they represented of socialism and anti spending cuts and higher taxes on the rich from the left or tariffs and a hardline on immigrants from the right is not necessarily what the bottom half of society needs
I don't profess to understand stock market sentiment but can someone explain to me why an inflation report which continues to show the US economy running very strong and which looks set to lead to a 75 base point rise in US interest rates when the Fed next meets, has caused a near 2% rally in US stocks?
Would I be wrong in assuming only a few stock market investors give any coherent thought to what's going on in the wider economy and the majority simply follow the market like sheep?
I could see that at Brighton Racecourse today - there are punters who simply follow the money. If a horse is being backed, they back it because they assume those who are backing the horse "know" something.
If that assumption predominates in the modern stock market that would explain a lot.
A lot of short term trading is on sentiment - which is a nice way of saying following the crowd.
Which is why day trading has a certain reputation.
That made me smile. We used to refer to them as professional sheep in my day. Plus ca change?
‘‘Twas ever thus. Hold my good fellow, for by my faith, I have a note from my broker, suggesting I invest largely in South Sea stock.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
I don't think that correct. There was GDP growth and growth per capita, and the gini coefficient the most equal it has been in our history.
Obviously there were economic problems, but actually the 1970s were probably the best time to be an ordinary working class Briton in terms of relative prosperity.
My parents were ordinary working class britons they lived in a council house. In the 70's I remember well being a kid and feeling guilty because my mother's main meal a day 3 days a week was a bowl with an oxo cube dissolved in hot water with a single slice of bread broken up to float in it so she could feed her one child. Don't give a shit what the stats say I lived through it and friends of the time had similar tales. That was the last time we had the credo of managed decline
Anecdote doesn't trump data. There was significant economic growth in the Seventies measured by GDP, and GDP Per Capita, and the lowest (most equal) gini coefficient in our history.
Obviously some do badly in any economic situation, but in the Seventies most working class people became significantly better off.
You see it in all sorts of stats: car ownership, foreign holidays, other consumer goods. Since then we have become more prosperous still, albeit more unequal. It has never been managed decline, more but rather growth, with other countries notably catching up with even faster growth.
Why then did working class people disagree and vote out left wing governments that espoused managed decline and did much better from it in the 80's
Working class people voted Labour in the Seventies. While there was a swing to the Tories in 1979 amongst the skilled working class that was bigger than the national average, most working class people, particularly the semi and unskilled voted Labour.
I would argue that while many working class people did better in the Eighties (such as the Loadsamoney cockneys of Harry Enfield), that wasn't true in much of the country. It would meet with a lot of challenge in Liverpool for example. The West Midlands shifted from being economically strong to a much weaker position in the Eighties. There were derelict factories and mass unemployment everywhere.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
I was referring to the 70's here which is when we last had the credo of managed decline and we had labour governements more often then. I am objecting to kinablu's assertion we need to go back to managed decline as that will end up badly
The UK has been in relative economic decline since the 1870s, but living standards have grown hugely since then. Whether you call it managed decline or not is immaterial. The problem at the moment is that our decline isn't even being managed.
To add, I think the outcome could be even worse for the Conservatives than UNS.
The Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" survey found up to 60% of BOTH Labour and Liberal Democrat voters would be prepared to vote for another party tactically in their constituency if it means defeating a sitting Conservative.
In my Sevenoaks calculation, the 20% swing gets Labour close but with the tactical voting element both Labour and possibly the LDs can win the seat. I got to the likes of Meon Valley before I started seeing Conservative holds so that could mean 20 Conservative seats only and possibly behind the LDs.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
I don't think that correct. There was GDP growth and growth per capita, and the gini coefficient the most equal it has been in our history.
Obviously there were economic problems, but actually the 1970s were probably the best time to be an ordinary working class Briton in terms of relative prosperity.
My parents were ordinary working class britons they lived in a council house. In the 70's I remember well being a kid and feeling guilty because my mother's main meal a day 3 days a week was a bowl with an oxo cube dissolved in hot water with a single slice of bread broken up to float in it so she could feed her one child. Don't give a shit what the stats say I lived through it and friends of the time had similar tales. That was the last time we had the credo of managed decline
Anecdote doesn't trump data. There was significant economic growth in the Seventies measured by GDP, and GDP Per Capita, and the lowest (most equal) gini coefficient in our history.
Obviously some do badly in any economic situation, but in the Seventies most working class people became significantly better off.
You see it in all sorts of stats: car ownership, foreign holidays, other consumer goods. Since then we have become more prosperous still, albeit more unequal. It has never been managed decline, more but rather growth, with other countries notably catching up with even faster growth.
Why then did working class people disagree and vote out left wing governments that espoused managed decline and did much better from it in the 80's
Working class people voted Labour in the Seventies. While there was a swing to the Tories in 1979 amongst the skilled working class that was bigger than the national average, most working class people, particularly the semi and unskilled voted Labour.
Because we did better under the tories and our living standards improved. It also improved for the unskilled working class. The unskilled just didnt believe labour was holding them back because there whole point of being there is "there are poor people" at least then labour cared about poor people to some extent. Now labour dont give a shit about them because not there voting demographic
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
I agree. "Managed Decline" is actually the working title for my autobiography.
I thought you were something senior in education?
In which case, I would suggest that 'unmanaged decline' might be more apt.
Both harsh and unfair. My working life is covered in a separate tome, "How to piss off History teachers".
Tome? Singular?
I thought that when it reached over 2000 pages they insisted on multi-volume?
Edit - incidentally I thought I was being positively generous. I said 'unmanaged' not 'mismanaged' although the latter word much better fits my dealings with educational leadership.
To add, I think the outcome could be even worse for the Conservatives than UNS.
The Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" survey found up to 60% of BOTH Labour and Liberal Democrat voters would be prepared to vote for another party tactically in their constituency if it means defeating a sitting Conservative.
In my Sevenoaks calculation, the 20% swing gets Labour close but with the tactical voting element both Labour and possibly the LDs can win the seat. I got to the likes of Meon Valley before I started seeing Conservative holds so that could mean 20 Conservative seats only and possibly behind the LDs.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
Pagan, no, I mean in relative terms. So we get richer and developing countries get richer by more and more quickly. That would the best possible outcome imo. And it's been happening to some extent.
I have no problem with third world countries catching us up. I do have a problem with people that think we need to get poorer so they catch us up quicker because too many in the west are already poor
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
Pagan, no, I mean in relative terms. So we get richer and developing countries get richer by more and more quickly. That would the best possible outcome imo. And it's been happening to some extent.
I have no problem with third world countries catching us up. I do have a problem with people that think we need to get poorer so they catch us up quicker because too many in the west are already poor
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
No it really doesnt boil down to redistribution, how about instead training people up for higher paying jobs so they dont need to rely on government largesse
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem in the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see a problem if that didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Would it become a problem for you if the pendulum didn't stop in the middle?
Way beyond my lifetime, that, I think! But yes hypothetically it would. I don't believe in big gaps between rich and poor, winners and losers, all of that. People are in the main all very similar so I'd to see this reflected in the spread of material life outcomes. The relevant curve should be thin and tall, not short and fat.
It's not just a question for the future. For example within your lifetime, Singapore has gone from being significantly poorer than the UK to significantly richer. Do you think this is regrettable and they are letting the side down by not restricting their level of wealth?
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
I don't think that correct. There was GDP growth and growth per capita, and the gini coefficient the most equal it has been in our history.
Obviously there were economic problems, but actually the 1970s were probably the best time to be an ordinary working class Briton in terms of relative prosperity.
My parents were ordinary working class britons they lived in a council house. In the 70's I remember well being a kid and feeling guilty because my mother's main meal a day 3 days a week was a bowl with an oxo cube dissolved in hot water with a single slice of bread broken up to float in it so she could feed her one child. Don't give a shit what the stats say I lived through it and friends of the time had similar tales. That was the last time we had the credo of managed decline
Anecdote doesn't trump data. There was significant economic growth in the Seventies measured by GDP, and GDP Per Capita, and the lowest (most equal) gini coefficient in our history.
Obviously some do badly in any economic situation, but in the Seventies most working class people became significantly better off.
You see it in all sorts of stats: car ownership, foreign holidays, other consumer goods. Since then we have become more prosperous still, albeit more unequal. It has never been managed decline, more but rather growth, with other countries notably catching up with even faster growth.
Why then did working class people disagree and vote out left wing governments that espoused managed decline and did much better from it in the 80's
Working class people voted Labour in the Seventies. While there was a swing to the Tories in 1979 amongst the skilled working class that was bigger than the national average, most working class people, particularly the semi and unskilled voted Labour.
Because we did better under the tories and our living standards improved. It also improved for the unskilled working class. The unskilled just didnt believe labour was holding them back because there whole point of being there is "there are poor people" at least then labour cared about poor people to some extent. Now labour dont give a shit about them because not there voting demographic
I am not Labour, but that simply isn't true.
Sure, class has become less of a determinant of voting than historically, and the class structure of the country has shifted too, with more middle class and fewer working class people.
A major driver of Brexit voting in working class people was the desire to return to the secure, well paid jobs and communities that they remembered from the Sixties and Seventies. They were sold a pup by the libertarians but I do understand what they wanted.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
Pagan, no, I mean in relative terms. So we get richer and developing countries get richer by more and more quickly. That would the best possible outcome imo. And it's been happening to some extent.
I have no problem with third world countries catching us up. I do have a problem with people that think we need to get poorer so they catch us up quicker because too many in the west are already poor
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
No it really doesnt boil down to redistribution, how about instead training people up for higher paying jobs so they dont need to rely on government largesse
Certainly ending low pay is a worthy goal, but why shouldn't unskilled people get enough to live on too? We are always going to need cleaners, cooks and dustbin crew. Why shouldn't they get wages that allow them to live dignified lives?
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
Pagan, no, I mean in relative terms. So we get richer and developing countries get richer by more and more quickly. That would the best possible outcome imo. And it's been happening to some extent.
I have no problem with third world countries catching us up. I do have a problem with people that think we need to get poorer so they catch us up quicker because too many in the west are already poor
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
No it really doesnt boil down to redistribution, how about instead training people up for higher paying jobs so they dont need to rely on government largesse
Certainly ending low pay is a worthy goal, but why shouldn't unskilled people get enough to live on too? We are always going to need cleaners, cooks and dustbin crew. Why shouldn't they get wages that allow them to live dignified lives?
Indeed, not everyone will be able to get a high skilled job.
There needs to be a living wage for those doing low skilled work, although ensuring it is not too high so employers cut the number of such jobs they provide
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
Pagan, no, I mean in relative terms. So we get richer and developing countries get richer by more and more quickly. That would the best possible outcome imo. And it's been happening to some extent.
I have no problem with third world countries catching us up. I do have a problem with people that think we need to get poorer so they catch us up quicker because too many in the west are already poor
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
No it really doesnt boil down to redistribution, how about instead training people up for higher paying jobs so they dont need to rely on government largesse
Certainly ending low pay is a worthy goal, but why shouldn't unskilled people get enough to live on too? We are always going to need cleaners, cooks and dustbin crew. Why shouldn't they get wages that allow them to live dignified lives?
They absolutely should we agree on that. However you were passionate about freedom of movement which definitely kept there wages down because if they wouldn't work for minimum wage there were plenty that would because they didn't have the same costs in life. They were willing to live 6 to a room for a few years and had no family to raise. People like you made them poor
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
None of those things are made any less likely by Truss going though.
Actually, my money is on no rolling blackouts, no pension fund collapse, and that we are past the peak of petrol price rises. House prices will fall, and that will be good news. I do think people will be feeling poorer, though. Again, that will be true whoever is in power.
Truss has sort of identified the key problem facing the country right now, which is that we are too poor, and we are too poor because growth is not being prioritised. I'm not sure she has the ability to put in place the right solutions though.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
I remain unconvinced she can make it to the end of November let alone May.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
It is a shibboleth of the fruitcake tendency that there’s de facto been no real change in government since 1997, indeed all predecessors of Truss are to be damned as “Brownite”.
See this quote from a Truss loyalist after last night’s 1922 meeting, which castigates…
“Bitter Rishi supporters seizing on the fact that we had to move quickly to cap people’s energy bills, so didn’t have parliamentary time to work though, due to circumstances. They just want to f*** everyone over to prove their view that only Brownite economics can work. They’re more New Labour than Tory. They should rein their f***ing necks in, or f*** off. They lost because the Tory Party membership is not Brownite.”
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
It is a shibboleth of the fruitcake tendency that there’s de facto been no real change in government since 1997, indeed all predecessors of Truss are to be damned as “Brownite”.
See this quote from a Truss loyalist after last night’s 1922 meeting, which castigates…
“Bitter Rishi supporters seizing on the fact that we had to move quickly to cap people’s energy bills, so didn’t have parliamentary time to work though, due to circumstances. They just want to f*** everyone over to prove their view that only Brownite economics can work. They’re more New Labour than Tory. They should rein their f***ing necks in, or f*** off. They lost because the Tory Party membership is not Brownite.”
Cameron himself claimed to be heir to blair so no the idiots have been in charge 97 to 2016
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
I remain unconvinced she can make it to the end of November let alone May.
I remain unconvinced she can make it to the end of October. This is it. The ELE. The modelling above showing that bloody Sevenoaks is under threat. If you are a Tory MP how much more of this shit do you take before you push the panic button?
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
If.
But where is the plan?
Do not ask me. I am not standing for govt. Ask the Opposition.
However I will point out that Oppositions usually keep their plans to themselves until an election is declared. Too many times in the past, the ruling Party steals Opposition policies and that has happened regardless of political colour
Well, I've been asking it of left-leaners for a while, and your last point is the most common response.
However, in the current situation, it's risible. The idea that Truss would be credible stealing Labour policies? Give over.
I am not a left leaner. I have voted Conservative more times than all my other party votes added together.
But this lot are not Conservatives, they are UKIP in all but name. Besides, Truss might as well steal other people's policies because she has none of her own.
Do you support these half-wits? Do you not even acknowledge the huge damage they are creating? Is there no c*ck-up that is too bad? No balls-up that is intolerable?
How much damage is the country meant to endure before we jettison these idiots?
If they renamed themselves the Dunning-Kruger Party it would at least describe them and their supporters accurately.
You have a very strange way of not being a left-leaner, but there you go.
As for do I support them? No. The very reason I keep asking for Labour to come up with some policies is so that I can vote for them knowing what their plan is.
It is not my fault that the "Conservative" Party became wannabe fascists.
Ah, accusing a centre-right governming party of being fascists. And you wonder why you come across as left-leaning?
'Centre-right'? FFS what would count as full-on 'right' in your book?
The issue isn't whether they are extremists. Of course they are not. The issue is whether they are competent. In the great scheme of things this government - totally useless as they are - is a bunch of moderate liberals running a big state high tax, high spend, high borrow government. They happen to be utterly useless at doing it, or SFAICS doing anything.
Fascists would be busy passing a law to make sure there were no more multi party elections and bashing Jews on the head with bottles.
There is enough wrong with this lot without having to make stuff up.
The reason for the invective is brand differentiation. Bit hard to sell to the public “we are like the other lot, but competent. We plan to spend +-5% more or less of GDP on government services.”
But that’s the truth.
Yes. For the moment anyway competence is the true issue. There is more or less universal agreement in the political class about: state pensions, NHS, welfare for the poorer, free education, defence, that we shall have road, rail and air travel, that local government will empty the bins, that we shall have prisons and police. Add state management and debt repayment and you have spent nearly £1tn, and, as they will discover, it is almost impossible to cut and easy to increase.
Naturally parties tinker at the edges of difference, but only Brexit (which is what makes it so politically special) and the SNP/SF plans offers actual disruption to the consensus.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
None of those things are made any less likely by Truss going though.
Actually, my money is on no rolling blackouts, no pension fund collapse, and that we are past the peak of petrol price rises. House prices will fall, and that will be good news. I do think people will be feeling poorer, though. Again, that will be true whoever is in power.
Truss has sort of identified the key problem facing the country right now, which is that we are too poor, and we are too poor because growth is not being prioritised. I'm not sure she has the ability to put in place the right solutions though.
The trouble is that Truss does not exude competence. If and when blackouts do happen, do we think Truss is the best person to lead us through it? Ditto financial collapse. Her budget has already demonstrated what she thinks - protect the wealthiest first, failure to do the maths, utterly inflexible and refuses to change, until forced to u turn at the last minute.
So while these are not necessarily all problems she caused, woe betide us if she is still in power when they hit. That's why she needs to go.
She is the wrong person, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
Pagan, no, I mean in relative terms. So we get richer and developing countries get richer by more and more quickly. That would the best possible outcome imo. And it's been happening to some extent.
I have no problem with third world countries catching us up. I do have a problem with people that think we need to get poorer so they catch us up quicker because too many in the west are already poor
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
No it really doesnt boil down to redistribution, how about instead training people up for higher paying jobs so they dont need to rely on government largesse
What, a government that has the cojones to take on Oxford, Cambridge, the top private schools, and the General Medical Council, all of which play roles in restricting training for high paid jobs, and all of which are legally constituted as (don't laugh) charities? That'll be the day.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
None of those things are made any less likely by Truss going though.
Actually, my money is on no rolling blackouts, no pension fund collapse, and that we are past the peak of petrol price rises. House prices will fall, and that will be good news. I do think people will be feeling poorer, though. Again, that will be true whoever is in power.
Truss has sort of identified the key problem facing the country right now, which is that we are too poor, and we are too poor because growth is not being prioritised. I'm not sure she has the ability to put in place the right solutions though.
Petrol prices are inching up round here, due to the depreciation of the GBP against the greenback. Local garage gas gone from 156.9 to 160.9 this week.
I do agree we are past peak petrol price though from earlier in the year.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
It is a shibboleth of the fruitcake tendency that there’s de facto been no real change in government since 1997, indeed all predecessors of Truss are to be damned as “Brownite”.
See this quote from a Truss loyalist after last night’s 1922 meeting, which castigates…
“Bitter Rishi supporters seizing on the fact that we had to move quickly to cap people’s energy bills, so didn’t have parliamentary time to work though, due to circumstances. They just want to f*** everyone over to prove their view that only Brownite economics can work. They’re more New Labour than Tory. They should rein their f***ing necks in, or f*** off. They lost because the Tory Party membership is not Brownite.”
That rare creature, a Truss loyalist. Can’t be many,
In an alternate universe Rishi is scratching his head as to why his tax raising steady as you go Tax and Spendism is still resulting in large inflation and similar rise in gilt yields.
And the calls for Tax cuts is threatening to derail his premiership.....
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
It is a shibboleth of the fruitcake tendency that there’s de facto been no real change in government since 1997, indeed all predecessors of Truss are to be damned as “Brownite”.
See this quote from a Truss loyalist after last night’s 1922 meeting, which castigates…
“Bitter Rishi supporters seizing on the fact that we had to move quickly to cap people’s energy bills, so didn’t have parliamentary time to work though, due to circumstances. They just want to f*** everyone over to prove their view that only Brownite economics can work. They’re more New Labour than Tory. They should rein their f***ing necks in, or f*** off. They lost because the Tory Party membership is not Brownite.”
Cameron himself claimed to be heir to blair so no the idiots have been in charge 97 to 2016
Blair claimed to be the heir to Thatcher.
Both were correct in that they inherited a starting position influenced by their predecessor.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
All credit to you, even as a party loyalist, you were sounding the alarm bells about Truss from the get go.
In an alternate universe Rishi is scratching his head as to why his tax raising steady as you go Tax and Spendism is still resulting in large inflation and similar rise in gilt yields.
And the calls for Tax cuts is threatening to derail his premiership.....
Nah. The special fiscal event didn’t happen. Mortgages are still lower and the polls are higher.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
It is a shibboleth of the fruitcake tendency that there’s de facto been no real change in government since 1997, indeed all predecessors of Truss are to be damned as “Brownite”.
See this quote from a Truss loyalist after last night’s 1922 meeting, which castigates…
“Bitter Rishi supporters seizing on the fact that we had to move quickly to cap people’s energy bills, so didn’t have parliamentary time to work though, due to circumstances. They just want to f*** everyone over to prove their view that only Brownite economics can work. They’re more New Labour than Tory. They should rein their f***ing necks in, or f*** off. They lost because the Tory Party membership is not Brownite.”
Cameron himself claimed to be heir to blair so no the idiots have been in charge 97 to 2016
Blair claimed to be the heir to Thatcher.
Both were correct in that they inherited a starting position influenced by their predecessor.
By the way I also think johnson and truss are even bigger cockwombles for avoidance of doubt.
I fell that for too long politicians of all sides have neglected the poor and instead of helping them up have marginalised them as unimportant
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
I remain unconvinced she can make it to the end of November let alone May.
I remain unconvinced she can make it to the end of October. This is it. The ELE. The modelling above showing that bloody Sevenoaks is under threat. If you are a Tory MP how much more of this shit do you take before you push the panic button?
Echoes of the "economy not doing well, let's blow it up on the off chance that helps" arguments of June 2016 and September 2022, though.
Truss is doing appallingly badly by both her party and country. But there are plenty of ways that dumping her could make things even worse. Unless they are mitigated, leaving her in place, awful as that is, might be the less bad plan.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
I remain unconvinced she can make it to the end of November let alone May.
I remain unconvinced she can make it to the end of October. This is it. The ELE. The modelling above showing that bloody Sevenoaks is under threat. If you are a Tory MP how much more of this shit do you take before you push the panic button?
In their panicky fear that someone's going to take away from them what they've got, many Tory MPs are truly representative of the worldview of most of the party's members :-)
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
It is a shibboleth of the fruitcake tendency that there’s de facto been no real change in government since 1997, indeed all predecessors of Truss are to be damned as “Brownite”.
See this quote from a Truss loyalist after last night’s 1922 meeting, which castigates…
“Bitter Rishi supporters seizing on the fact that we had to move quickly to cap people’s energy bills, so didn’t have parliamentary time to work though, due to circumstances. They just want to f*** everyone over to prove their view that only Brownite economics can work. They’re more New Labour than Tory. They should rein their f***ing necks in, or f*** off. They lost because the Tory Party membership is not Brownite.”
I notice they don’t mention the opinion polls. They are a sect with the support of a small minority of the electorate, who have hijacked the government. Put an end to it.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
So when she is defenestrated, her fall will be cushioned by the 1,000 councillors chucked out the window in a vain effort to try to save her career. Is that it?
FFS, she isn't going to lead them into the next election, however early that is called. So do what is required and fire her. Now.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
Pagan, no, I mean in relative terms. So we get richer and developing countries get richer by more and more quickly. That would the best possible outcome imo. And it's been happening to some extent.
I have no problem with third world countries catching us up. I do have a problem with people that think we need to get poorer so they catch us up quicker because too many in the west are already poor
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
No it really doesnt boil down to redistribution, how about instead training people up for higher paying jobs so they dont need to rely on government largesse
What, a government that has the cojones to take on Oxford, Cambridge, the top private schools, and the General Medical Council, all of which play roles in restricting training for high paid jobs, and all of which are legally constituted as (don't laugh) charities? That'll be the day.
The GMC is not a charity. It is a government regulatory body, 50% of GMC council are lay people, with the other 50% appointed by the Privy Council.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
All credit to you, even as a party loyalist, you were sounding the alarm bells about Truss from the get go.
If only the wider membership had listened.
HYUFD is one of the most insightful posters on the site. He really does not serve half the flack he gets.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
It is a shibboleth of the fruitcake tendency that there’s de facto been no real change in government since 1997, indeed all predecessors of Truss are to be damned as “Brownite”.
See this quote from a Truss loyalist after last night’s 1922 meeting, which castigates…
“Bitter Rishi supporters seizing on the fact that we had to move quickly to cap people’s energy bills, so didn’t have parliamentary time to work though, due to circumstances. They just want to f*** everyone over to prove their view that only Brownite economics can work. They’re more New Labour than Tory. They should rein their f***ing necks in, or f*** off. They lost because the Tory Party membership is not Brownite.”
Cameron himself claimed to be heir to blair so no the idiots have been in charge 97 to 2016
Blair claimed to be the heir to Thatcher.
Both were correct in that they inherited a starting position influenced by their predecessor.
Heir is not equal to continuity. This Brownite nonsense from the Truss camp is a Corbynite take on the world.
"If they don't agree with us, given we are right, they must all be the same establishment." Nothing more complicated than that.
Not to mention the Truss camp have been a significant part of government and voting in favour for its economic policies for the last 12 years.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
I remain unconvinced she can make it to the end of November let alone May.
I remain unconvinced she can make it to the end of October. This is it. The ELE. The modelling above showing that bloody Sevenoaks is under threat. If you are a Tory MP how much more of this shit do you take before you push the panic button?
Echoes of the "economy not doing well, let's blow it up on the off chance that helps" arguments of June 2016 and September 2022, though.
Truss is doing appallingly badly by both her party and country. But there are plenty of ways that dumping her could make things even worse. Unless they are mitigated, leaving her in place, awful as that is, might be the less bad plan.
You could not be more wrong. Truss’ complete lack of political nouse and timing has been instrumental in turning a mistake into an extinction. A skilled politician would have sorted this by now. Truss keeps making things worse. She will keep making things worse until she goes.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
Pagan, no, I mean in relative terms. So we get richer and developing countries get richer by more and more quickly. That would the best possible outcome imo. And it's been happening to some extent.
I have no problem with third world countries catching us up. I do have a problem with people that think we need to get poorer so they catch us up quicker because too many in the west are already poor
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
No it really doesnt boil down to redistribution, how about instead training people up for higher paying jobs so they dont need to rely on government largesse
What, a government that has the cojones to take on Oxford, Cambridge, the top private schools, and the General Medical Council, all of which play roles in restricting training for high paid jobs, and all of which are legally constituted as (don't laugh) charities? That'll be the day.
The GMC is not a charity. It is a government regulatory body, 50% of GMC council are lay people, with the other 50% appointed by the Privy Council.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
It is a shibboleth of the fruitcake tendency that there’s de facto been no real change in government since 1997, indeed all predecessors of Truss are to be damned as “Brownite”.
See this quote from a Truss loyalist after last night’s 1922 meeting, which castigates…
“Bitter Rishi supporters seizing on the fact that we had to move quickly to cap people’s energy bills, so didn’t have parliamentary time to work though, due to circumstances. They just want to f*** everyone over to prove their view that only Brownite economics can work. They’re more New Labour than Tory. They should rein their f***ing necks in, or f*** off. They lost because the Tory Party membership is not Brownite.”
Cameron himself claimed to be heir to blair so no the idiots have been in charge 97 to 2016
Blair claimed to be the heir to Thatcher.
Both were correct in that they inherited a starting position influenced by their predecessor.
By the way I also think johnson and truss are even bigger cockwombles for avoidance of doubt.
I fell that for too long politicians of all sides have neglected the poor and instead of helping them up have marginalised them as unimportant
I disagree, apart from Johnson and Truss being cockwombles.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
All credit to you, even as a party loyalist, you were sounding the alarm bells about Truss from the get go.
If only the wider membership had listened.
HYUFD is one of the most insightful posters on the site. He really does not serve half the flack he gets.
He brings a lot of useful insight and is a good poster in the round. He does often deserve the flack though, although never quite sure how much of his posts are tongue in cheek. Some are but others that one would hope are also tongue in cheek, probably are not!
If it is checkmate for the Tories they might as well ask themselves how they can do the least damage to the country.
The quote from the minister that getting rid of the PM would be 'disastrous' begs the question,
Disastrous for whom?
It was Cleverly. And was utter stupidity. Because now when they inevitably DO get rid of Truss (and by extension, her Cabinet of half-wits) Labour can point to his "disastrous" comment and scream for a general election.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
Pagan, no, I mean in relative terms. So we get richer and developing countries get richer by more and more quickly. That would the best possible outcome imo. And it's been happening to some extent.
I have no problem with third world countries catching us up. I do have a problem with people that think we need to get poorer so they catch us up quicker because too many in the west are already poor
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
No it really doesnt boil down to redistribution, how about instead training people up for higher paying jobs so they dont need to rely on government largesse
What, a government that has the cojones to take on Oxford, Cambridge, the top private schools, and the General Medical Council, all of which play roles in restricting training for high paid jobs, and all of which are legally constituted as (don't laugh) charities? That'll be the day.
The GMC is not a charity. It is a government regulatory body, 50% of GMC council are lay people, with the other 50% appointed by the Privy Council.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
I remain unconvinced she can make it to the end of November let alone May.
I remain unconvinced she can make it to the end of October. This is it. The ELE. The modelling above showing that bloody Sevenoaks is under threat. If you are a Tory MP how much more of this shit do you take before you push the panic button?
Echoes of the "economy not doing well, let's blow it up on the off chance that helps" arguments of June 2016 and September 2022, though.
Truss is doing appallingly badly by both her party and country. But there are plenty of ways that dumping her could make things even worse. Unless they are mitigated, leaving her in place, awful as that is, might be the less bad plan.
You could not be more wrong. Truss’ complete lack of political nouse and timing has been instrumental in turning a mistake into an extinction. A skilled politician would have sorted this by now. Truss keeps making things worse. She will keep making things worse until she goes.
Undoubtedly. But unless you can be sure that her departure won't lead to PM Braverman or Badenoch, holding onto nurse may be less bad.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
It is a shibboleth of the fruitcake tendency that there’s de facto been no real change in government since 1997, indeed all predecessors of Truss are to be damned as “Brownite”.
See this quote from a Truss loyalist after last night’s 1922 meeting, which castigates…
“Bitter Rishi supporters seizing on the fact that we had to move quickly to cap people’s energy bills, so didn’t have parliamentary time to work though, due to circumstances. They just want to f*** everyone over to prove their view that only Brownite economics can work. They’re more New Labour than Tory. They should rein their f***ing necks in, or f*** off. They lost because the Tory Party membership is not Brownite.”
Cameron himself claimed to be heir to blair so no the idiots have been in charge 97 to 2016
Cameron and Osborne embarked on an austerity programme. Same idiots, obviously.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
All credit to you, even as a party loyalist, you were sounding the alarm bells about Truss from the get go.
If only the wider membership had listened.
HYUFD is one of the most insightful posters on the site. He really does not serve half the flack he gets.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
None of those things are made any less likely by Truss going though.
Actually, my money is on no rolling blackouts, no pension fund collapse, and that we are past the peak of petrol price rises. House prices will fall, and that will be good news. I do think people will be feeling poorer, though. Again, that will be true whoever is in power.
Truss has sort of identified the key problem facing the country right now, which is that we are too poor, and we are too poor because growth is not being prioritised. I'm not sure she has the ability to put in place the right solutions though.
You think the Johnson, May and Cameron premierships didn’t care about growth too? Governments have always prioritised growth. Truss is no intellectual giant for talking about growth. The problem has law has always been how do you achieve growth, and Truss’s answers on that are just nonsense.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
So when she is defenestrated, her fall will be cushioned by the 1,000 councillors chucked out the window in a vain effort to try to save her career. Is that it?
FFS, she isn't going to lead them into the next election, however early that is called. So do what is required and fire her. Now.
In the original defenestration of Prague, the defenestrated survived because they landed on a dung heap, so there is precedent.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
None of those things are made any less likely by Truss going though.
Actually, my money is on no rolling blackouts, no pension fund collapse, and that we are past the peak of petrol price rises. House prices will fall, and that will be good news. I do think people will be feeling poorer, though. Again, that will be true whoever is in power.
Truss has sort of identified the key problem facing the country right now, which is that we are too poor, and we are too poor because growth is not being prioritised. I'm not sure she has the ability to put in place the right solutions though.
The trouble is that Truss does not exude competence. If and when blackouts do happen, do we think Truss is the best person to lead us through it? Ditto financial collapse. Her budget has already demonstrated what she thinks - protect the wealthiest first, failure to do the maths, utterly inflexible and refuses to change, until forced to u turn at the last minute.
So while these are not necessarily all problems she caused, woe betide us if she is still in power when they hit. That's why she needs to go.
She is the wrong person, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
An excellent point. To use a practical example - do I think Brown and Darling got everything right during/in the lead up to the GFC? Hell no. But I can appreciate that they both worked bloody hard to try and keep everything afloat.
Would I have the same confidence in Truss and Kwasi to keep the lights on? Absolutely not. Serious times call for grown up politicians, not a pair of chancers who think they’re too clever by half.
The only sensible solution now is a General Election and a fresh start.
I don't like LAB but the Government has lost all credibility.
How do *any* of the potential candidates have any credibility? SUNAK - wanted by MPs but not overwhelmingly, rejected by members (who can be ignored to a point but not entirely, its still their party) MORDAUNT / BADENOCH / BRAVERMAN etc - no mandate at all JOHNSON - hounded out of office, being investigated by parliament, previous low rating record before Truss
Who cares about their credibility? They do not have any. We just need to vote them out.
Which is a lot easier to do if the alternative has any idea what to do.
If the "alternive" cost their plans, run them by the OBR and the Treasury mandarins and then stick to them, the markets will be a lot happier and things will calm down. Even a poor plan is better than the "No Plan, Just Do It" method employed by KT.
The current bunch seem to think that their wishes and dreams can be made real without adverse consequence.
If.
But where is the plan?
Do not ask me. I am not standing for govt. Ask the Opposition.
However I will point out that Oppositions usually keep their plans to themselves until an election is declared. Too many times in the past, the ruling Party steals Opposition policies and that has happened regardless of political colour
Well, I've been asking it of left-leaners for a while, and your last point is the most common response.
However, in the current situation, it's risible. The idea that Truss would be credible stealing Labour policies? Give over.
I am not a left leaner. I have voted Conservative more times than all my other party votes added together.
But this lot are not Conservatives, they are UKIP in all but name. Besides, Truss might as well steal other people's policies because she has none of her own.
Do you support these half-wits? Do you not even acknowledge the huge damage they are creating? Is there no c*ck-up that is too bad? No balls-up that is intolerable?
How much damage is the country meant to endure before we jettison these idiots?
If they renamed themselves the Dunning-Kruger Party it would at least describe them and their supporters accurately.
You have a very strange way of not being a left-leaner, but there you go.
As for do I support them? No. The very reason I keep asking for Labour to come up with some policies is so that I can vote for them knowing what their plan is.
It is not my fault that the "Conservative" Party became wannabe fascists.
Ah, accusing a centre-right governming party of being fascists. And you wonder why you come across as left-leaning?
'Centre-right'? FFS what would count as full-on 'right' in your book?
The issue isn't whether they are extremists. Of course they are not. The issue is whether they are competent. In the great scheme of things this government - totally useless as they are - is a bunch of moderate liberals running a big state high tax, high spend, high borrow government. They happen to be utterly useless at doing it, or SFAICS doing anything.
Fascists would be busy passing a law to make sure there were no more multi party elections and bashing Jews on the head with bottles.
There is enough wrong with this lot without having to make stuff up.
The reason for the invective is brand differentiation. Bit hard to sell to the public “we are like the other lot, but competent. We plan to spend +-5% more or less of GDP on government services.”
But that’s the truth.
Yes. For the moment anyway competence is the true issue. There is more or less universal agreement in the political class about: state pensions, NHS, welfare for the poorer, free education, defence, that we shall have road, rail and air travel, that local government will empty the bins, that we shall have prisons and police. Add state management and debt repayment and you have spent nearly £1tn, and, as they will discover, it is almost impossible to cut and easy to increase.
Naturally parties tinker at the edges of difference, but only Brexit (which is what makes it so politically special) and the SNP/SF plans offers actual disruption to the consensus.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
I remain unconvinced she can make it to the end of November let alone May.
I remain unconvinced she can make it to the end of October. This is it. The ELE. The modelling above showing that bloody Sevenoaks is under threat. If you are a Tory MP how much more of this shit do you take before you push the panic button?
Echoes of the "economy not doing well, let's blow it up on the off chance that helps" arguments of June 2016 and September 2022, though.
Truss is doing appallingly badly by both her party and country. But there are plenty of ways that dumping her could make things even worse. Unless they are mitigated, leaving her in place, awful as that is, might be the less bad plan.
You could not be more wrong. Truss’ complete lack of political nouse and timing has been instrumental in turning a mistake into an extinction. A skilled politician would have sorted this by now. Truss keeps making things worse. She will keep making things worse until she goes.
Undoubtedly. But unless you can be sure that her departure won't lead to PM Braverman or Badenoch, holding onto nurse may be less bad.
Whilst the trend has been towards increasingly worse PMs I do not believe that the Tories should cling on to Truss for fear of someone worse. Truss is toxic. So you roll the dice. Maybe they will have to roll it more than once.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
All credit to you, even as a party loyalist, you were sounding the alarm bells about Truss from the get go.
If only the wider membership had listened.
HYUFD is one of the most insightful posters on the site. He really does not serve half the flack he gets.
He brings a lot of useful insight and is a good poster in the round. He does often deserve the flack though, although never quite sure how much of his posts are tongue in cheek. Some are but others that one would hope are also tongue in cheek, probably are not!
So, he does deserve some flack - on the indie ref for example - but for insight into the mind and workings of the Tory Party he’s unparalleled.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
It is a shibboleth of the fruitcake tendency that there’s de facto been no real change in government since 1997, indeed all predecessors of Truss are to be damned as “Brownite”.
See this quote from a Truss loyalist after last night’s 1922 meeting, which castigates…
“Bitter Rishi supporters seizing on the fact that we had to move quickly to cap people’s energy bills, so didn’t have parliamentary time to work though, due to circumstances. They just want to f*** everyone over to prove their view that only Brownite economics can work. They’re more New Labour than Tory. They should rein their f***ing necks in, or f*** off. They lost because the Tory Party membership is not Brownite.”
Cameron himself claimed to be heir to blair so no the idiots have been in charge 97 to 2016
Blair claimed to be the heir to Thatcher.
Both were correct in that they inherited a starting position influenced by their predecessor.
By the way I also think johnson and truss are even bigger cockwombles for avoidance of doubt.
I fell that for too long politicians of all sides have neglected the poor and instead of helping them up have marginalised them as unimportant
I disagree, apart from Johnson and Truss being cockwombles.
1) new labour did nothing for the poor that didnt make them more reliant on the state 2) tory governments did nothing for the poor
Sorry disagree all you want doesnt make you right because you really arent
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
All credit to you, even as a party loyalist, you were sounding the alarm bells about Truss from the get go.
If only the wider membership had listened.
HYUFD is one of the most insightful posters on the site. He really does not serve half the flack he gets.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
Pagan, no, I mean in relative terms. So we get richer and developing countries get richer by more and more quickly. That would the best possible outcome imo. And it's been happening to some extent.
I have no problem with third world countries catching us up. I do have a problem with people that think we need to get poorer so they catch us up quicker because too many in the west are already poor
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
No it really doesnt boil down to redistribution, how about instead training people up for higher paying jobs so they dont need to rely on government largesse
What, a government that has the cojones to take on Oxford, Cambridge, the top private schools, and the General Medical Council, all of which play roles in restricting training for high paid jobs, and all of which are legally constituted as (don't laugh) charities? That'll be the day.
The GMC is not a charity. It is a government regulatory body, 50% of GMC council are lay people, with the other 50% appointed by the Privy Council.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
I remain unconvinced she can make it to the end of November let alone May.
I remain unconvinced she can make it to the end of October. This is it. The ELE. The modelling above showing that bloody Sevenoaks is under threat. If you are a Tory MP how much more of this shit do you take before you push the panic button?
Echoes of the "economy not doing well, let's blow it up on the off chance that helps" arguments of June 2016 and September 2022, though.
Truss is doing appallingly badly by both her party and country. But there are plenty of ways that dumping her could make things even worse. Unless they are mitigated, leaving her in place, awful as that is, might be the less bad plan.
You could not be more wrong. Truss’ complete lack of political nouse and timing has been instrumental in turning a mistake into an extinction. A skilled politician would have sorted this by now. Truss keeps making things worse. She will keep making things worse until she goes.
I am sympathetic to the view that removing her would in some ways be just as bad, but I think you are right to point out that Truss has only made things worse each time, and her attempts to get a grip are only getting more desperate.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
Pagan, no, I mean in relative terms. So we get richer and developing countries get richer by more and more quickly. That would the best possible outcome imo. And it's been happening to some extent.
I have no problem with third world countries catching us up. I do have a problem with people that think we need to get poorer so they catch us up quicker because too many in the west are already poor
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
No it really doesnt boil down to redistribution, how about instead training people up for higher paying jobs so they dont need to rely on government largesse
What, a government that has the cojones to take on Oxford, Cambridge, the top private schools, and the General Medical Council, all of which play roles in restricting training for high paid jobs, and all of which are legally constituted as (don't laugh) charities? That'll be the day.
The GMC is not a charity. It is a government regulatory body, 50% of GMC council are lay people, with the other 50% appointed by the Privy Council.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
Pagan, no, I mean in relative terms. So we get richer and developing countries get richer by more and more quickly. That would the best possible outcome imo. And it's been happening to some extent.
I have no problem with third world countries catching us up. I do have a problem with people that think we need to get poorer so they catch us up quicker because too many in the west are already poor
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
No it really doesnt boil down to redistribution, how about instead training people up for higher paying jobs so they dont need to rely on government largesse
What, a government that has the cojones to take on Oxford, Cambridge, the top private schools, and the General Medical Council, all of which play roles in restricting training for high paid jobs, and all of which are legally constituted as (don't laugh) charities? That'll be the day.
The GMC is not a charity. It is a government regulatory body, 50% of GMC council are lay people, with the other 50% appointed by the Privy Council.
If it is checkmate for the Tories they might as well ask themselves how they can do the least damage to the country.
The quote from the minister that getting rid of the PM would be 'disastrous' begs the question,
Disastrous for whom?
It was Cleverly. And was utter stupidity. Because now when they inevitably DO get rid of Truss (and by extension, her Cabinet of half-wits) Labour can point to his "disastrous" comment and scream for a general election.
Even more stupid was Badenoch - “It would be disastrous even to talk about replacing the PM”.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
Given how bad the 2019 round was for the Conservatives especially in the south it's hard to see what worse looks like. Failing to regain Guildford, Waverley and Woking is one thing but presumably it will be losses to Labour which will be the key. When these seats were fought in 1995, the Conservatives lost over 2,000 councillors in a single evening.
My view is any small advances against the LDs and Residents in the south will be more than offset by losses to Labour elsewhere.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
None of those things are made any less likely by Truss going though.
Actually, my money is on no rolling blackouts, no pension fund collapse, and that we are past the peak of petrol price rises. House prices will fall, and that will be good news. I do think people will be feeling poorer, though. Again, that will be true whoever is in power.
Truss has sort of identified the key problem facing the country right now, which is that we are too poor, and we are too poor because growth is not being prioritised. I'm not sure she has the ability to put in place the right solutions though.
The trouble is that Truss does not exude competence. If and when blackouts do happen, do we think Truss is the best person to lead us through it? Ditto financial collapse. Her budget has already demonstrated what she thinks - protect the wealthiest first, failure to do the maths, utterly inflexible and refuses to change, until forced to u turn at the last minute.
So while these are not necessarily all problems she caused, woe betide us if she is still in power when they hit. That's why she needs to go.
She is the wrong person, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
An excellent point. To use a practical example - do I think Brown and Darling got everything right during/in the lead up to the GFC? Hell no. But I can appreciate that they both worked bloody hard to try and keep everything afloat.
Would I have the same confidence in Truss and Kwasi to keep the lights on? Absolutely not. Serious times call for grown up politicians, not a pair of chancers who think they’re too clever by half.
It's this whole business of not caring to put the work in that is irksome.
So much shit over the past five years could have been avoided if Boris and other prominent Tories just didn't believe they could wing it, the whole time.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
All credit to you, even as a party loyalist, you were sounding the alarm bells about Truss from the get go.
If only the wider membership had listened.
HYUFD is one of the most insightful posters on the site. He really does not serve half the flack he gets.
He brings a lot of useful insight and is a good poster in the round. He does often deserve the flack though, although never quite sure how much of his posts are tongue in cheek. Some are but others that one would hope are also tongue in cheek, probably are not!
So, he does deserve some flack - on the indie ref for example - but for insight into the mind and workings of the Tory Party he’s unparalleled.
That sounds like the starting pistol for the "HYUFD to succeed Truss" campaign.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
None of those things are made any less likely by Truss going though.
Actually, my money is on no rolling blackouts, no pension fund collapse, and that we are past the peak of petrol price rises. House prices will fall, and that will be good news. I do think people will be feeling poorer, though. Again, that will be true whoever is in power.
Truss has sort of identified the key problem facing the country right now, which is that we are too poor, and we are too poor because growth is not being prioritised. I'm not sure she has the ability to put in place the right solutions though.
Petrol prices are inching up round here, due to the depreciation of the GBP against the greenback. Local garage gas gone from 156.9 to 160.9 this week.
I do agree we are past peak petrol price though from earlier in the year.
Opec cutting production US shale oil significantly underperforming (output for next year revised down a second time) US strategic reserve at historic lows and almost exhausted (need to replenish soon) Pound looks set to decline against the dollar
The only way us up. For petrol prices, not for Truss's polling ratings.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
It is a shibboleth of the fruitcake tendency that there’s de facto been no real change in government since 1997, indeed all predecessors of Truss are to be damned as “Brownite”.
See this quote from a Truss loyalist after last night’s 1922 meeting, which castigates…
“Bitter Rishi supporters seizing on the fact that we had to move quickly to cap people’s energy bills, so didn’t have parliamentary time to work though, due to circumstances. They just want to f*** everyone over to prove their view that only Brownite economics can work. They’re more New Labour than Tory. They should rein their f***ing necks in, or f*** off. They lost because the Tory Party membership is not Brownite.”
Cameron himself claimed to be heir to blair so no the idiots have been in charge 97 to 2016
Blair claimed to be the heir to Thatcher.
Both were correct in that they inherited a starting position influenced by their predecessor.
By the way I also think johnson and truss are even bigger cockwombles for avoidance of doubt.
I fell that for too long politicians of all sides have neglected the poor and instead of helping them up have marginalised them as unimportant
I disagree, apart from Johnson and Truss being cockwombles.
1) new labour did nothing for the poor that didnt make them more reliant on the state 2) tory governments did nothing for the poor
Sorry disagree all you want doesnt make you right because you really arent
Clearly we are not going to agree.
I don't think either statement is true. New Labour greatly reduced NHS waiting lists, improving the lives of poor people, and created surestart centres to give people better starts in life. The Tories (under the influence of LDs in government) raised the tax threshold to take a lot of poor people out of tax.
Both parties care a great deal for the poor, though they disagree on methods.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
It is a shibboleth of the fruitcake tendency that there’s de facto been no real change in government since 1997, indeed all predecessors of Truss are to be damned as “Brownite”.
See this quote from a Truss loyalist after last night’s 1922 meeting, which castigates…
“Bitter Rishi supporters seizing on the fact that we had to move quickly to cap people’s energy bills, so didn’t have parliamentary time to work though, due to circumstances. They just want to f*** everyone over to prove their view that only Brownite economics can work. They’re more New Labour than Tory. They should rein their f***ing necks in, or f*** off. They lost because the Tory Party membership is not Brownite.”
Cameron himself claimed to be heir to blair so no the idiots have been in charge 97 to 2016
Blair claimed to be the heir to Thatcher.
Both were correct in that they inherited a starting position influenced by their predecessor.
By the way I also think johnson and truss are even bigger cockwombles for avoidance of doubt.
I fell that for too long politicians of all sides have neglected the poor and instead of helping them up have marginalised them as unimportant
I disagree, apart from Johnson and Truss being cockwombles.
1) new labour did nothing for the poor that didnt make them more reliant on the state 2) tory governments did nothing for the poor
Sorry disagree all you want doesnt make you right because you really arent
New Labour reduced homelessness to record low levels.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
None of those things are made any less likely by Truss going though.
Actually, my money is on no rolling blackouts, no pension fund collapse, and that we are past the peak of petrol price rises. House prices will fall, and that will be good news. I do think people will be feeling poorer, though. Again, that will be true whoever is in power.
Truss has sort of identified the key problem facing the country right now, which is that we are too poor, and we are too poor because growth is not being prioritised. I'm not sure she has the ability to put in place the right solutions though.
The trouble is that Truss does not exude competence. If and when blackouts do happen, do we think Truss is the best person to lead us through it? Ditto financial collapse. Her budget has already demonstrated what she thinks - protect the wealthiest first, failure to do the maths, utterly inflexible and refuses to change, until forced to u turn at the last minute.
So while these are not necessarily all problems she caused, woe betide us if she is still in power when they hit. That's why she needs to go.
She is the wrong person, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
An excellent point. To use a practical example - do I think Brown and Darling got everything right during/in the lead up to the GFC? Hell no. But I can appreciate that they both worked bloody hard to try and keep everything afloat.
Would I have the same confidence in Truss and Kwasi to keep the lights on? Absolutely not. Serious times call for grown up politicians, not a pair of chancers who think they’re too clever by half.
It's this whole business of not caring to put the work in that is irksome.
So much shit over the past five years could have been avoided if Boris and other prominent Tories just didn't believe they could wing it, the whole time.
Yes. And while Starmer may be dull, I don't think anybody really thinks he will just wing it, or allow his senior team to do so. He'll make them work hard. One of the many reasons he's likely to be next PM now.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
All credit to you, even as a party loyalist, you were sounding the alarm bells about Truss from the get go.
If only the wider membership had listened.
HYUFD is one of the most insightful posters on the site. He really does not serve half the flack he gets.
He brings a lot of useful insight and is a good poster in the round. He does often deserve the flack though, although never quite sure how much of his posts are tongue in cheek. Some are but others that one would hope are also tongue in cheek, probably are not!
So, he does deserve some flack - on the indie ref for example - but for insight into the mind and workings of the Tory Party he’s unparalleled.
MarqueeMark and a couple of others are "in parallel", but yes HYUFDs input on that topic is perhaps the most valuable from a betting point of view, especially as it is often so unfiltered and blunt.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
So when she is defenestrated, her fall will be cushioned by the 1,000 councillors chucked out the window in a vain effort to try to save her career. Is that it?
FFS, she isn't going to lead them into the next election, however early that is called. So do what is required and fire her. Now.
Very strange. I agree with both of you.... Are you both turning Lib Dem, or what?
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
Pagan, no, I mean in relative terms. So we get richer and developing countries get richer by more and more quickly. That would the best possible outcome imo. And it's been happening to some extent.
I have no problem with third world countries catching us up. I do have a problem with people that think we need to get poorer so they catch us up quicker because too many in the west are already poor
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
No it really doesnt boil down to redistribution, how about instead training people up for higher paying jobs so they dont need to rely on government largesse
Things such as this, funded by progressive taxation inc on wealth, ARE redistributive. That's part of what I mean.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
It is a shibboleth of the fruitcake tendency that there’s de facto been no real change in government since 1997, indeed all predecessors of Truss are to be damned as “Brownite”.
See this quote from a Truss loyalist after last night’s 1922 meeting, which castigates…
“Bitter Rishi supporters seizing on the fact that we had to move quickly to cap people’s energy bills, so didn’t have parliamentary time to work though, due to circumstances. They just want to f*** everyone over to prove their view that only Brownite economics can work. They’re more New Labour than Tory. They should rein their f***ing necks in, or f*** off. They lost because the Tory Party membership is not Brownite.”
Cameron himself claimed to be heir to blair so no the idiots have been in charge 97 to 2016
Blair claimed to be the heir to Thatcher.
Both were correct in that they inherited a starting position influenced by their predecessor.
By the way I also think johnson and truss are even bigger cockwombles for avoidance of doubt.
I fell that for too long politicians of all sides have neglected the poor and instead of helping them up have marginalised them as unimportant
I disagree, apart from Johnson and Truss being cockwombles.
1) new labour did nothing for the poor that didnt make them more reliant on the state 2) tory governments did nothing for the poor
Sorry disagree all you want doesnt make you right because you really arent
Clearly we are not going to agree.
I don't think either statement is true. New Labour greatly reduced NHS waiting lists, improving the lives of poor people, and created surestart centres to give people better starts in life. The Tories (under the influence of LDs in government) raised the tax threshold to take a lot of poor people out of tax.
Both parties care a great deal for the poor, though they disagree on methods.
Both of which increased dependency on the state for new labour om the case of the tax free portion....you regard making 47 percent not come under tax a good thing...fuck sake lets make those 47 people earn more so they pay tax
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
None of those things are made any less likely by Truss going though.
Actually, my money is on no rolling blackouts, no pension fund collapse, and that we are past the peak of petrol price rises. House prices will fall, and that will be good news. I do think people will be feeling poorer, though. Again, that will be true whoever is in power.
Truss has sort of identified the key problem facing the country right now, which is that we are too poor, and we are too poor because growth is not being prioritised. I'm not sure she has the ability to put in place the right solutions though.
Petrol prices are inching up round here, due to the depreciation of the GBP against the greenback. Local garage gas gone from 156.9 to 160.9 this week.
I do agree we are past peak petrol price though from earlier in the year.
Opec cutting production US shale oil significantly underperforming (output for next year revised down a second time) US strategic reserve at historic lows and almost exhausted (need to replenish soon) Pound looks set to decline against the dollar
The only way us up. For petrol prices, not for Truss's polling ratings.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
All credit to you, even as a party loyalist, you were sounding the alarm bells about Truss from the get go.
If only the wider membership had listened.
HYUFD is one of the most insightful posters on the site. He really does not serve half the flack he gets.
He brings a lot of useful insight and is a good poster in the round. He does often deserve the flack though, although never quite sure how much of his posts are tongue in cheek. Some are but others that one would hope are also tongue in cheek, probably are not!
So, he does deserve some flack - on the indie ref for example - but for insight into the mind and workings of the Tory Party he’s unparalleled.
That sounds like the starting pistol for the "HYUFD to succeed Truss" campaign.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
All credit to you, even as a party loyalist, you were sounding the alarm bells about Truss from the get go.
If only the wider membership had listened.
HYUFD is one of the most insightful posters on the site. He really does not serve half the flack he gets.
He brings a lot of useful insight and is a good poster in the round. He does often deserve the flack though, although never quite sure how much of his posts are tongue in cheek. Some are but others that one would hope are also tongue in cheek, probably are not!
So, he does deserve some flack - on the indie ref for example - but for insight into the mind and workings of the Tory Party he’s unparalleled.
That sounds like the starting pistol for the "HYUFD to succeed Truss" campaign.
He'd be far better than the lot we've got now, even if he does have a measure of fanaticism.
At least he can articulate a position even if it's wrong.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
I don't think that correct about the Seventies. There was GDP growth and growth per capita, and the gini coefficient the most equal it has been in our history.
Obviously there were economic problems, but actually the 1970s were probably the best time to be an ordinary working class Briton in terms of relative prosperity.
Economic growth is always revised upwards over time. Years that didn't look good at the time, in the 1970's and 1980's, turn out to have been boom years, once the numbers have been re-crunched. So, despite the slowdown since 2000, in all likelihood, by the late 2020's, the numbers will look a bit better than they do now (the recession of 2008-9 in fact looks less severe, and the recession of 2012 turned out never to have happened).
There is a tendency to think that things were always better when one was younger, and to focus on the things that were better, rather than the things that were worse. Health and housing were generally a good deal worse in the Seventies than today, and far fewer people were going on to higher education. All of the electronic things that we take for granted now barely existed then, far fewer people had access to good restaurants, or other cultural activities.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
It is a shibboleth of the fruitcake tendency that there’s de facto been no real change in government since 1997, indeed all predecessors of Truss are to be damned as “Brownite”.
See this quote from a Truss loyalist after last night’s 1922 meeting, which castigates…
“Bitter Rishi supporters seizing on the fact that we had to move quickly to cap people’s energy bills, so didn’t have parliamentary time to work though, due to circumstances. They just want to f*** everyone over to prove their view that only Brownite economics can work. They’re more New Labour than Tory. They should rein their f***ing necks in, or f*** off. They lost because the Tory Party membership is not Brownite.”
Cameron himself claimed to be heir to blair so no the idiots have been in charge 97 to 2016
Blair claimed to be the heir to Thatcher.
Both were correct in that they inherited a starting position influenced by their predecessor.
By the way I also think johnson and truss are even bigger cockwombles for avoidance of doubt.
I fell that for too long politicians of all sides have neglected the poor and instead of helping them up have marginalised them as unimportant
I disagree, apart from Johnson and Truss being cockwombles.
1) new labour did nothing for the poor that didnt make them more reliant on the state 2) tory governments did nothing for the poor
Sorry disagree all you want doesnt make you right because you really arent
New Labour reduced homelessness to record low levels.
Did it or did it just change the definition of homelessness so the numbers came down?
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
It is a shibboleth of the fruitcake tendency that there’s de facto been no real change in government since 1997, indeed all predecessors of Truss are to be damned as “Brownite”.
See this quote from a Truss loyalist after last night’s 1922 meeting, which castigates…
“Bitter Rishi supporters seizing on the fact that we had to move quickly to cap people’s energy bills, so didn’t have parliamentary time to work though, due to circumstances. They just want to f*** everyone over to prove their view that only Brownite economics can work. They’re more New Labour than Tory. They should rein their f***ing necks in, or f*** off. They lost because the Tory Party membership is not Brownite.”
Cameron himself claimed to be heir to blair so no the idiots have been in charge 97 to 2016
Blair claimed to be the heir to Thatcher.
Both were correct in that they inherited a starting position influenced by their predecessor.
By the way I also think johnson and truss are even bigger cockwombles for avoidance of doubt.
I fell that for too long politicians of all sides have neglected the poor and instead of helping them up have marginalised them as unimportant
I disagree, apart from Johnson and Truss being cockwombles.
1) new labour did nothing for the poor that didnt make them more reliant on the state 2) tory governments did nothing for the poor
Sorry disagree all you want doesnt make you right because you really arent
New Labour reduced homelessness to record low levels.
A remarkable reduction, and demonstrated that it's really sensitive to policy intervention (and not underlying economic conditions aiui)
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
How can I lie about what he said when we can all read it? "I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms." Please see the last three words. Similarly, "managed decline" has been used many times to describe the UK's postwar economic trajectory - during this period UK living standards have grown hugely so that term does not mean a decline in absolute living standards either.
In the 70's we had managed decline and people were getting poorer. That is what managed decline looks like. Not just poorer relatively....people were getting poorer absolutely. Same as now. 20 years ago even if they couldnt get a mortgage a couple both working could feed, house, clothe and have money left over for some luxuries if both working. Now they rely on food banks and governement hand outs and still cant make ends meet. Kinablu could take a 10% decline in his relative income as he is reasonably well off. To many in the country a 10% decline in relative income would mean them going hungry and cold. That is what his managed decline will mean
If I become relatively poorer but absolutely richer then that is a good thing, if it means I am getting richer but a load of people who couldn't afford to feed their kids before are getting richer at a faster pace. You're attacking Kinabalu for things he hasn't said. The thing that is making people in this country go hungry and cold is a decade of Tory austerity, plus now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you're looking to blame the poor in developing countries I think you're barking up the wrong tree. More than that, it's insulting.
The thing that is making people poorer in this country is social democrats like you. Stop dipping in their pockets to fund your shibboleths
You are attributing a lot of power to people who haven't been in government in this country for twelve years.
It is a shibboleth of the fruitcake tendency that there’s de facto been no real change in government since 1997, indeed all predecessors of Truss are to be damned as “Brownite”.
See this quote from a Truss loyalist after last night’s 1922 meeting, which castigates…
“Bitter Rishi supporters seizing on the fact that we had to move quickly to cap people’s energy bills, so didn’t have parliamentary time to work though, due to circumstances. They just want to f*** everyone over to prove their view that only Brownite economics can work. They’re more New Labour than Tory. They should rein their f***ing necks in, or f*** off. They lost because the Tory Party membership is not Brownite.”
Cameron himself claimed to be heir to blair so no the idiots have been in charge 97 to 2016
Blair claimed to be the heir to Thatcher.
Both were correct in that they inherited a starting position influenced by their predecessor.
By the way I also think johnson and truss are even bigger cockwombles for avoidance of doubt.
I fell that for too long politicians of all sides have neglected the poor and instead of helping them up have marginalised them as unimportant
I disagree, apart from Johnson and Truss being cockwombles.
1) new labour did nothing for the poor that didnt make them more reliant on the state 2) tory governments did nothing for the poor
Sorry disagree all you want doesnt make you right because you really arent
New Labour reduced homelessness to record low levels.
Repeated during early covid period before we took away all the funding again.
Elsewhere, the polling revealed that the Conservative share of the vote has collapsed to 19 per cent. Labour’s lead has widened to 34 points – twice what they need for a majority in their own right, pointing towards a Conservative election wipeout.
This is getting ridiculous - Truss needs to go now.
And to those who say Con has lost the next GE anyway - the public can change their minds very quickly. Look how much the polls have changed in just the few weeks Truss has been PM.
If MPs get rid of her now, the new PM has two full years until an October 2024 GE - most people will very quickly forget who on earth she was.
The only longstanding issue will be the damage she has done to the economy - but again, the quicker she goes the quicker her replacement can have a sensible Budget and start to restore confidence.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem with the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see more of a problem if this didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Let me get this right...you as a left wing bien pensant...think there is no problem with people in the uk getting poorer despite the fact several million currently struggle to house, heat and eat? I thought you were meant to be the compassionate side?
I think the key word that you didn't read was "relatively". He's not calling for people in this country to be poorer in absolute terms. I don't think there is any shame in wishing for global inequality to be reduced, is there? Especially as the current set up involves millions of premature child deaths. I would guess he'd like to see less inequality within the UK too.
He said managed decline is a good thing, managed decline means we get poorer, please dont try and lie about what he said because he absolutely was advocating declining living standards for the west as a means to reduce global inequality.
Pagan, no, I mean in relative terms. So we get richer and developing countries get richer by more and more quickly. That would the best possible outcome imo. And it's been happening to some extent.
I have no problem with third world countries catching us up. I do have a problem with people that think we need to get poorer so they catch us up quicker because too many in the west are already poor
Well I didn't mean that as now clarified. And yes there is poverty in the wealthy west. I support policies to address that. Given turbo growing the economy is a fantasy, it boils down to redistribution.
No it really doesnt boil down to redistribution, how about instead training people up for higher paying jobs so they dont need to rely on government largesse
What, a government that has the cojones to take on Oxford, Cambridge, the top private schools, and the General Medical Council, all of which play roles in restricting training for high paid jobs, and all of which are legally constituted as (don't laugh) charities? That'll be the day.
The GMC is not a charity. It is a government regulatory body, 50% of GMC council are lay people, with the other 50% appointed by the Privy Council.
Zugzwang is a perfect term for where Truss and Kwarteng find themselves .
They have to do something and will suffer whatever they do . It’s quite extraordinary how they’ve managed to back themselves into a corner with no good options .
Not really. The result of the last 20 years, and especially the last two years, is that governments all over the world have no good options. At least Truss tried to break with the failed consensus, albeit ineptly.
On that basis we should give Corbyn a go next. He would also ineptly break with the failed consensus. Sometimes things are a consensus because they are the least bad option.
The problem is, the consensus has clearly failed... so if you're telling me it's the least bad option, we might as well all give up.
Where has got it right?
Which developed countries have managed to grow median incomes at anything like the 1945-1990 levels during the last quarter century?
Or is it that the system isn't broken - it's just that the growth we had in the post-war period was an aberration: a result of not having to share the wealth of the world with developed countries, and where we had a massive tailwind from dwindling dependency ratios.
Yes. I see no problem in the west (inc the UK) getting gradually poorer in relative terms. I'd see a problem if that didn't happen. "Managed decline" gets a bad press but it's a solid and challenging aspiration imo.
Would it become a problem for you if the pendulum didn't stop in the middle?
Way beyond my lifetime, that, I think! But yes hypothetically it would. I don't believe in big gaps between rich and poor, winners and losers, all of that. People are in the main all very similar so I'd to see this reflected in the spread of material life outcomes. The relevant curve should be thin and tall, not short and fat.
It's not just a question for the future. For example within your lifetime, Singapore has gone from being significantly poorer than the UK to significantly richer. Do you think this is regrettable and they are letting the side down by not restricting their level of wealth?
Do you ever ask questions designed to illicit a serious answer?
The bodybags of untrained mobilized Russian men are starting to come home from Ukraine — including to big cities like Moscow. Even the Z propagandists are getting upset. Here is the 28yo former head of dept in Moscow city gov’t, drafted Sept 23, killed Oct 10. https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1580637031432003585/photo/1
Elsewhere, the polling revealed that the Conservative share of the vote has collapsed to 19 per cent. Labour’s lead has widened to 34 points – twice what they need for a majority in their own right, pointing towards a Conservative election wipeout.
I was thinking 16% will be the floor if they let her carry on. Could be lower still. Mortgage bill increases will hit another 1% of the electorate every few weeks or so as their fixed rates end.
So, I thought I'd apply some of the Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" numbers beyond the constituencies listed in the actual report.
So, that's a straight 20% swing Conservative to Labour (confirmed by YouGov today) and then allowing for 60% of the vote of the third party to be moved "tactically" to the second party (as confirmed in the R&W polling).
I thought I'd try it with Sevenoaks, seat of Laura Trott. Last time she won by 20,818 and the vote shares were: CON 60.7%, LD 19.8%, Lab 13.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2% (Independent 1.4%, Libertarian 0.6%)
Applying the straight line 20% swing - CON 40.7%, LD 19.8%, LAB 33.6%, Green 3.9%, Others 2%
Then take 60% of the LD/Green vote and tactically move it to Labour and you get CON 40.7%, LAB 47.8%, LD 8%, Green 1.6%, Others 2.0%
Assume LD are the second party and take 60% of the Lab/Green vote and you get CON 40.7%, LD 42.3%, Lab 12.2%, Green 1.6%, Others 2%
Just a bit of fun as someone once said - Sevenoaks is about the 50th safest Conservative seat in the country so the current polling suggests not just a bit of a setback but the worst result for the party ever with the front line figures not telling the whole story with a strong swell of anti-Conservative tactical voting exacerbating the losses.
Just to be clear, I'm playing with the numbers and not expecting Sevenoaks to return a non-Conservative MP - it did once when the Liberals won it in 1923 only to lose it the following year.
On today's Yougov the Tories would even lose Epping Forest (as well as Sevenoaks).
Brentwood and Ongar though would be one of the just 34 constituencies left which still had a Tory MP.
Labour would win 527 seats, a bigger win than Blair's in 1997 and 2001. The Tories would fall to 3rd place behind the SNP but still ahead of the LDs
And as I said last night, this is the polling BEFORE what is shaping up to be a bleak, bleak winter.
Possibility of rolling blackouts Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar) Possibility of pension funds collapsing Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
The local elections will likely do for her next May even if she survives to January
I remain unconvinced she can make it to the end of November let alone May.
I remain unconvinced she can make it to the end of October. This is it. The ELE. The modelling above showing that bloody Sevenoaks is under threat. If you are a Tory MP how much more of this shit do you take before you push the panic button?
Echoes of the "economy not doing well, let's blow it up on the off chance that helps" arguments of June 2016 and September 2022, though.
Truss is doing appallingly badly by both her party and country. But there are plenty of ways that dumping her could make things even worse. Unless they are mitigated, leaving her in place, awful as that is, might be the less bad plan.
You could not be more wrong. Truss’ complete lack of political nouse and timing has been instrumental in turning a mistake into an extinction. A skilled politician would have sorted this by now. Truss keeps making things worse. She will keep making things worse until she goes.
Can't we have the best of both worlds? Sack her as prime minister and give her a talk show on daytime TV?
Comments
However the populist mix they represented of socialism and anti spending cuts and higher taxes on the rich from the left or tariffs and a hardline on immigrants from the right is not necessarily what the bottom half of society needs
I would argue that while many working class people did better in the Eighties (such as the Loadsamoney cockneys of Harry Enfield), that wasn't true in much of the country. It would meet with a lot of challenge in Liverpool for example. The West Midlands shifted from being economically strong to a much weaker position in the Eighties. There were derelict factories and mass unemployment everywhere.
The Redfield & Wilton "Blue Wall" survey found up to 60% of BOTH Labour and Liberal Democrat voters would be prepared to vote for another party tactically in their constituency if it means defeating a sitting Conservative.
In my Sevenoaks calculation, the 20% swing gets Labour close but with the tactical voting element both Labour and possibly the LDs can win the seat. I got to the likes of Meon Valley before I started seeing Conservative holds so that could mean 20 Conservative seats only and possibly behind the LDs.
I thought that when it reached over 2000 pages they insisted on multi-volume?
Edit - incidentally I thought I was being positively generous. I said 'unmanaged' not 'mismanaged' although the latter word much better fits my dealings with educational leadership.
Sure, class has become less of a determinant of voting than historically, and the class structure of the country has shifted too, with more middle class and fewer working class people.
A major driver of Brexit voting in working class people was the desire to return to the secure, well paid jobs and communities that they remembered from the Sixties and Seventies. They were sold a pup by the libertarians but I do understand what they wanted.
Possibility of rolling blackouts
Petrol prices due to rise significantly (Opec cutting production, GBP falling against dollar)
Possibility of pension funds collapsing
Interest rate hikes filtering through to mortgage holders / inevitable house price falls.
This is the polling BEFORE all this takes place.
Truss must go. Now.
There needs to be a living wage for those doing low skilled work, although ensuring it is not too high so employers cut the number of such jobs they provide
Actually, my money is on no rolling blackouts, no pension fund collapse, and that we are past the peak of petrol price rises. House prices will fall, and that will be good news.
I do think people will be feeling poorer, though. Again, that will be true whoever is in power.
Truss has sort of identified the key problem facing the country right now, which is that we are too poor, and we are too poor because growth is not being prioritised. I'm not sure she has the ability to put in place the right solutions though.
See this quote from a Truss loyalist after last night’s 1922 meeting, which castigates…
“Bitter Rishi supporters seizing on the fact that we had to move quickly to cap people’s energy bills, so didn’t have parliamentary time to work though, due to circumstances. They just want to f*** everyone over to prove their view that only Brownite economics can work. They’re more New Labour than Tory. They should rein their f***ing necks in, or f*** off. They lost because the Tory Party membership is not Brownite.”
Naturally parties tinker at the edges of difference, but only Brexit (which is what makes it so politically special) and the SNP/SF plans offers actual disruption to the consensus.
So while these are not necessarily all problems she caused, woe betide us if she is still in power when they hit. That's why she needs to go.
She is the wrong person, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
I do agree we are past peak petrol price though from earlier in the year.
And the calls for Tax cuts is threatening to derail his premiership.....
Both were correct in that they inherited a starting position influenced by their predecessor.
If only the wider membership had listened.
The quote from the minister that getting rid of the PM would be 'disastrous' begs the question,
Disastrous for whom?
I fell that for too long politicians of all sides have neglected the poor and instead of helping them up have marginalised them as unimportant
Truss is doing appallingly badly by both her party and country. But there are plenty of ways that dumping her could make things even worse. Unless they are mitigated, leaving her in place, awful as that is, might be the less bad plan.
They are a sect with the support of a small minority of the electorate, who have hijacked the government. Put an end to it.
FFS, she isn't going to lead them into the next election, however early that is called. So do what is required and fire her. Now.
"If they don't agree with us, given we are right, they must all be the same establishment." Nothing more complicated than that.
Not to mention the Truss camp have been a significant part of government and voting in favour for its economic policies for the last 12 years.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/13/michael-gove-in-line-to-become-presenter-for-news-uks-times-radio
It is charity number 1089278:
https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/3964969
Would I have the same confidence in Truss and Kwasi to keep the lights on? Absolutely not. Serious times call for grown up politicians, not a pair of chancers who think they’re too clever by half.
2) tory governments did nothing for the poor
Sorry disagree all you want doesnt make you right because you really arent
A charitable interpretation of the activity perhaps?
Would be ?…?
My view is any small advances against the LDs and Residents in the south will be more than offset by losses to Labour elsewhere.
So much shit over the past five years could have been avoided if Boris and other prominent Tories just didn't believe they could wing it, the whole time.
US shale oil significantly underperforming (output for next year revised down a second time)
US strategic reserve at historic lows and almost exhausted (need to replenish soon)
Pound looks set to decline against the dollar
The only way us up. For petrol prices, not for Truss's polling ratings.
I don't think either statement is true. New Labour greatly reduced NHS waiting lists, improving the lives of poor people, and created surestart centres to give people better starts in life. The Tories (under the influence of LDs in government) raised the tax threshold to take a lot of poor people out of tax.
Both parties care a great deal for the poor, though they disagree on methods.
--> Embattled Prime Minister now more unpopular than either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn, poll finds
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/13/just-nine-per-cent-have-favourable-view-liz-truss/
om the case of the tax free portion....you regard making 47 percent not come under tax a good thing...fuck sake lets make those 47 people earn more so they pay tax
At least he can articulate a position even if it's wrong.
There is a tendency to think that things were always better when one was younger, and to focus on the things that were better, rather than the things that were worse. Health and housing were generally a good deal worse in the Seventies than today, and far fewer people were going on to higher education. All of the electronic things that we take for granted now barely existed then, far fewer people had access to good restaurants, or other cultural activities.
Elsewhere, the polling revealed that the Conservative share of the vote has collapsed to 19 per cent. Labour’s lead has widened to 34 points – twice what they need for a majority in their own right, pointing towards a Conservative election wipeout.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/13/just-nine-per-cent-have-favourable-view-liz-truss/
And to those who say Con has lost the next GE anyway - the public can change their minds very quickly. Look how much the polls have changed in just the few weeks Truss has been PM.
If MPs get rid of her now, the new PM has two full years until an October 2024 GE - most people will very quickly forget who on earth she was.
The only longstanding issue will be the damage she has done to the economy - but again, the quicker she goes the quicker her replacement can have a sensible Budget and start to restore confidence.