Now the basic rate income tax cut to 19p feels like the next U turn. Hunt tells @BBCr4today "I very much hope we can keep that" but won't make decision yet. The mini Budget filleted again.
One of the things I have noticed on this website is the prevalent assumption that history repeats itself which is actually a flawed assumption. With the exception of a declining number of dinosaurs the MPs in the Conservative party are different to those who were around in the 1990s. The experience of the tories in the 1990s was not repeating a previous episode in its history. However, the experience of the 90's and 00's will have an influence on how it addresses the current problems.
Conservative MPs are not generally subject to the same ideological delusions that many Labour MP's have, particularly as there is a sizeable contingent of labour MPs that arrived in the Corbyn era. The Labour party are also saddled by archaic procedural rules that make it difficult to sort out problems with the leadership, and the need to agree policy at 'conference'. I've seen the madness of the labour party as I was once a member and activist. I now vote Conservative and still probably will.
The idea that Starmer would be a better technocratic leader dealing with an economic crisis than someone like Sunak is for the birds. He presents this image in opposition. But he will be under fire from the unions, and from the activist base and their insane, unrealistic demands to raise benefits, raise pay, stop the latest strikes in light of the endless 'cost of living crisis' etc. The pressure will be far greater than that which may arise to a conservative leader from the self interested demands of ageing base who ultimately have few levers over the party whilst it is in power.
Starmer presents himself as a Blair like figure, but Blair did not come to power in the middle of an impossible economic crisis requiring very difficult decisions to be made.
Very well put. The Starmer in opposition is not the one we will see in government - he will bow to both party and public who want sweeties for everyone except the evil bankers and speculators. In doing so he will raise zero cash for the said sweeties and the dream will crash and burn faster than a cheap 🎇 on bonfire night.
Dr. Foxy, could well win but Leicester won their last game (versus Forest) 4-0, and scored away against Bournemouth. Home advantage is also helpful.
That was a local derby against another crap team, our captain and best defender (!??!) Johnny Evans is out injured, and the crowd will be silent then hostile to our team. We don't have a good record against Palace.
We may be drawing or even ahead at half time but will collapse second half.
Those calling for a general election know it won't happen. PMs facilitate GEs only when polls are favourable, as oppositions only call for them when they're winning.
The current turbulence is self-inflicted by the Tories. Masterly inactivity is all Labour need, and as long as they avoid a Corbynite switch (I can't see it happening, but arrogance can be catching), they're a shoo-in.
Short of a flock of black swans, it's all over. Starmer may be boring, but he'll stamp on any left-wing rebellion. It's all he has to avoid.
One of the things I have noticed on this website is the prevalent assumption that history repeats itself which is actually a flawed assumption. With the exception of a declining number of dinosaurs the MPs in the Conservative party are different to those who were around in the 1990s. The experience of the tories in the 1990s was not repeating a previous episode in its history. However, the experience of the 90's and 00's will have an influence on how it addresses the current problems.
Conservative MPs are not generally subject to the same ideological delusions that many Labour MP's have, particularly as there is a sizeable contingent of labour MPs that arrived in the Corbyn era. The Labour party are also saddled by archaic procedural rules that make it difficult to sort out problems with the leadership, and the need to agree policy at 'conference'. I've seen the madness of the labour party as I was once a member and activist. I now vote Conservative and still probably will.
The idea that Starmer would be a better technocratic leader dealing with an economic crisis than someone like Sunak is for the birds. He presents this image in opposition. But he will be under fire from the unions, and from the activist base and their insane, unrealistic demands to raise benefits, raise pay, stop the latest strikes in light of the endless 'cost of living crisis' etc. The pressure will be far greater than that which may arise to a conservative leader from the self interested demands of ageing base who ultimately have few levers over the party whilst it is in power.
Starmer presents himself as a Blair like figure, but Blair did not come to power in the middle of an impossible economic crisis requiring very difficult decisions to be made.
Very well put. The Starmer in opposition is not the one we will see in government - he will bow to both party and public who want sweeties for everyone except the evil bankers and speculators. In doing so he will raise zero cash for the said sweeties and the dream will crash and burn faster than a cheap 🎇 on bonfire night.
I also don't trust Starmer. We joke with @bigjohnowls but he's quite right to point out that Starmer campaigned Left with the Labour members and then junked almost all of that as soon as he'd won.
I expect him to do the same with a General Election victory.
Dr. Foxy, you might well be right but the odds would be a bit short for me on an away win. I hope your bet comes off, though (I don't have anything on the match either way).
I'd be very surprised if Hunt doesn't become PM before Christmas. Having the evermore ridiculous Truss as PM with Hunt making the decisions is not sustainable.
NB. Slipping in that he didn't vote for Truss was very deliberate and smart
Freeland rightly points to the other elephant in the Tory room - the death of sovereignty. Brexit was all about Take Back Control. We could do what we like. We held all the cards. We are so important.
What KT vs the markets demonstrated was the stupidity of that argument. We have been humiliated on a global scale and our arrogant exceptionalism has been slapped down by a global community who refused to play along any longer.
I'm sure that Brexit will still keep popping its head above the Tory parapet, but politically it's now dead. People won't be in fear of voters who have had a very expensive demonstration of our lack of power over foreigners. We all work together or we know what happens
I think Freeland is right about sovereignty and the myth of Brexit. I’m less clear whether that’s how (Leave) voters will interpret events.
I am not revelling in the idea of a Labour government with a stonking majority. But we need a general election immediately. The country needs a general election.
What is more, I would argue that the Conservative Party needs a general election. I cannot see a way back for them in power, as the bad news will just keep rolling in. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party.
But the bigger problem for the Conservative Party is that too many people at the top will not - indeed, do not at the moment - see the reasons they are in the mire. Too many will not want to change.
My assumption is that the Conservatives are a lot better than the labour party at seeing the need to adapt to changing circumstances, because they are generally more pragmatic. But we will now see if this is really still the case. It may well be that Brexit, Boris Johnson and the MPs who are now in place mean that the party descend in to the type of farce that the labour party got itself in to, around 2015. If that happens, it really is the end for the party - an extinction level event. Can the MP's sort themselves out?
I'm unsure that the Conservatives are good at seeing the need to adapt. The Conservative Party was very tired in 1992, and over the next five years they became very threadbare, despite Major's best efforts. In 1997 the party was an absolute mess (I'd argue they're worse at the moment).
But sanity did not come immediately. Hague was a good man, but if anything the party became more extreme. They then elected IDS as leader (of all people!), and they only started the tack back towards sanity with Howard in 2003. Six years after their first loss. They did not get power for another seven.
I cannot see the Conservatives under Truss (or whoever replaces her) tacking towards sanity - they're too used to trying to con the public with pointless stuff like Brexit - and the public aren't in the mood now to be conned, by the Conservatives at least. And when they lose at the next GE, there is a great danger that many good Conservative MPs will lose their seats (or choose not to stand), whilst many of the nutters remain.
A problem both parties have. In a close-fought marginal, parties (should) take care to pick more credible and capable candidates - ones who will both come across well to the voters and have the necessary leadership skills to organise and front a campaign. And the voters’ judgement between the two candidates will tilt in favour of the one who comes across best.
In a safe seat, it’s easier for the selection committee to indulge itself by choosing an ideologue, and they don’t have to worry so much about capability since they know they can win the seat without any organisation whatsoever.
A point Gyles Brandreth makes in his Westminster diaries (which are a good insight into a government losing its will to live).
Thoughtful politicians who are attractive to floating voters get lumbered with marginal seats (GB and Seb Coe only survived a single term) whereas useless nutters seem to get safe seats for life.
(There are exceptions; some safe seats do take their privilege seriously. Huntington is one I reckon, Richmond York's is another.)
@Jeremy_Hunt taking part in a political ice bucket challenge for the Truss govt. Says everything Truss didn't yesterday. Admits: - mistake to cut tax for richest - mistake to 'fly blind' without OBR - spending can't go up as planned
Oh, and some taxes will go up. The fantasy era of cakeism, started by Johnson and accelerated by Truss, seems over. But is her premiership too?
But they were not flying blind without the OBR. We know that the OBR did an analysis of the plans because they have confirmed this. That KT refused to publish it demonstrated to the markets just how bad it was.
The lie was a problem, but its far deeper than that. KT truly believed they were right and everyone else wrong. She still thinks that, even now.
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.
But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:
1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.
2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.
He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.
Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.
The “safe option” has seen the LibDems marooned on 9%ish in the polls right now despite a massively unpopular Tory government.
That's a very misleading 9%.
If there were a GE now there would be tactical voting on a massive scale and the LDs would easily make it to 25 or more seats. That might actually be more than the Conservatives.
Btw, Swinson wasn't a bad General, just an unlucky one. The LDs were caught in a classic squeeze. Nobody dared vote LD for fear of Corbyn.
There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.
But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:
1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.
2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.
He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.
Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.
The “safe option” has seen the LibDems marooned on 9%ish in the polls right now despite a massively unpopular Tory government.
That's a very misleading 9%.
If there were a GE now there would be tactical voting on a massive scale and the LDs would easily make it to 25 or more seats. That might actually be more than the Conservatives.
Btw, Swinson wasn't a bad General, just an unlucky one. The LDs were caught in a classic squeeze. Nobody dared vote LD for fear of Corbyn.
That might not be a good thing for party or country if it means a return to austerity.
The public has had absolutely enough of austerity. It had had enough of it years ago. But lo, here comes Osborne 2.0.
The central conundrum of British politics is now that the only way to afford the level of spending, on health, social protections, schools and everything else, that people expect and demand is through punishingly higher taxes, directed in particular at assets rather than earnings. But such a radical change of approach will entail a binning of the entire post-1979, property speculation model of economic development, and create an awful lot of losers (particularly amongst the homeowning grey vote, which is huge and has a high turnout rate.) Which raises serious doubts about the willingness of any Government actually to do it.
But the homeowning grey vote doesn't vote for Labour to any great extent so policies which target that group wouldn't hurt them as it might the Tories. It's almost a free hit so if I were them I'd take the shot.
Now the basic rate income tax cut to 19p feels like the next U turn. Hunt tells @BBCr4today "I very much hope we can keep that" but won't make decision yet. The mini Budget filleted again.
That might not be a good thing for party or country if it means a return to austerity.
He has to start from where he is.
Sure, nobody wants austerity but if that's what it takes to calm the markets, so be it. After that he can inch his way forward. It's not going to be fun, but neither is living in La-La Land, where we have dwelt for too long.
Austerity in the middle of a cost of living crisis is going to be absolutely catastrophic for the public sector.
The NHS is already on the edge. Schools look set to be hit by a wave of rolling strikes. The situation in transport is - difficult.
And that's before any new austerity hits.
He may not have a choice, but it isn't going to be pretty at all.
Remember that barring Hunt the entire government is made up of amoral sneering chancers. They simply have no clue how to relate to normal people, so it isn't just that they're going to cause severe pain in schools, hospitals etc etc. Its how the message it.
Can't pay your bills? Get a better job. Can't afford food? Learn to cook. Hospital waiting list long? Yebbut we're building 40 hospitals and you voted against them Whats that? You have facts demonstrating me wrong? Your facts are in breech of the BBC Charter and the body who compiled the data always gets it wrong.
The country and everyone in it continues, of course, to be held hostage by the Conservative Party, and its extraordinary ability to replace each leader with a more incompetent successor. And we shouldn't kid ourselves that there's not ample opportunity for it to drag itself and us further into the mire. A panic eviction of Liz Truss will trigger a leadership election under the current rules, meaning we'll probably have to end up waiting, in the midst of multiple crises, with Truss as a powerless caretaker until at least Christmas, whilst the MPs whittle the list down again, and the demented old fucks in the membership have to be schmoozed and courted again. And we know where that ends. The Blukip faction in the Parliamentary party will get Braverman into the run-off and the reactionary fossil bigot suicide squad of superannuated home counties golf club bores will vote her in.
Never, ever assume that things can't get even worse.
Braverman vs Badenoch would be the ultimate hell on earth short of Putin raining down bombs on the UK.
There are still plenty of people on the right, a few of them on here, who still don't get it.
We are sick and tired of this right wing ideological crap that has driven this country into a cul-de-sac. The lack of basic common sense, extending into economic mismanagement, is breathtaking.
Whatever the anti-woke brigade like to think in their embittered old state, most people are more interested in their mortgage interest rate than whether someone wishes to identify female. The tory party have completely lost perspective and deserve a long, long, time in the political wilderness.
I’ve said exactly this to the likes of Leon before. This woke stuff just seems to be something a small minority on either fringe obsess about. People are far more concerned about their standard of living and the rising cost of everything as it impacts on their daily lives. If the Tories want to fight the next GE on woke issues they are going to lose badly. They will lose anyway but fighting on woke issues the loss will be worse.
Yes indeed.
The irony is that they will 'probably' do more to advance so-called woke causes than if they had instead got on with managing the economy properly. Why so? Because Labour will win the next election and, as a corollary, woke issues will follow along in their coat tails.
And it's not just about that tidal wash. I suspect people in their minds will lump together this swivel-eyed Government with what went wrong both economically AND socially. This happened in 1997 although of course New Labour inherited an economy in rude health unlike this time when they will have to pick up the pieces.
The big elephant in the room will be Brexit. When Britain starts to settle down again will voters associate Brexit with the total shitshow that followed? Will they want to unwind it? Quite possibly, but that will be one for another time.
Eventually Labour will over-extend their reach. They always do. But it won't happen for a least another decade and I strongly suspect more like a generation.
Some on here may never see another Conservative Government again in our lifetimes. It's a sobering thought.
Freeland rightly points to the other elephant in the Tory room - the death of sovereignty. Brexit was all about Take Back Control. We could do what we like. We held all the cards. We are so important.
What KT vs the markets demonstrated was the stupidity of that argument. We have been humiliated on a global scale and our arrogant exceptionalism has been slapped down by a global community who refused to play along any longer.
I'm sure that Brexit will still keep popping its head above the Tory parapet, but politically it's now dead. People won't be in fear of voters who have had a very expensive demonstration of our lack of power over foreigners. We all work together or we know what happens
I think Freeland is right about sovereignty and the myth of Brexit. I’m less clear whether that’s how (Leave) voters will interpret events.
On one hand, it's a brutal proof of the argument that pooling national sovereignty strengthens the power of nations against external forces. And some of those external forces aren't other nations. We really were Stronger, Safer and Better Off, as the slogan said.
On the other hand, proving someone wrong, especially if it's done brutally, can cause more harm than good.
@Jeremy_Hunt taking part in a political ice bucket challenge for the Truss govt. Says everything Truss didn't yesterday. Admits: - mistake to cut tax for richest - mistake to 'fly blind' without OBR - spending can't go up as planned
Oh, and some taxes will go up. The fantasy era of cakeism, started by Johnson and accelerated by Truss, seems over. But is her premiership too?
But they were not flying blind without the OBR. We know that the OBR did an analysis of the plans because they have confirmed this. That KT refused to publish it demonstrated to the markets just how bad it was.
The lie was a problem, but its far deeper than that. KT truly believed they were right and everyone else wrong. She still thinks that, even now.
Her instincts will still be to do bat-shit crazy stuff while Hunt's back is turned.
Her problem is Hunt could still resign as Chancellor the moment she did. The market wobble from that would be worse than anything under Kwarteng. And no-one would think the worse of Hunt.
I am not revelling in the idea of a Labour government with a stonking majority. But we need a general election immediately. The country needs a general election.
What is more, I would argue that the Conservative Party needs a general election. I cannot see a way back for them in power, as the bad news will just keep rolling in. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party.
But the bigger problem for the Conservative Party is that too many people at the top will not - indeed, do not at the moment - see the reasons they are in the mire. Too many will not want to change.
Do we need the Conservative Party?
Personally I've always thought good Government needs a good Opposition. Poor Opposition allows the Government to get away with murder - witness Labour under Corbyn and the Conservatives under...well take your pick but I would certainly highlight their failure to take Blair to task over Iraq. However if the Conservatives cannot field a decent team to counter Labour and hold it to account, wouldn't we be better off with Ian Blackford as LOTO, and Sir Ed Davey as leader of England's second largest Party?
It could happen. Much more of this malarky and TSE will be collecting on his 15% bet and the Conservatives could be reduced to a couple of Scottish MPs. The Party would quite literally be over. The shape of politics would change radically.
Good thing? Not sure. Probably not.
Couldn't happen? Don't you believe it.
It could happen once, as in Canada. In the long run there will always be a party whose purpose is essentially to defend existing wealth, privilege and culture - if we learn nothing else from HY’s posts we can all see that it is this that drives him along.
I'm looking forward to the day when the visceral reaction of a member of the public seeing a Tory rosette will be akin to that of seeing a Jim Fixed It For Me medallion.
Now the basic rate income tax cut to 19p feels like the next U turn. Hunt tells @BBCr4today "I very much hope we can keep that" but won't make decision yet. The mini Budget filleted again.
I hope he junks that (for one, the maths is highly irritating) and instead increases the personal allowance.
I think this will be what is done. What would it have to be raised to to be tax neutral, what point to save 5 billion ?
I expect Hunt to spunk money at the NHS which might, say, trim waiting lists from 7 million to 5 million by the time of the next election and still leave it hungry for more - with virtually no credit given to him.
One of the things I have noticed on this website is the prevalent assumption that history repeats itself which is actually a flawed assumption. With the exception of a declining number of dinosaurs the MPs in the Conservative party are different to those who were around in the 1990s. The experience of the tories in the 1990s was not repeating a previous episode in its history. However, the experience of the 90's and 00's will have an influence on how it addresses the current problems.
Conservative MPs are not generally subject to the same ideological delusions that many Labour MP's have, particularly as there is a sizeable contingent of labour MPs that arrived in the Corbyn era. The Labour party are also saddled by archaic procedural rules that make it difficult to sort out problems with the leadership, and the need to agree policy at 'conference'. I've seen the madness of the labour party as I was once a member and activist. I now vote Conservative and still probably will.
The idea that Starmer would be a better technocratic leader dealing with an economic crisis than someone like Sunak is for the birds. He presents this image in opposition. But he will be under fire from the unions, and from the activist base and their insane, unrealistic demands to raise benefits, raise pay, stop the latest strikes in light of the endless 'cost of living crisis' etc. The pressure will be far greater than that which may arise to a conservative leader from the self interested demands of ageing base who ultimately have few levers over the party whilst it is in power.
Starmer presents himself as a Blair like figure, but Blair did not come to power in the middle of an impossible economic crisis requiring very difficult decisions to be made.
Very well put. The Starmer in opposition is not the one we will see in government - he will bow to both party and public who want sweeties for everyone except the evil bankers and speculators. In doing so he will raise zero cash for the said sweeties and the dream will crash and burn faster than a cheap 🎇 on bonfire night.
I also don't trust Starmer. We joke with @bigjohnowls but he's quite right to point out that Starmer campaigned Left with the Labour members and then junked almost all of that as soon as he'd won.
I expect him to do the same with a General Election victory.
Agreed - he will junk the left having taken office. Whilst it is absolutely right to protect people's incomes against inflation, we can't give in to dinosaur union bosses who simply want to smash the system. Just as the Mail weaponises stupidity for giffers, the trade union movement weaponises ignorance of reality to its members.
That might not be a good thing for party or country if it means a return to austerity.
He has to start from where he is.
Sure, nobody wants austerity but if that's what it takes to calm the markets, so be it. After that he can inch his way forward. It's not going to be fun, but neither is living in La-La Land, where we have dwelt for too long.
Austerity in the middle of a cost of living crisis is going to be absolutely catastrophic for the public sector.
The NHS is already on the edge. Schools look set to be hit by a wave of rolling strikes. The situation in transport is - difficult.
And that's before any new austerity hits.
He may not have a choice, but it isn't going to be pretty at all.
Hunt is talking about “efficiency savings”. Do voters believe in the power of “efficiency savings” any more? Public services haven’t recovered from austerity 1.0. There is not much to cut.
It’s like Vimes’ boot theory from Terry Pratchett, but applied to the government. If the public sector can’t afford to make sensible investments, it ends up having to pay more in the long term. Austerity 1.0 hit local council spending the hardest, which hit social care, but failings in social care now means hospitals can’t discharge patients, which means long waiting times for ambulances as they can’t deliver patients into full hospitals. This all means paying paramedics to sit in queues outside hospitals and paying for the worse health outcomes of delayed patients, while paying for patients who are fit enough to go home sitting in hospital.
I'm sure that Brexit will still keep popping its head above the Tory parapet, but politically it's now dead. People won't be in fear of voters who have had a very expensive demonstration of our lack of power over foreigners. We all work together or we know what happens
The zombie alternative history that will now never die is "Only BoZo could make Brexit work. If he had not been knifed, Brexit would have been great"
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.
But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:
1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.
2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.
He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.
Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.
The “safe option” has seen the LibDems marooned on 9%ish in the polls right now despite a massively unpopular Tory government.
That's a very misleading 9%.
If there were a GE now there would be tactical voting on a massive scale and the LDs would easily make it to 25 or more seats. That might actually be more than the Conservatives.
Btw, Swinson wasn't a bad General, just an unlucky one. The LDs were caught in a classic squeeze. Nobody dared vote LD for fear of Corbyn.
The worry for the LibDems right now, I think, is that parts of the Blue Wall might just leap straight to Labour rather than the LDs. I can potentially see that happening where I live (Witney) although, sadly, the most likely outcome is a Lab/LD split allowing the useless incumbent Tory (Robert Courts) to retain his seat.
That might not be a good thing for party or country if it means a return to austerity.
The public has had absolutely enough of austerity. It had had enough of it years ago. But lo, here comes Osborne 2.0.
The central conundrum of British politics is now that the only way to afford the level of spending, on health, social protections, schools and everything else, that people expect and demand is through punishingly higher taxes, directed in particular at assets rather than earnings. But such a radical change of approach will entail a binning of the entire post-1979, property speculation model of economic development, and create an awful lot of losers (particularly amongst the homeowning grey vote, which is huge and has a high turnout rate.) Which raises serious doubts about the willingness of any Government actually to do it.
But the homeowning grey vote doesn't vote for Labour to any great extent so policies which target that group wouldn't hurt them as it might the Tories. It's almost a free hit so if I were them I'd take the shot.
Accounting for propensity to turn out, about half of the entire electorate is aged over 55, and the bulk of them will be outright owner-occupiers or paying off the last few years of their mortgages. The older ones in particular will also have expectant heirs waiting to receive a huge windfall when they shuffle off.
The Opposition is going to have to peel a substantial chunk off that vote to take over. And they're allergic to anything - property taxes, IHT, wind turbines, new housing estates - that might interfere with the accumulation (via eternally inflating house prices) and successful transmission of inherited wealth. That's awkward for Labour.
There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.
But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:
1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.
2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.
He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.
Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.
The “safe option” has seen the LibDems marooned on 9%ish in the polls right now despite a massively unpopular Tory government.
That's a very misleading 9%.
If there were a GE now there would be tactical voting on a massive scale and the LDs would easily make it to 25 or more seats. That might actually be more than the Conservatives.
Btw, Swinson wasn't a bad General, just an unlucky one. The LDs were caught in a classic squeeze. Nobody dared vote LD for fear of Corbyn.
The party made a mistake. They tried to go after too many seats. They needed to be more targeted with resources. I think Swinson has some responsibility for that decision.
I am not revelling in the idea of a Labour government with a stonking majority. But we need a general election immediately. The country needs a general election.
What is more, I would argue that the Conservative Party needs a general election. I cannot see a way back for them in power, as the bad news will just keep rolling in. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party.
But the bigger problem for the Conservative Party is that too many people at the top will not - indeed, do not at the moment - see the reasons they are in the mire. Too many will not want to change.
Do we need the Conservative Party?
Personally I've always thought good Government needs a good Opposition. Poor Opposition allows the Government to get away with murder - witness Labour under Corbyn and the Conservatives under...well take your pick but I would certainly highlight their failure to take Blair to task over Iraq. However if the Conservatives cannot field a decent team to counter Labour and hold it to account, wouldn't we be better off with Ian Blackford as LOTO, and Sir Ed Davey as leader of England's second largest Party?
It could happen. Much more of this malarky and TSE will be collecting on his 15% bet and the Conservatives could be reduced to a couple of Scottish MPs. The Party would quite literally be over. The shape of politics would change radically.
Good thing? Not sure. Probably not.
Couldn't happen? Don't you believe it.
They will be very lucky to have even a couple Peter, very good chance of wipeout.
That might not be a good thing for party or country if it means a return to austerity.
The public has had absolutely enough of austerity. It had had enough of it years ago. But lo, here comes Osborne 2.0.
The central conundrum of British politics is now that the only way to afford the level of spending, on health, social protections, schools and everything else, that people expect and demand is through punishingly higher taxes, directed in particular at assets rather than earnings. But such a radical change of approach will entail a binning of the entire post-1979, property speculation model of economic development, and create an awful lot of losers (particularly amongst the homeowning grey vote, which is huge and has a high turnout rate.) Which raises serious doubts about the willingness of any Government actually to do it.
But the homeowning grey vote doesn't vote for Labour to any great extent so policies which target that group wouldn't hurt them as it might the Tories. It's almost a free hit so if I were them I'd take the shot.
Accounting for propensity to turn out, about half of the entire electorate is aged over 55, and the bulk of them will be outright owner-occupiers or paying off the last few years of their mortgages. The older ones in particular will also have expectant heirs waiting to receive a huge windfall when they shuffle off.
The Opposition is going to have to peel a substantial chunk off that vote to take over. And they're allergic to anything - property taxes, IHT, wind turbines, new housing estates - that might interfere with the accumulation (via eternally inflating house prices) and successful transmission of inherited wealth. That's awkward for Labour.
Quite. Just look how much emphasis HYUFD places on that aspect of life and how utterly frantic he gets at any threat to the repeated Tory featherbedding of that demographic. Also worth bearing in mind that a lot of the "expectant heirs", as you put it, are themselves over 55.
In a parallel universe @trussliz & @KwasiKwarteng didn't rush out an uncosted budget. They'd still be in their honeymoon period Rising int rates wld be blamed on @bankofengland
Instead, right or wrong, this mortgage pain may be forever linked w the Tories
I'm sure that Brexit will still keep popping its head above the Tory parapet, but politically it's now dead. People won't be in fear of voters who have had a very expensive demonstration of our lack of power over foreigners. We all work together or we know what happens
The zombie alternative history that will now never die is "Only BoZo could make Brexit work. If he had not been knifed, Brexit would have been great"
We could call it the Dolchstoss theory, but it would be cruel as it would upset them even more.
Jeremy Hunt has just trashed everything that Liz Truss stands for, but he's hurt her in another way. By sounding *vaguely coherent* for an hour, he'll have left Tory MPs wondering whether getting a new leader might at least save their seat at the next election. https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1581190028545658880
Woke makes sense once you recognise it as essentially authoritarian.
There is no political home for authoritarianism at the moment, so those who would have gravitated towards it (think the SWP of the 70s and 80s) trend towards 'cultural' rather than political self-rightousness.
It will win about as many votes as the SWP and the like did back way back when.
Will govt keep pledge to cut the basic rate of income tax to 19p next year? Hunt: "I very much hope we can keep that, I'm not going to make a decision before I've looked at all the numbers in the round."
But they were not flying blind without the OBR. We know that the OBR did an analysis of the plans because they have confirmed this. That KT refused to publish it demonstrated to the markets just how bad it was.
The lie was a problem, but its far deeper than that. KT truly believed they were right and everyone else wrong. She still thinks that, even now.
There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.
But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:
1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.
2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.
He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.
Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.
The “safe option” has seen the LibDems marooned on 9%ish in the polls right now despite a massively unpopular Tory government.
That's a very misleading 9%.
If there were a GE now there would be tactical voting on a massive scale and the LDs would easily make it to 25 or more seats. That might actually be more than the Conservatives.
Btw, Swinson wasn't a bad General, just an unlucky one. The LDs were caught in a classic squeeze. Nobody dared vote LD for fear of Corbyn.
The worry for the LibDems right now, I think, is that parts of the Blue Wall might just leap straight to Labour rather than the LDs. I can potentially see that happening where I live (Witney) although, sadly, the most likely outcome is a Lab/LD split allowing the useless incumbent Tory (Robert Courts) to retain his seat.
(Walls can’t leap, can they?)
Voter indecision about which candidate to back to get rid of the local Tory could allow a meaningful number of Conservative incumbents to survive as the leading candidates in three-way marginals. We have the same problem in this neck of the woods: the Lib Dem candidate came second in 2010, the yellows managed to save their deposit in 2015, and they're now rebuilding locally and in hot pursuit of second placed Labour. The Tory starts with an 18k majority so could survive a chunky fall in vote share if the anti-Tory vote splits evenly.
I'm sure that Brexit will still keep popping its head above the Tory parapet, but politically it's now dead. People won't be in fear of voters who have had a very expensive demonstration of our lack of power over foreigners. We all work together or we know what happens
The zombie alternative history that will now never die is "Only BoZo could make Brexit work. If he had not been knifed, Brexit would have been great"
We could call it the Dolchstoss theory, but it would be cruel as it would upset them even more.
I think Truss now survives. Hunt will restore credibility with Mr Market. The ship of state will steady. Tory MPs will calm down. Austerity will be accepted as necessary in the short term. Truss will aspire to cutting taxes in the future and lead the Tories into the next election. Starmer will be next PM. I’m on at 6.2+
That might not be a good thing for party or country if it means a return to austerity.
The public has had absolutely enough of austerity. It had had enough of it years ago. But lo, here comes Osborne 2.0.
The central conundrum of British politics is now that the only way to afford the level of spending, on health, social protections, schools and everything else, that people expect and demand is through punishingly higher taxes, directed in particular at assets rather than earnings. But such a radical change of approach will entail a binning of the entire post-1979, property speculation model of economic development, and create an awful lot of losers (particularly amongst the homeowning grey vote, which is huge and has a high turnout rate.) Which raises serious doubts about the willingness of any Government actually to do it.
But the homeowning grey vote doesn't vote for Labour to any great extent so policies which target that group wouldn't hurt them as it might the Tories. It's almost a free hit so if I were them I'd take the shot.
Accounting for propensity to turn out, about half of the entire electorate is aged over 55, and the bulk of them will be outright owner-occupiers or paying off the last few years of their mortgages. The older ones in particular will also have expectant heirs waiting to receive a huge windfall when they shuffle off.
The Opposition is going to have to peel a substantial chunk off that vote to take over. And they're allergic to anything - property taxes, IHT, wind turbines, new housing estates - that might interfere with the accumulation (via eternally inflating house prices) and successful transmission of inherited wealth. That's awkward for Labour.
I think it’s way too simplistic to treat all over-55 property owners the same. Of course, some don’t want property taxes, IHT, wind turbines etc., but plenty will support that. Plenty are aware of their children’s struggles to get on the property ladder, plenty care about their grandchildren’s education, and a huge proportion also care about there being a well-funded healthcare system.
I think some are getting high on their own supply this morning.
There's always going to be a place for a centre-right party in British politics.
But it's no longer inconceivable that it might end up being a different one to that which we have at the moment. The current Canadian Tory party is not the same one that existed in 1993.
Good morning everyone. At least the weather seems fair! Roger refers to Ethelred the Unready; I'm no scholar of Anglo-Saxon but I believe Unready in this context means badly advised, and certainly if anyone is advising our prime minister then they are not doing a very good job of it!
I am a scholar of Anglo-Saxon - well, I was one at university many years ago - and that is spot on. Aethelraed Unraed means “good advice, ill-advised”. It’s basically the original “he needs better advisers”.
The things one learns on PB. I'd no idea it was a pun in A/S.
There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.
But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:
1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.
2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.
He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.
Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.
The “safe option” has seen the LibDems marooned on 9%ish in the polls right now despite a massively unpopular Tory government.
That's a very misleading 9%.
If there were a GE now there would be tactical voting on a massive scale and the LDs would easily make it to 25 or more seats. That might actually be more than the Conservatives.
Btw, Swinson wasn't a bad General, just an unlucky one. The LDs were caught in a classic squeeze. Nobody dared vote LD for fear of Corbyn.
No, the Swinson campaign was hopeless. She did allow herself to be surrounded by some foolish advisers and cut herself off from the rest of the party; in mitigation she was young and inexperienced, but ultimately the buck stops with her. That election campaign was the most risible I have seen from the party, and part of the background to why I am no longer a member.
I watched a bit of BBC Breakfast this morning and in the feedback section there were a couple of comments from viewers complaining that the BBC had created the economic chaos by its reporting and there was no problem until then.
But they were not flying blind without the OBR. We know that the OBR did an analysis of the plans because they have confirmed this. That KT refused to publish it demonstrated to the markets just how bad it was.
The lie was a problem, but its far deeper than that. KT truly believed they were right and everyone else wrong. She still thinks that, even now.
I'm sure that Brexit will still keep popping its head above the Tory parapet, but politically it's now dead. People won't be in fear of voters who have had a very expensive demonstration of our lack of power over foreigners. We all work together or we know what happens
The zombie alternative history that will now never die is "Only BoZo could make Brexit work. If he had not been knifed, Brexit would have been great"
We could call it the Dolchstoss theory, but it would be cruel as it would upset them even more.
The myth is Back!
I was just having a stab at a suitable name. *modest*
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
The country and everyone in it continues, of course, to be held hostage by the Conservative Party, and its extraordinary ability to replace each leader with a more incompetent successor. And we shouldn't kid ourselves that there's not ample opportunity for it to drag itself and us further into the mire. A panic eviction of Liz Truss will trigger a leadership election under the current rules, meaning we'll probably have to end up waiting, in the midst of multiple crises, with Truss as a powerless caretaker until at least Christmas, whilst the MPs whittle the list down again, and the demented old fucks in the membership have to be schmoozed and courted again. And we know where that ends. The Blukip faction in the Parliamentary party will get Braverman into the run-off and the reactionary fossil bigot suicide squad of superannuated home counties golf club bores will vote her in.
Never, ever assume that things can't get even worse.
Braverman vs Badenoch would be the ultimate hell on earth short of Putin raining down bombs on the UK.
There are still plenty of people on the right, a few of them on here, who still don't get it.
We are sick and tired of this right wing ideological crap that has driven this country into a cul-de-sac. The lack of basic common sense, extending into economic mismanagement, is breathtaking.
Whatever the anti-woke brigade like to think in their embittered old state, most people are more interested in their mortgage interest rate than whether someone wishes to identify female. The tory party have completely lost perspective and deserve a long, long, time in the political wilderness.
I’ve said exactly this to the likes of Leon before. This woke stuff just seems to be something a small minority on either fringe obsess about. People are far more concerned about their standard of living and the rising cost of everything as it impacts on their daily lives. If the Tories want to fight the next GE on woke issues they are going to lose badly. They will lose anyway but fighting on woke issues the loss will be worse.
Yes indeed.
The irony is that they will 'probably' do more to advance so-called woke causes than if they had instead got on with managing the economy properly. Why so? Because Labour will win the next election and, as a corollary, woke issues will follow along in their coat tails.
And it's not just about that tidal wash. I suspect people in their minds will lump together this swivel-eyed Government with what went wrong both economically AND socially. This happened in 1997 although of course New Labour inherited an economy in rude health unlike this time when they will have to pick up the pieces.
The big elephant in the room will be Brexit. When Britain starts to settle down again will voters associate Brexit with the total shitshow that followed? Will they want to unwind it? Quite possibly, but that will be one for another time.
Eventually Labour will over-extend their reach. They always do. But it won't happen for a least another decade and I strongly suspect more like a generation.
Some on here may never see another Conservative Government again in our lifetimes. It's a sobering thought.
In a parallel universe @trussliz & @KwasiKwarteng didn't rush out an uncosted budget. They'd still be in their honeymoon period Rising int rates wld be blamed on @bankofengland
Instead, right or wrong, this mortgage pain may be forever linked w the Tories
The fact Hunt is going to need to show the market more leg than previous might reduce mortgages in the medium term compared to the counterfactual of Truss and Kwarteng 'rolling the pitch' for tax reduction spaced out over a longer period but still requiring monetary tightening given the rise in uS interest rates. I mean that's a difficult sell but it could be the truth.
Just laid Hunt (Smarkets, same odds Betfair) to be next PM at 4.
That's mostly as a second hedge, slightly different market, on him being next Con leader, which I laid at 15 yesterday (yep, took it early and had slightly worse odds) having backed/tipped at 46.
Since London is largely Labour already and elsewhere there are many millions without big mortgages or fixes it seems a rather silly thing to focus on. I dare say I'm wrong but for every annoyed mortgage holder are there not more savers hoping for a liitle interest on their savings after many years with nothing?
There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.
But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:
1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.
2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.
He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.
Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.
The “safe option” has seen the LibDems marooned on 9%ish in the polls right now despite a massively unpopular Tory government.
That's a very misleading 9%.
If there were a GE now there would be tactical voting on a massive scale and the LDs would easily make it to 25 or more seats. That might actually be more than the Conservatives.
Btw, Swinson wasn't a bad General, just an unlucky one. The LDs were caught in a classic squeeze. Nobody dared vote LD for fear of Corbyn.
The worry for the LibDems right now, I think, is that parts of the Blue Wall might just leap straight to Labour rather than the LDs. I can potentially see that happening where I live (Witney) although, sadly, the most likely outcome is a Lab/LD split allowing the useless incumbent Tory (Robert Courts) to retain his seat.
(Walls can’t leap, can they?)
They won't make much impression in the North, but I should have thought Witney was a definite maybe at the next GE.
@Jeremy_Hunt taking part in a political ice bucket challenge for the Truss govt. Says everything Truss didn't yesterday. Admits: - mistake to cut tax for richest - mistake to 'fly blind' without OBR - spending can't go up as planned
Oh, and some taxes will go up. The fantasy era of cakeism, started by Johnson and accelerated by Truss, seems over. But is her premiership too?
But they were not flying blind without the OBR. We know that the OBR did an analysis of the plans because they have confirmed this. That KT refused to publish it demonstrated to the markets just how bad it was.
The lie was a problem, but its far deeper than that. KT truly believed they were right and everyone else wrong. She still thinks that, even now.
Her instincts will still be to do bat-shit crazy stuff while Hunt's back is turned.
Her problem is Hunt could still resign as Chancellor the moment she did. The market wobble from that would be worse than anything under Kwarteng. And no-one would think the worse of Hunt.
Hunt can’t be sacked, and even a threat to resign and she is done. So he will get his way - the question, as others say above, is for how long is this sustainable?
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
That raises the intriguing possibility that there are times when you're *not* really miffed at something.
Now the basic rate income tax cut to 19p feels like the next U turn. Hunt tells @BBCr4today "I very much hope we can keep that" but won't make decision yet. The mini Budget filleted again.
I hope he junks that (for one, the maths is highly irritating) and instead increases the personal allowance.
I think this will be what is done. What would it have to be raised to to be tax neutral, what point to save 5 billion ?
I expect Hunt to spunk money at the NHS which might, say, trim waiting lists from 7 million to 5 million by the time of the next election and still leave it hungry for more - with virtually no credit given to him.
Will still happen though.
Some of the stuff in his recent book on the NHS was actually quite sensible. He seems to have learned from his time as Health Sec.
The numbers are too grim for money to make much difference this winter, particularly on staffing, beds (which is really also about staffing) and Social Care.
Meanwhile our Health Secretary is telling Nurses to find better jobs:
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
That raises the intriguing possibility that there are times when you're *not* really miffed at something.
When he gets mince and tatties and neeps, followed by clootie dumpling. *middle-aged Scotsman's comfort food*
That might not be a good thing for party or country if it means a return to austerity.
The public has had absolutely enough of austerity. It had had enough of it years ago. But lo, here comes Osborne 2.0.
The central conundrum of British politics is now that the only way to afford the level of spending, on health, social protections, schools and everything else, that people expect and demand is through punishingly higher taxes, directed in particular at assets rather than earnings. But such a radical change of approach will entail a binning of the entire post-1979, property speculation model of economic development, and create an awful lot of losers (particularly amongst the homeowning grey vote, which is huge and has a high turnout rate.) Which raises serious doubts about the willingness of any Government actually to do it.
But the homeowning grey vote doesn't vote for Labour to any great extent so policies which target that group wouldn't hurt them as it might the Tories. It's almost a free hit so if I were them I'd take the shot.
Accounting for propensity to turn out, about half of the entire electorate is aged over 55, and the bulk of them will be outright owner-occupiers or paying off the last few years of their mortgages. The older ones in particular will also have expectant heirs waiting to receive a huge windfall when they shuffle off.
The Opposition is going to have to peel a substantial chunk off that vote to take over. And they're allergic to anything - property taxes, IHT, wind turbines, new housing estates - that might interfere with the accumulation (via eternally inflating house prices) and successful transmission of inherited wealth. That's awkward for Labour.
I think it’s way too simplistic to treat all over-55 property owners the same. Of course, some don’t want property taxes, IHT, wind turbines etc., but plenty will support that. Plenty are aware of their children’s struggles to get on the property ladder, plenty care about their grandchildren’s education, and a huge proportion also care about there being a well-funded healthcare system.
They might talk the talk but would they ditch the "don't you dare touch my fucking house" attitude in the privacy of the polling booth? I might simply be being the most terrible cynic here, but both the Dementia Tax furore and the outbreak of screaming Nimbyism that accompanies almost any attempt to build anything anywhere suggests not.
Freeland rightly points to the other elephant in the Tory room - the death of sovereignty. Brexit was all about Take Back Control. We could do what we like. We held all the cards. We are so important.
What KT vs the markets demonstrated was the stupidity of that argument. We have been humiliated on a global scale and our arrogant exceptionalism has been slapped down by a global community who refused to play along any longer.
I'm sure that Brexit will still keep popping its head above the Tory parapet, but politically it's now dead. People won't be in fear of voters who have had a very expensive demonstration of our lack of power over foreigners. We all work together or we know what happens
I think Freeland is right about sovereignty and the myth of Brexit. I’m less clear whether that’s how (Leave) voters will interpret events.
On one hand, it's a brutal proof of the argument that pooling national sovereignty strengthens the power of nations against external forces. And some of those external forces aren't other nations. We really were Stronger, Safer and Better Off, as the slogan said.
On the other hand, proving someone wrong, especially if it's done brutally, can cause more harm than good.
Are you confident that this argument won't be proved wrong by events (i.e. EU countries succumbing to the same pressures)?
Arguably what the last year has shown is that the EU was deluding itself about being an equal to the US, and that the next period of global politics will be defined by the rivalry between the US and China.
Woke makes sense once you recognise it as essentially authoritarian.
There is no political home for authoritarianism at the moment, so those who would have gravitated towards it (think the SWP of the 70s and 80s) trend towards 'cultural' rather than political self-rightousness.
It will win about as many votes as the SWP and the like did back way back when.
"Woke" is no longer a meaningful term. It means whatever reactionaries hate about modern society, and that shifts with their apoplexy.
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
You will get your state pension increase based on next week's CPI number, and benefits etc will be updated similarly.
Now the basic rate income tax cut to 19p feels like the next U turn. Hunt tells @BBCr4today "I very much hope we can keep that" but won't make decision yet. The mini Budget filleted again.
I hope he junks that (for one, the maths is highly irritating) and instead increases the personal allowance.
I think this will be what is done. What would it have to be raised to to be tax neutral, what point to save 5 billion ?
I expect Hunt to spunk money at the NHS which might, say, trim waiting lists from 7 million to 5 million by the time of the next election and still leave it hungry for more - with virtually no credit given to him.
Will still happen though.
Some of the stuff in his recent book on the NHS was actually quite sensible. He seems to have learned from his time as Health Sec.
The numbers are too grim for money to make much difference this winter, particularly on staffing, beds (which is really also about staffing) and Social Care.
Meanwhile our Health Secretary is telling Nurses to find better jobs:
That might not be a good thing for party or country if it means a return to austerity.
The public has had absolutely enough of austerity. It had had enough of it years ago. But lo, here comes Osborne 2.0.
The central conundrum of British politics is now that the only way to afford the level of spending, on health, social protections, schools and everything else, that people expect and demand is through punishingly higher taxes, directed in particular at assets rather than earnings. But such a radical change of approach will entail a binning of the entire post-1979, property speculation model of economic development, and create an awful lot of losers (particularly amongst the homeowning grey vote, which is huge and has a high turnout rate.) Which raises serious doubts about the willingness of any Government actually to do it.
But the homeowning grey vote doesn't vote for Labour to any great extent so policies which target that group wouldn't hurt them as it might the Tories. It's almost a free hit so if I were them I'd take the shot.
Accounting for propensity to turn out, about half of the entire electorate is aged over 55, and the bulk of them will be outright owner-occupiers or paying off the last few years of their mortgages. The older ones in particular will also have expectant heirs waiting to receive a huge windfall when they shuffle off.
The Opposition is going to have to peel a substantial chunk off that vote to take over. And they're allergic to anything - property taxes, IHT, wind turbines, new housing estates - that might interfere with the accumulation (via eternally inflating house prices) and successful transmission of inherited wealth. That's awkward for Labour.
I think it’s way too simplistic to treat all over-55 property owners the same. Of course, some don’t want property taxes, IHT, wind turbines etc., but plenty will support that. Plenty are aware of their children’s struggles to get on the property ladder, plenty care about their grandchildren’s education, and a huge proportion also care about there being a well-funded healthcare system.
They might talk the talk but would they ditch the "don't you dare touch my fucking house" attitude in the privacy of the polling booth? I might simply be being the most terrible cynic here, but both the Dementia Tax furore and the outbreak of screaming Nimbyism that accompanies almost any attempt to build anything anywhere suggests not.
The other element, as I have pointed out here ad nauseam, is the careful crafting of income tax to suit that demographic - extra IHT relief for approved families with approved children, and additional income tax allowances for bank & bs interest and company dividends as well as some rentals.
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
That raises the intriguing possibility that there are times when you're *not* really miffed at something.
Ydoether , you malign me, I am actually a happy go lucky chappie. I have led a lucky interesting very happy life and hope I have many happy years to go. In reality I am very cheery.
Woke makes sense once you recognise it as essentially authoritarian.
There is no political home for authoritarianism at the moment, so those who would have gravitated towards it (think the SWP of the 70s and 80s) trend towards 'cultural' rather than political self-rightousness.
It will win about as many votes as the SWP and the like did back way back when.
Given Labour will not be leading with a “woke” manifesto, how relevant is your point? Labour are focusing on economic competence and better public services.
Actually, come to think of it, there are a couple of parties who do have more explicitly “woke” positions: the SNP and the Greens. The SNP still dominate Scottish politics (and have trounced an anti-woke splinter), while the Greens are doing well in English local elections. Maybe wokery is more popular than you think…?
Woke makes sense once you recognise it as essentially authoritarian.
There is no political home for authoritarianism at the moment, so those who would have gravitated towards it (think the SWP of the 70s and 80s) trend towards 'cultural' rather than political self-rightousness.
It will win about as many votes as the SWP and the like did back way back when.
"Woke" is no longer a meaningful term. It means whatever reactionaries hate about modern society, and that shifts with their apoplexy.
It means to me a set of fashionable views held fanatically and arrived at without applying even a modicum of intellectual rigour.
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
That raises the intriguing possibility that there are times when you're *not* really miffed at something.
Ydoether , you malign me, I am actually a happy go lucky chappie. I have led a lucky interesting very happy life and hope I have many happy years to go. In reality I am very cheery.
Well, we all hope you have many happy years to go Malc, but will the turnip supply hold out that long?
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
That raises the intriguing possibility that there are times when you're *not* really miffed at something.
When he gets mince and tatties and neeps, followed by clootie dumpling. *middle-aged Scotsman's comfort food*
Morning Carnyx, been some time since clootie dumpling. Was spoiled by my father's efforts being so good that all others are inferior. But I do insist on the mince and tatties on a reasonably regular basis.
Woke makes sense once you recognise it as essentially authoritarian.
There is no political home for authoritarianism at the moment, so those who would have gravitated towards it (think the SWP of the 70s and 80s) trend towards 'cultural' rather than political self-rightousness.
It will win about as many votes as the SWP and the like did back way back when.
Given Labour will not be leading with a “woke” manifesto, how relevant is your point? Labour are focusing on economic competence and better public services.
Actually, come to think of it, there are a couple of parties who do have more explicitly “woke” positions: the SNP and the Greens. The SNP still dominate Scottish politics (and have trounced and anti-woke splinter), while the Greens are doing well in English local elections. Maybe wokery is more popular than you think…?
Pedantic point: make that three, with the Scottish Greens. Non-trivial element at Holyrood, doing a lot better than the LDs (future relative rankings of those two, however, to be determined vis-a-vis the Scons).
Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.
I thought that - except that Truss has promised no spending cuts, and she’s still supposed to be in charge. Which suggests the first phase at least is going to be some surprise tax rises.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
I agree on the triple lock but realistically the burden of cuts ought to fall everywhere - less harshly on the poorest but there needs to be some pain for all - it's the only way to avoid the howls of the aggrieved on the news programmes with the nodding head of the la 'Burleys' et al...
I will be really miffed if I don't get my 10% pension increase
That raises the intriguing possibility that there are times when you're *not* really miffed at something.
When he gets mince and tatties and neeps, followed by clootie dumpling. *middle-aged Scotsman's comfort food*
Morning Carnyx, been some time since clootie dumpling. Was spoiled by my father's efforts being so good that all others are inferior. But I do insist on the mince and tatties on a reasonably regular basis.
Morning! Was dreich earlier but sun is coming out.
Comments
How long is that going to last?
We may be drawing or even ahead at half time but will collapse second half.
The current turbulence is self-inflicted by the Tories. Masterly inactivity is all Labour need, and as long as they avoid a Corbynite switch (I can't see it happening, but arrogance can be catching), they're a shoo-in.
Short of a flock of black swans, it's all over. Starmer may be boring, but he'll stamp on any left-wing rebellion. It's all he has to avoid.
I expect him to do the same with a General Election victory.
https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1581184017462099969
NB. Slipping in that he didn't vote for Truss was very deliberate and smart
Thoughtful politicians who are attractive to floating voters get lumbered with marginal seats (GB and Seb Coe only survived a single term) whereas useless nutters seem to get safe seats for life.
(There are exceptions; some safe seats do take their privilege seriously. Huntington is one I reckon, Richmond York's is another.)
Should be 2/1 or under, imo.
He’s a giant in a cabinet of pigmys.
The lie was a problem, but its far deeper than that. KT truly believed they were right and everyone else wrong. She still thinks that, even now.
Bonk for Britain, pay off the debt.
The triple lock could go, saving a lot of money - does that count as a spending cut?
If there were a GE now there would be tactical voting on a massive scale and the LDs would easily make it to 25 or more seats. That might actually be more than the Conservatives.
Btw, Swinson wasn't a bad General, just an unlucky one. The LDs were caught in a classic squeeze. Nobody dared vote LD for fear of Corbyn.
Loft, pretty sure Robbie would have approved!
https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1581186908419665920?s=61&t=bZwE5LwAD1T9kFez01eGEA
Can't pay your bills? Get a better job.
Can't afford food? Learn to cook.
Hospital waiting list long? Yebbut we're building 40 hospitals and you voted against them
Whats that? You have facts demonstrating me wrong? Your facts are in breech of the BBC Charter and the body who compiled the data always gets it wrong.
The irony is that they will 'probably' do more to advance so-called woke causes than if they had instead got on with managing the economy properly. Why so? Because Labour will win the next election and, as a corollary, woke issues will follow along in their coat tails.
And it's not just about that tidal wash. I suspect people in their minds will lump together this swivel-eyed Government with what went wrong both economically AND socially. This happened in 1997 although of course New Labour inherited an economy in rude health unlike this time when they will have to pick up the pieces.
The big elephant in the room will be Brexit. When Britain starts to settle down again will voters associate Brexit with the total shitshow that followed? Will they want to unwind it? Quite possibly, but that will be one for another time.
Eventually Labour will over-extend their reach. They always do. But it won't happen for a least another decade and I strongly suspect more like a generation.
Some on here may never see another Conservative Government again in our lifetimes. It's a sobering thought.
On the other hand, proving someone wrong, especially if it's done brutally, can cause more harm than good.
Her problem is Hunt could still resign as Chancellor the moment she did. The market wobble from that would be worse than anything under Kwarteng. And no-one would think the worse of Hunt.
Will still happen though.
2019 was an anomaly for three reasons. 1. Brexit 2. Boris 3. Corbyn
None of those three pertain in the same way. In fact, you could argue that all three are gone as big electoral issues.
So compare to 2017 and you won't go wrong in your betting. Hot tip.
It’s like Vimes’ boot theory from Terry Pratchett, but applied to the government. If the public sector can’t afford to make sensible investments, it ends up having to pay more in the long term. Austerity 1.0 hit local council spending the hardest, which hit social care, but failings in social care now means hospitals can’t discharge patients, which means long waiting times for ambulances as they can’t deliver patients into full hospitals. This all means paying paramedics to sit in queues outside hospitals and paying for the worse health outcomes of delayed patients, while paying for patients who are fit enough to go home sitting in hospital.
(Walls can’t leap, can they?)
The Opposition is going to have to peel a substantial chunk off that vote to take over. And they're allergic to anything - property taxes, IHT, wind turbines, new housing estates - that might interfere with the accumulation (via eternally inflating house prices) and successful transmission of inherited wealth. That's awkward for Labour.
‘When I saw Jeremy Hunt I said: you’ve got a hell of a job, best of luck. What I really wanted to say was: fuck you’
Miriam Margolyes
#BBCR4Today
This is the BEST RADIO YOU WILL HEAR ALL YEAR
With thanks to @MMargolyes and @BBCr4today. https://twitter.com/tombarton/status/1581186760553689090 https://twitter.com/tombarton/status/1581188534831964160/video/1
It’s hard to see what anyone, inc Hunt, can do about this now
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/83212520-4be0-11ed-8b55-aaf85c581598?shareToken=e6d0ffe683f420344d68f547742bce5c https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1581185879326195712/photo/1
Rising int rates wld be blamed on @bankofengland
Instead, right or wrong, this mortgage pain may be forever linked w the Tories
https://news.sky.com/story/having-sealed-her-chancellors-fate-the-markets-could-seal-the-prime-ministers-fate-12720618 https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1581168981775626240/photo/1
https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1581190028545658880
Woke makes sense once you recognise it as essentially authoritarian.
There is no political home for authoritarianism at the moment, so those who would have gravitated towards it (think the SWP of the 70s and 80s) trend towards 'cultural' rather than political self-rightousness.
It will win about as many votes as the SWP and the like did back way back when.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1581183283617927168
I very much hope…..
So that answers the “who’s in charge?” question…
There's always going to be a place for a centre-right party in British politics.
Sounds good to me.
How delusional can some Conservative voters be?
I mean that's a difficult sell but it could be the truth.
That's mostly as a second hedge, slightly different market, on him being next Con leader, which I laid at 15 yesterday (yep, took it early and had slightly worse odds) having backed/tipped at 46.
The numbers are too grim for money to make much difference this winter, particularly on staffing, beds (which is really also about staffing) and Social Care.
Meanwhile our Health Secretary is telling Nurses to find better jobs:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1580936870749687809?t=JsN7TABx1kwTFq2RONzqog&s=19
Arguably what the last year has shown is that the EU was deluding itself about being an equal to the US, and that the next period of global politics will be defined by the rivalry between the US and China.
Is it any more sophisticated than "it needs a lot more money" ?
Hunt the calm head signalling to the party that he’ll handle the economy in a “different way”
But it raises obvious Qs about purpose of Liz Truss if Hunt appears to take over & her plan is junked
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1581193797370728448
Actually, come to think of it, there are a couple of parties who do have more explicitly “woke” positions: the SNP and the Greens. The SNP still dominate Scottish politics (and have trounced an anti-woke splinter), while the Greens are doing well in English local elections. Maybe wokery is more popular than you think…?
When he talks about needing to see “the figures in the round” what he really means is the gilt yields next week.
The higher they go, the greater the pain.
If they stabilise and/or fall, the pain will be only moderate.
Truss/Kwarteng played poker with the bond market. They lost.
This is the price we must pay.
Utter humiliation for the Conservative Party and a tragedy for our country.