If Hunt had led the Tories at the last general election he would not have remained voters lost to the Brexit Party and it would have remained a hung parliament, Brexit would still not be done and Corbyn would still be Labour leader instead of the landslide victory Boris win.
The key thing now is most Tory members prefer Sunak to Truss, so if Tory MPs crown Sunak by coronation to save some of their seats most Tory members won't complain
(Added emphasis)
Would this not actually be a better position for the Tory party today?
Maybe, but people keep telling him to think about what's best for the country not the Tory party!
🍛ARGY-BHAJI: Truss faces fresh peril as ‘Balti Bandit’ plotters meet for secret curry
Mel Stride hosted more than a dozen "miserable" Conservative MPs in his large House of Commons office for an Indian takeaway - with the PM's fate also on the table...
Martin Baxter has published his latest Electoral Calculus prediction:
Labour 507 seats (+304) Scottish National Party 52 seats (+4) Conservatives 48 seats (-317) Liberal Democrats 19 seats (+8) Plaid Cymru 4 seats (nc) Greens 1 seat (nc) NI 18 seats (nc) Speaker 1 seat (+1)
Ian Blackford must be wetting himself with excitement.
In 1993 the Bloc Quebecois were briefly the main opposition to the governing Liberals for one parliament after the governing Canadian Tories landslide defeat
A good move, but it looks like the Tories have thrown in the towel for the next election.
I think this is very encouraging - is Hunt calculating that the Tories have lost, and so he can/should do what is actually best for the country's long term position?
If the Triple Lock goes, along with the Health and Social Care Levy going, then Truss will have done two very good things.
Now merge NI into Income Tax so all incomes, earned and unearned, are taxed evenly and trigger a housing market crash and the Tories can head into opposition having sorted out the biggest problems in the economy.
No, NI should be restored to its original purpose to specifically fund state pensions as well as contributory unemployment benefit and some healthcare.
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
🍛ARGY-BHAJI: Truss faces fresh peril as ‘Balti Bandit’ plotters meet for secret curry
Mel Stride hosted more than a dozen "miserable" Conservative MPs in his large House of Commons office for an Indian takeaway - with the PM's fate also on the table...
If the Tories remove the triple lock Labour should reverse that at the GE . Now way should they miss this open goal given their past struggles with that 65+ age group .
If Hunt had led the Tories at the last general election he would not have remained voters lost to the Brexit Party and it would have remained a hung parliament, Brexit would still not be done and Corbyn would still be Labour leader instead of the landslide victory Boris win.
The key thing now is most Tory members prefer Sunak to Truss, so if Tory MPs crown Sunak by coronation to save some of their seats most Tory members won't complain
(Added emphasis)
Would this not actually be a better position for the Tory party today?
Only if the Brexit Party had not by now overtaken them in the polls again, as they briefly did in Spring 2019, given Brexit would still not have got done.
Corbyn still Labour leader not Starmer also bad for the country
Martin Baxter has published his latest Electoral Calculus prediction:
Labour 507 seats (+304) Scottish National Party 52 seats (+4) Conservatives 48 seats (-317) Liberal Democrats 19 seats (+8) Plaid Cymru 4 seats (nc) Greens 1 seat (nc) NI 18 seats (nc) Speaker 1 seat (+1)
Ian Blackford must be wetting himself with excitement.
In 1993 the Bloc Quebecois were briefly the main opposition to the governing Liberals for one parliament after the governing Canadian Tories landslide defeat
And the Tories were back in power thirteen years later with Stephen Harper.
To be honest a purge of the career politicians from time to time isn't the worst thing in the world to happen.
Yet Norfolk SW was actually a Labour -held seat until 1964 when - against the national tide- it was gained by the Tories!
Lots of rural Norfolk was red, that all changed when the agricultural worker base vote faded away
Indeed so. North Norfolk was Labour until 1970. I find it surprising,however, that the Tories would lose Norfolk S but hang on to Norfolk SW.
Norfolk South would be next to drop after Broadland, both contain large chunks of suburban Norwich and voting patterns in those sections closer to Norwich city than the county. Truss has Thetford which is ripe for Labour but the rest is 'very' Tory, ditto NW outside Kings Lynn and Mid outwith Dereham
Of the Norfolk rural seats Labour's best prospect would likely be Norfolk NW which it won in 1997 - quite similar to the former Kings Lynn seat. South Norfolk last went Labour in 1945 - when Christopher Mayhew was elected.In recent decades only the LDs have been vaguely competitive there.Labour came fairly close - 2,000 or so - to unseating Gillian Shephard in Norfolk SW in 1997.
If Hunt had led the Tories at the last general election he would not have remained voters lost to the Brexit Party and it would have remained a hung parliament, Brexit would still not be done and Corbyn would still be Labour leader instead of the landslide victory Boris win.
The key thing now is most Tory members prefer Sunak to Truss, so if Tory MPs crown Sunak by coronation to save some of their seats most Tory members won't complain
Why do you always speak in such absolutes? Do you consider yourself clairvoyant? No, you are someone with extremely questionable judgement, who was an unflinching supporter of the most inappropriate person who has ever been PM.
There is no way of knowing how well Hunt would have performed against Corbyn. My view is that he would have beaten him comprehensively and this is because voters, in the main, voted Conservative to keep Corbyn out, and those few swivel-eyed nutters who wouldn't vote Conservative because of Hunt would have been replaced by people like myself who would not vote for a liar and a clown in a million years. You are not a "proper" Conservative, you are a blind-loyalty Johnsonian populist. You are part of the problem for the Tories.
Perhaps they should pilot voter ID in Tower Hamlets? See what happens. Is there a problem? Is it a load of fuss about nothing?
When anyone says "There is no problem with X, in voting", I think back to my old flat mate who had his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets.
When he went to the police to report this
- They told him it wasn't a crime - Told him not to waste time on it - Eventually took a statement - Got upset because he wouldn't sign the statement, since it was full of stuff he hadn't said. Including some rather extreme stuff. - Eventually re-wrote the statement to match what had actually said and had happened.
It took him most of day to get a crime number.
Almost as if they were trying not to find electoral fraud, or something....
That is not good, so maybe our focus should be on getting the police to take such crimes seriously rather than on upending the whole system.
Indeed, I might suggest that too often this is how the police respond to all sorts of crimes. Although, that said, I once reported an election-related offence and was surprised how a Met police officer soon came to meet with me and took my concerns seriously. A much better experience than I’d had previously reporting other crimes.
I want a closer relationship with Europe but not to re-join
Even though I am sure that organization would have worded its questions to get the most pro-EU responses possible, it still found that a large majority don't want to rejoin the single market and don't want preferential treatment to EU migrants.
Some very interesting polling. So even something like EFTA is a step too far for the public. This surely makes the Rejoin case near impossible?
I don't see why? EFTA does not confer Single Market membership nor does it require freedom of movement for EU citizens.
For those you need to go a step further and join the EEA.
I wonder how many of the public know the difference between those 2 things?
🍛ARGY-BHAJI: Truss faces fresh peril as ‘Balti Bandit’ plotters meet for secret curry
Mel Stride hosted more than a dozen "miserable" Conservative MPs in his large House of Commons office for an Indian takeaway - with the PM's fate also on the table...
🍛ARGY-BHAJI: Truss faces fresh peril as ‘Balti Bandit’ plotters meet for secret curry
Mel Stride hosted more than a dozen "miserable" Conservative MPs in his large House of Commons office for an Indian takeaway - with the PM's fate also on the table...
Perhaps they should pilot voter ID in Tower Hamlets? See what happens. Is there a problem? Is it a load of fuss about nothing?
When anyone says "There is no problem with X, in voting", I think back to my old flat mate who had his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets.
When he went to the police to report this
- They told him it wasn't a crime - Told him not to waste time on it - Eventually took a statement - Got upset because he wouldn't sign the statement, since it was full of stuff he hadn't said. Including some rather extreme stuff. - Eventually re-wrote the statement to match what had actually said and had happened.
It took him most of day to get a crime number.
Almost as if they were trying not to find electoral fraud, or something....
It's just a bit funny that the Conservatives have been in power for 12 long years, you'd think they would have made a little bit of an effort to find evidence (if it exists) of the kind of electoral fraud that would justify introducing photo ID for voting, as it is a change to the voting system that does not have cross-party support.
The Electoral Commission supports it, how much more evidence do you need?
It is important that the UK’s electoral system is both secure and accessible.
There are already checks in place to confirm a voter’s identity if they are voting by post. But there are no similar checks in place at polling stations in Great Britain to prevent someone claiming to be someone else and voting in their name. This makes polling station voting in Great Britain vulnerable to fraud.
The UK has very low levels of proven electoral fraud, and voters should feel confident about their vote. But we know from our public opinion research that it is an issue that concerns some voters. Two-thirds of people say they would feel more confident in the security of the voting system if there was a requirement to show ID.
And that being shown the polling cards sent to voters is sufficient in their eyes
I can't find the phrase "polling card" on that page, can you quote the exact wording that you've paraphrased in bold? Also, as the bit not in bold is a direct quote, your comment does risk being a trifle misleading.
🍛ARGY-BHAJI: Truss faces fresh peril as ‘Balti Bandit’ plotters meet for secret curry
Mel Stride hosted more than a dozen "miserable" Conservative MPs in his large House of Commons office for an Indian takeaway - with the PM's fate also on the table...
If Hunt had led the Tories at the last general election he would not have remained voters lost to the Brexit Party and it would have remained a hung parliament, Brexit would still not be done and Corbyn would still be Labour leader instead of the landslide victory Boris win.
The key thing now is most Tory members prefer Sunak to Truss, so if Tory MPs crown Sunak by coronation to save some of their seats most Tory members won't complain
(Added emphasis)
Would this not actually be a better position for the Tory party today?
Only if the Brexit Party had not by now overtaken them in the polls again, as they briefly did in Spring 2019, given Brexit would still not have got done.
Corbyn still Labour leader not Starmer also bad for the country
Another counterfactual opinion stated as though it is fact. Total bollox in other words
A good move, but it looks like the Tories have thrown in the towel for the next election.
To be honest, if we get two years of decent government because the Tories think they can't win, then I'll take that.
Labour are very pro the triple lock, so it'll be interesting to see how they pay for it's return.
They’re not, really, they just avoided the trap of having opposition used against them. If the Tories abandon it they will try and extract some capital from it but be careful not to promise its return.
🍛ARGY-BHAJI: Truss faces fresh peril as ‘Balti Bandit’ plotters meet for secret curry
Mel Stride hosted more than a dozen "miserable" Conservative MPs in his large House of Commons office for an Indian takeaway - with the PM's fate also on the table...
🍛ARGY-BHAJI: Truss faces fresh peril as ‘Balti Bandit’ plotters meet for secret curry
Mel Stride hosted more than a dozen "miserable" Conservative MPs in his large House of Commons office for an Indian takeaway - with the PM's fate also on the table...
I want a closer relationship with Europe but not to re-join
Even though I am sure that organization would have worded its questions to get the most pro-EU responses possible, it still found that a large majority don't want to rejoin the single market and don't want preferential treatment to EU migrants.
Some very interesting polling. So even something like EFTA is a step too far for the public. This surely makes the Rejoin case near impossible?
I don't see why? EFTA does not confer Single Market membership nor does it require freedom of movement for EU citizens.
For those you need to go a step further and join the EEA.
I wonder how many of the public know the difference between those 2 things?
177, at a guess.
If a clear majority now want to get closer to the EU, that’ll do to be going on with. When is the government going to make a start?
When Starmer/Reeves suggested the energy support package should be in place for 6 months in the first place, to be reviewed after that, they were widely derided for being so mean and not providing certainty. When Starmer/Reeves suggested a windfall tax should be extended further to raise more money for the public purse, they were widely derided, and told that would damage investment.
Now that Jeremy Hunt has decided on the former, and is considering the latter, it's a sign that the grown-ups are in charge and we are heading back towards fiscal credibility. Well I never.
Perhaps they should pilot voter ID in Tower Hamlets? See what happens. Is there a problem? Is it a load of fuss about nothing?
When anyone says "There is no problem with X, in voting", I think back to my old flat mate who had his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets.
When he went to the police to report this
- They told him it wasn't a crime - Told him not to waste time on it - Eventually took a statement - Got upset because he wouldn't sign the statement, since it was full of stuff he hadn't said. Including some rather extreme stuff. - Eventually re-wrote the statement to match what had actually said and had happened.
It took him most of day to get a crime number.
Almost as if they were trying not to find electoral fraud, or something....
It's just a bit funny that the Conservatives have been in power for 12 long years, you'd think they would have made a little bit of an effort to find evidence (if it exists) of the kind of electoral fraud that would justify introducing photo ID for voting, as it is a change to the voting system that does not have cross-party support.
The Electoral Commission supports it, how much more evidence do you need?
Can you give a link to where the Electoral Commission has given evidence of much fraud in in-person voting?
Betfair has moved from 1.20 at one point yesterday to 1.71 for Truss to leave in 2022, i think she might actually last till 2023 now
I have 23 as fav provided Truss is not so traumatised that she can't function. But based on recent days? ...
May seemed on the brink of resigning ever since the 2017 election but lasted 2 years...quite possible for the tories to use the skill and experience of hunt to prop Truss up for 2 years then dump her just before the election....that way Truss absorbs all the bad news fir the tories
If Hunt had led the Tories at the last general election he would not have remained voters lost to the Brexit Party and it would have remained a hung parliament, Brexit would still not be done and Corbyn would still be Labour leader instead of the landslide victory Boris win.
The key thing now is most Tory members prefer Sunak to Truss, so if Tory MPs crown Sunak by coronation to save some of their seats most Tory members won't complain
(Added emphasis)
Would this not actually be a better position for the Tory party today?
Only if the Brexit Party had not by now overtaken them in the polls again, as they briefly did in Spring 2019, given Brexit would still not have got done.
Corbyn still Labour leader not Starmer also bad for the country
Another counterfactual opinion stated as though it is fact. Total bollox in other words
No it was fact, no polling in 2019 had Hunt winning a majority unlike Boris.
Remember Boris only won the leadership as the May and Hunt (Foreign Secretary at the time) Tories had fallen to 3rd place in some polls.
See this May 2019 Opinium poll which had Labour on 29%, the Brexit Party on 24% and Tories on 22%
🍛ARGY-BHAJI: Truss faces fresh peril as ‘Balti Bandit’ plotters meet for secret curry
Mel Stride hosted more than a dozen "miserable" Conservative MPs in his large House of Commons office for an Indian takeaway - with the PM's fate also on the table...
Perhaps they should pilot voter ID in Tower Hamlets? See what happens. Is there a problem? Is it a load of fuss about nothing?
When anyone says "There is no problem with X, in voting", I think back to my old flat mate who had his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets.
When he went to the police to report this
- They told him it wasn't a crime - Told him not to waste time on it - Eventually took a statement - Got upset because he wouldn't sign the statement, since it was full of stuff he hadn't said. Including some rather extreme stuff. - Eventually re-wrote the statement to match what had actually said and had happened.
It took him most of day to get a crime number.
Almost as if they were trying not to find electoral fraud, or something....
That is not good, so maybe our focus should be on getting the police to take such crimes seriously rather than on upending the whole system.
Indeed, I might suggest that too often this is how the police respond to all sorts of crimes. Although, that said, I once reported an election-related offence and was surprised how a Met police officer soon came to meet with me and took my concerns seriously. A much better experience than I’d had previously reporting other crimes.
It's about policy. It was quite clear that in Tower Hamlets, at that time, electoral offences were on the prevent-that-appearig-on-the-crime-stats list.
The police blogs, before they were censored out of existence, were quite candid about how such lists existed. If you, a junior police officer, started logging the "wrong kind" of crimes, you'd be lucky to end up in Sanford.
Perhaps they should pilot voter ID in Tower Hamlets? See what happens. Is there a problem? Is it a load of fuss about nothing?
When anyone says "There is no problem with X, in voting", I think back to my old flat mate who had his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets.
When he went to the police to report this
- They told him it wasn't a crime - Told him not to waste time on it - Eventually took a statement - Got upset because he wouldn't sign the statement, since it was full of stuff he hadn't said. Including some rather extreme stuff. - Eventually re-wrote the statement to match what had actually said and had happened.
It took him most of day to get a crime number.
Almost as if they were trying not to find electoral fraud, or something....
It's just a bit funny that the Conservatives have been in power for 12 long years, you'd think they would have made a little bit of an effort to find evidence (if it exists) of the kind of electoral fraud that would justify introducing photo ID for voting, as it is a change to the voting system that does not have cross-party support.
Evidence has been found, which is why the independent Electoral Commission recommended expanding Tony Blair's rules for NI nationwide.
The only reason there's not cross-party support is that the opposition parties would vehemently anything the Tories introduce, because its the Tories introducing it. If it were Keir Starmer who was introducing Tony Blair's rules nationwide, then a lot of those vehemently opposing supposed "Tory" electoral shenanigans wouldn't be making a peep of sound about it.
EDIT: And to be fair, in those circumstances, many Tories would instinctively oppose it, because it would be a Labour leader implementing Labour's own idea instead of a Tory doing it.
Also interested in a link to the evidence you refer to.
I still find it funny to claim some sort of conspiracy NOT to find fraud, when such evidence would support what the government that has been in power for 12 years wants to do
A good move, but it looks like the Tories have thrown in the towel for the next election.
To be honest, if we get two years of decent government because the Tories think they can't win, then I'll take that.
Labour are very pro the triple lock, so it'll be interesting to see how they pay for it's return.
They’re not, really, they just avoided the trap of having opposition used against them. If the Tories abandon it they will try and extract some capital from it but be careful not to promise its return.
They were opposed to it's suspension coming out of COVID!
Martin Baxter has published his latest Electoral Calculus prediction:
Labour 507 seats (+304) Scottish National Party 52 seats (+4) Conservatives 48 seats (-317) Liberal Democrats 19 seats (+8) Plaid Cymru 4 seats (nc) Greens 1 seat (nc) NI 18 seats (nc) Speaker 1 seat (+1)
Ian Blackford must be wetting himself with excitement.
In 1993 the Bloc Quebecois were briefly the main opposition to the governing Liberals for one parliament after the governing Canadian Tories landslide defeat
And the Tories were back in power thirteen years later with Stephen Harper.
To be honest a purge of the career politicians from time to time isn't the worst thing in the world to happen.
The Tories were only back in power in 2006 under Harper having merged with the populist right Canadian Alliance in 2003 to form the Conservative Party of Canada.
Indeed Harper was leader of the Canadian Alliance at the time and led the new party too, Peter Mackay, the Progressive Conservatives leader, became Harper's Foreign Affairs and then Defence Minister
Perhaps they should pilot voter ID in Tower Hamlets? See what happens. Is there a problem? Is it a load of fuss about nothing?
When anyone says "There is no problem with X, in voting", I think back to my old flat mate who had his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets.
When he went to the police to report this
- They told him it wasn't a crime - Told him not to waste time on it - Eventually took a statement - Got upset because he wouldn't sign the statement, since it was full of stuff he hadn't said. Including some rather extreme stuff. - Eventually re-wrote the statement to match what had actually said and had happened.
It took him most of day to get a crime number.
Almost as if they were trying not to find electoral fraud, or something....
It's just a bit funny that the Conservatives have been in power for 12 long years, you'd think they would have made a little bit of an effort to find evidence (if it exists) of the kind of electoral fraud that would justify introducing photo ID for voting, as it is a change to the voting system that does not have cross-party support.
The Electoral Commission supports it, how much more evidence do you need?
Can you give a link to where the Electoral Commission has given evidence of much fraud in in-person voting?
No, because it's difficult to get fraud reported, let alone (as noted upthread) taken seriously enough to be recorded. The EC link upthread shows them very carefully saying "low levels of proven electoral fraud" not "proven low levels of electoral fraud". But then they also say two-thirds of people want voter ID, and they can't all (or even mostly) be motivated by disenfranchising people.
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
Theory doing the rounds that we’re set to see a lot of kites flown on cuts. Defence. Triple lock. NHS. And then Hunt turns round and says “Right. There you go, you didn’t like that did you. So you decide - it’s either welfare, or the pensioners, squaddies and nurses take the hit. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1582355565103050754
What I can find from the Electoral Commission on the subject is this:
"Our view It is important that the UK’s electoral system is both secure and accessible.
There are already checks in place to confirm a voter’s identity if they are voting by post. But there are no similar checks in place at polling stations in Great Britain to prevent someone claiming to be someone else and voting in their name. This makes polling station voting in Great Britain vulnerable to fraud.
In Northern Ireland, there has been a requirement to show ID when voting since 1985, updated to photo ID in 2003.
The UK has very low levels of proven electoral fraud, and voters should feel confident about their vote. But we know from our public opinion research that it is an issue that concerns some voters. Two-thirds of people say they would feel more confident in the security of the voting system if there was a requirement to show ID.
At the 2018 and 2019 local elections, the UK Government trialled voter ID in a number of areas in England. We carried out independent, statutory evaluations in both years. Based on the evidence collected, we identified three key areas that need further consideration before voter ID is introduced:...."
Which isn't opposed to photo ID, but also suggests that there isn't evidence of much in-person fraud.
Perhaps they should pilot voter ID in Tower Hamlets? See what happens. Is there a problem? Is it a load of fuss about nothing?
When anyone says "There is no problem with X, in voting", I think back to my old flat mate who had his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets.
When he went to the police to report this
- They told him it wasn't a crime - Told him not to waste time on it - Eventually took a statement - Got upset because he wouldn't sign the statement, since it was full of stuff he hadn't said. Including some rather extreme stuff. - Eventually re-wrote the statement to match what had actually said and had happened.
It took him most of day to get a crime number.
Almost as if they were trying not to find electoral fraud, or something....
That is not good, so maybe our focus should be on getting the police to take such crimes seriously rather than on upending the whole system.
Indeed, I might suggest that too often this is how the police respond to all sorts of crimes. Although, that said, I once reported an election-related offence and was surprised how a Met police officer soon came to meet with me and took my concerns seriously. A much better experience than I’d had previously reporting other crimes.
It's about policy. It was quite clear that in Tower Hamlets, at that time, electoral offences were on the prevent-that-appearig-on-the-crime-stats list.
The police blogs, before they were censored out of existence, were quite candid about how such lists existed. If you, a junior police officer, started logging the "wrong kind" of crimes, you'd be lucky to end up in Sanford.
As has happened on multiple occasions with this government, the reaction to a failure of policing is to make more laws, rather than getting the police (and providing sufficient resources to them) to enforce existing laws.
🍛ARGY-BHAJI: Truss faces fresh peril as ‘Balti Bandit’ plotters meet for secret curry
Mel Stride hosted more than a dozen "miserable" Conservative MPs in his large House of Commons office for an Indian takeaway - with the PM's fate also on the table...
🍛ARGY-BHAJI: Truss faces fresh peril as ‘Balti Bandit’ plotters meet for secret curry
Mel Stride hosted more than a dozen "miserable" Conservative MPs in his large House of Commons office for an Indian takeaway - with the PM's fate also on the table...
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
Only if they have already saved a big deposit or been gifted one by parents or grandparents
What I can find from the Electoral Commission on the subject is this:
"Our view It is important that the UK’s electoral system is both secure and accessible.
There are already checks in place to confirm a voter’s identity if they are voting by post. But there are no similar checks in place at polling stations in Great Britain to prevent someone claiming to be someone else and voting in their name. This makes polling station voting in Great Britain vulnerable to fraud.
In Northern Ireland, there has been a requirement to show ID when voting since 1985, updated to photo ID in 2003.
The UK has very low levels of proven electoral fraud, and voters should feel confident about their vote. But we know from our public opinion research that it is an issue that concerns some voters. Two-thirds of people say they would feel more confident in the security of the voting system if there was a requirement to show ID.
At the 2018 and 2019 local elections, the UK Government trialled voter ID in a number of areas in England. We carried out independent, statutory evaluations in both years. Based on the evidence collected, we identified three key areas that need further consideration before voter ID is introduced:...."
Which isn't opposed to photo ID, but also suggests that there isn't evidence of much in-person fraud.
Perhaps they should pilot voter ID in Tower Hamlets? See what happens. Is there a problem? Is it a load of fuss about nothing?
When anyone says "There is no problem with X, in voting", I think back to my old flat mate who had his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets.
When he went to the police to report this
- They told him it wasn't a crime - Told him not to waste time on it - Eventually took a statement - Got upset because he wouldn't sign the statement, since it was full of stuff he hadn't said. Including some rather extreme stuff. - Eventually re-wrote the statement to match what had actually said and had happened.
It took him most of day to get a crime number.
Almost as if they were trying not to find electoral fraud, or something....
It's just a bit funny that the Conservatives have been in power for 12 long years, you'd think they would have made a little bit of an effort to find evidence (if it exists) of the kind of electoral fraud that would justify introducing photo ID for voting, as it is a change to the voting system that does not have cross-party support.
The Electoral Commission supports it, how much more evidence do you need?
Can you give a link to where the Electoral Commission has given evidence of much fraud in in-person voting?
No, because it's difficult to get fraud reported, let alone (as noted upthread) taken seriously enough to be recorded. The EC link upthread shows them very carefully saying "low levels of proven electoral fraud" not "proven low levels of electoral fraud". But then they also say two-thirds of people want voter ID, and they can't all (or even mostly) be motivated by disenfranchising people.
Sure, but you said what more "evidence" did I need?
Well, some actual evidence.
If there is evidence that there is a problem, then maybe photo ID is a good idea. I'm opposed to introducing this kind of change without a good reason, when it is seen as favoring one party.
If the Tories remove the triple lock Labour should reverse that at the GE . Now way should they miss this open goal given their past struggles with that 65+ age group .
Now that sums up why as a nation we are in real trouble
The triple lock going is the right thing to do and remember I am a pensioner, but you suggest Starmer should vow to reverse it for political gain when the country cannot afford it
Perhaps they should pilot voter ID in Tower Hamlets? See what happens. Is there a problem? Is it a load of fuss about nothing?
When anyone says "There is no problem with X, in voting", I think back to my old flat mate who had his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets.
When he went to the police to report this
- They told him it wasn't a crime - Told him not to waste time on it - Eventually took a statement - Got upset because he wouldn't sign the statement, since it was full of stuff he hadn't said. Including some rather extreme stuff. - Eventually re-wrote the statement to match what had actually said and had happened.
It took him most of day to get a crime number.
Almost as if they were trying not to find electoral fraud, or something....
It's just a bit funny that the Conservatives have been in power for 12 long years, you'd think they would have made a little bit of an effort to find evidence (if it exists) of the kind of electoral fraud that would justify introducing photo ID for voting, as it is a change to the voting system that does not have cross-party support.
Evidence has been found, which is why the independent Electoral Commission recommended expanding Tony Blair's rules for NI nationwide.
The only reason there's not cross-party support is that the opposition parties would vehemently anything the Tories introduce, because its the Tories introducing it. If it were Keir Starmer who was introducing Tony Blair's rules nationwide, then a lot of those vehemently opposing supposed "Tory" electoral shenanigans wouldn't be making a peep of sound about it.
EDIT: And to be fair, in those circumstances, many Tories would instinctively oppose it, because it would be a Labour leader implementing Labour's own idea instead of a Tory doing it.
Also interested in a link to the evidence you refer to.
I still find it funny to claim some sort of conspiracy NOT to find fraud, when such evidence would support what the government that has been in power for 12 years wants to do
I quite like the new set-up with JH as grand vizier to LT's sultan(a). It looks stable but not boring, radical (LT) but responsible (JH) at the same time, and it might be acceptable to the one-nation and ERG wings of the Conservative party. Perhaps it needed the scary dose of chaos to bring it about, even the KK collateral damage.
Perhaps they should pilot voter ID in Tower Hamlets? See what happens. Is there a problem? Is it a load of fuss about nothing?
When anyone says "There is no problem with X, in voting", I think back to my old flat mate who had his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets.
When he went to the police to report this
- They told him it wasn't a crime - Told him not to waste time on it - Eventually took a statement - Got upset because he wouldn't sign the statement, since it was full of stuff he hadn't said. Including some rather extreme stuff. - Eventually re-wrote the statement to match what had actually said and had happened.
It took him most of day to get a crime number.
Almost as if they were trying not to find electoral fraud, or something....
That is not good, so maybe our focus should be on getting the police to take such crimes seriously rather than on upending the whole system.
Indeed, I might suggest that too often this is how the police respond to all sorts of crimes. Although, that said, I once reported an election-related offence and was surprised how a Met police officer soon came to meet with me and took my concerns seriously. A much better experience than I’d had previously reporting other crimes.
It's about policy. It was quite clear that in Tower Hamlets, at that time, electoral offences were on the prevent-that-appearig-on-the-crime-stats list.
The police blogs, before they were censored out of existence, were quite candid about how such lists existed. If you, a junior police officer, started logging the "wrong kind" of crimes, you'd be lucky to end up in Sanford.
As has happened on multiple occasions with this government, the reaction to a failure of policing is to make more laws, rather than getting the police (and providing sufficient resources to them) to enforce existing laws.
What happens is, that if you make something a "priority", suddenly reporting such priorities becomes possible. It's about pushing the system to pay attention.
Look at the jumps in reporting of sexual offences against women when it becomes a government priority.
Or Rotherham (and similar instances). Remember how that came to light? After the farce of the Met operation to find a fictitious nonce ring, Mrs May announced that policy was now that all allegations be taken seriously. Which suddenly caused....
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
Only if they have already saved a big deposit or been gifted one by parents or grandparents
So you would advocate people taking out 100% mortgages to buy at inflated prices?
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
They're not paying less for it if interest rates have risen. Nor is your assumption that the saved deposit would be sufficient correct; in a falling market, mortgage suppliers will demand a larger cushion. And in any case, in a falling market sellers takes their properties off the market, and new houses get built in smaller numbers.
Like the stock market, housing is not at all a simple classical market where behaviour responds to price signals in the obvious way.
If Hunt had led the Tories at the last general election he would not have remained voters lost to the Brexit Party and it would have remained a hung parliament, Brexit would still not be done and Corbyn would still be Labour leader instead of the landslide victory Boris win.
The key thing now is most Tory members prefer Sunak to Truss, so if Tory MPs crown Sunak by coronation to save some of their seats most Tory members won't complain
(Added emphasis)
Would this not actually be a better position for the Tory party today?
Only if the Brexit Party had not by now overtaken them in the polls again, as they briefly did in Spring 2019, given Brexit would still not have got done.
Corbyn still Labour leader not Starmer also bad for the country
Another counterfactual opinion stated as though it is fact. Total bollox in other words
No it was fact, no polling in 2019 had Hunt winning a majority unlike Boris.
Remember Boris only won the leadership as the May and Hunt (Foreign Secretary at the time) Tories had fallen to 3rd place in some polls.
See this May 2019 Opinium poll which had Labour on 29%, the Brexit Party on 24% and Tories on 22%
You are obsessed with polls but clearly don't use their evidence advisedly. If Hunt had been PM/leader he would have had the opportunity to convince the voters of his competence, just as certainly as Truss has shown how crap she is and Johnson demonstrated his dishonesty. The polls you refer to are not fact, they are conjecture. You should try and understand the difference.
Yet Norfolk SW was actually a Labour -held seat until 1964 when - against the national tide- it was gained by the Tories!
Lots of rural Norfolk was red, that all changed when the agricultural worker base vote faded away
Indeed so. North Norfolk was Labour until 1970. I find it surprising,however, that the Tories would lose Norfolk S but hang on to Norfolk SW.
Norfolk South would be next to drop after Broadland, both contain large chunks of suburban Norwich and voting patterns in those sections closer to Norwich city than the county. Truss has Thetford which is ripe for Labour but the rest is 'very' Tory, ditto NW outside Kings Lynn and Mid outwith Dereham
Of the Norfolk rural seats Labour's best prospect would likely be Norfolk NW which it won in 1997 - quite similar to the former Kings Lynn seat. South Norfolk last went Labour in 1945 - when Christopher Mayhew was elected.In recent decades only the LDs have been vaguely competitive there.Labour came fairly close - 2,000 or so - to unseating Gillian Shephard in Norfolk SW in 1997.
No, i disagree. Theres not much LD vote to work on anymore in NW and the Tories are in 65% compared to lower totals in Broadland and South. South Norfolk actually had an evenly split opposition in 2001 and 2005, in either year opposition votes coalescing would have led to it dropping. Its much more vulnersble than NW Norfolk at this time
If the Tories remove the triple lock Labour should reverse that at the GE . Now way should they miss this open goal given their past struggles with that 65+ age group .
Now that sums up why as a nation we are in real trouble
The triple lock going is the right thing to do and remember I am a pensioner, but you suggest Starmer should vow to reverse it for political gain when the country cannot afford it
I really do despair
No, I don't think Labour would reverse it and it would be a mistake if they did.
Like you, I benefit from it but it simply has to go, never to return. When Starmer gets in, there is going to be a hell of a mess to sort out and cosseting a group that has been cossetted too long is not going to help.
And I honestly don't think there will that many votes in it.
Perhaps they should pilot voter ID in Tower Hamlets? See what happens. Is there a problem? Is it a load of fuss about nothing?
When anyone says "There is no problem with X, in voting", I think back to my old flat mate who had his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets.
When he went to the police to report this
- They told him it wasn't a crime - Told him not to waste time on it - Eventually took a statement - Got upset because he wouldn't sign the statement, since it was full of stuff he hadn't said. Including some rather extreme stuff. - Eventually re-wrote the statement to match what had actually said and had happened.
It took him most of day to get a crime number.
Almost as if they were trying not to find electoral fraud, or something....
It's just a bit funny that the Conservatives have been in power for 12 long years, you'd think they would have made a little bit of an effort to find evidence (if it exists) of the kind of electoral fraud that would justify introducing photo ID for voting, as it is a change to the voting system that does not have cross-party support.
The Electoral Commission supports it, how much more evidence do you need?
It is important that the UK’s electoral system is both secure and accessible.
There are already checks in place to confirm a voter’s identity if they are voting by post. But there are no similar checks in place at polling stations in Great Britain to prevent someone claiming to be someone else and voting in their name. This makes polling station voting in Great Britain vulnerable to fraud.
The UK has very low levels of proven electoral fraud, and voters should feel confident about their vote. But we know from our public opinion research that it is an issue that concerns some voters. Two-thirds of people say they would feel more confident in the security of the voting system if there was a requirement to show ID.
And that being shown the polling cards sent to voters is sufficient in their eyes
I can't find the phrase "polling card" on that page, can you quote the exact wording that you've paraphrased in bold? Also, as the bit not in bold is a direct quote, your comment does risk being a trifle misleading.
Main German TV news: "The beginning of the end of Brexit? The UK PM's spectacular fall is about far more than just her - it stands for the collapse of a political concept that became further and further removed from reality"
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
They're not paying less for it if interest rates have risen. Nor is your assumption that the saved deposit would be sufficient correct; in a falling market, mortgage suppliers will demand a larger cushion. And in any case, in a falling market sellers takes their properties off the market, and new houses get built in smaller numbers.
Like the stock market, housing is not at all a simple classical market where behaviour responds to price signals in the obvious way.
To take an extreme example, if someone has a 50% deposit and prices fall 50%, they become a cash buyer. Prices are set at the margins and even if the volume falls, transactions still take place and buyers are better placed, hence the expression "a buyer's market".
If Hunt had led the Tories at the last general election he would not have remained voters lost to the Brexit Party and it would have remained a hung parliament, Brexit would still not be done and Corbyn would still be Labour leader instead of the landslide victory Boris win.
The key thing now is most Tory members prefer Sunak to Truss, so if Tory MPs crown Sunak by coronation to save some of their seats most Tory members won't complain
(Added emphasis)
Would this not actually be a better position for the Tory party today?
Only if the Brexit Party had not by now overtaken them in the polls again, as they briefly did in Spring 2019, given Brexit would still not have got done.
Corbyn still Labour leader not Starmer also bad for the country
Another counterfactual opinion stated as though it is fact. Total bollox in other words
No it was fact, no polling in 2019 had Hunt winning a majority unlike Boris.
Remember Boris only won the leadership as the May and Hunt (Foreign Secretary at the time) Tories had fallen to 3rd place in some polls.
See this May 2019 Opinium poll which had Labour on 29%, the Brexit Party on 24% and Tories on 22%
You are obsessed with polls but clearly don't use their evidence advisedly. If Hunt had been PM/leader he would have had the opportunity to convince the voters of his competence, just as certainly as Truss has shown how crap she is and Johnson demonstrated his dishonesty. The polls you refer to are not fact, they are conjecture. You should try and understand the difference.
Your judgement is very flawed.
If Hunt had been PM he would not have regained any Tory votes lost to the Brexit Party as Boris had done and we may even have ended up with a Corbyn minority government at the December 2019 general election
🍛ARGY-BHAJI: Truss faces fresh peril as ‘Balti Bandit’ plotters meet for secret curry
Mel Stride hosted more than a dozen "miserable" Conservative MPs in his large House of Commons office for an Indian takeaway - with the PM's fate also on the table...
When Starmer/Reeves suggested the energy support package should be in place for 6 months in the first place, to be reviewed after that, they were widely derided for being so mean and not providing certainty. When Starmer/Reeves suggested a windfall tax should be extended further to raise more money for the public purse, they were widely derided, and told that would damage investment.
Now that Jeremy Hunt has decided on the former, and is considering the latter, it's a sign that the grown-ups are in charge and we are heading back towards fiscal credibility. Well I never.
Although Labour's plan would of course have let businesses go to the wall not offering them any assistance whatsoever with the energy CoL crisis.
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
Only if they have already saved a big deposit or been gifted one by parents or grandparents
So you would advocate people taking out 100% mortgages to buy at inflated prices?
No, build up big deposits but most people still need a significant mortgage too
Main German TV news: "The beginning of the end of Brexit? The UK PM's spectacular fall is about far more than just her - it stands for the collapse of a political concept that became further and further removed from reality"
Maybe they should concentrate on supporting Ukraine and their failing economy and accept Merkel was far more of a disaster for Europe then anything Brexit may have caused
Perhaps they should pilot voter ID in Tower Hamlets? See what happens. Is there a problem? Is it a load of fuss about nothing?
When anyone says "There is no problem with X, in voting", I think back to my old flat mate who had his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets.
When he went to the police to report this
- They told him it wasn't a crime - Told him not to waste time on it - Eventually took a statement - Got upset because he wouldn't sign the statement, since it was full of stuff he hadn't said. Including some rather extreme stuff. - Eventually re-wrote the statement to match what had actually said and had happened.
It took him most of day to get a crime number.
Almost as if they were trying not to find electoral fraud, or something....
It's just a bit funny that the Conservatives have been in power for 12 long years, you'd think they would have made a little bit of an effort to find evidence (if it exists) of the kind of electoral fraud that would justify introducing photo ID for voting, as it is a change to the voting system that does not have cross-party support.
Evidence has been found, which is why the independent Electoral Commission recommended expanding Tony Blair's rules for NI nationwide.
The only reason there's not cross-party support is that the opposition parties would vehemently anything the Tories introduce, because its the Tories introducing it. If it were Keir Starmer who was introducing Tony Blair's rules nationwide, then a lot of those vehemently opposing supposed "Tory" electoral shenanigans wouldn't be making a peep of sound about it.
EDIT: And to be fair, in those circumstances, many Tories would instinctively oppose it, because it would be a Labour leader implementing Labour's own idea instead of a Tory doing it.
Also interested in a link to the evidence you refer to.
I still find it funny to claim some sort of conspiracy NOT to find fraud, when such evidence would support what the government that has been in power for 12 years wants to do
Main German TV news: "The beginning of the end of Brexit? The UK PM's spectacular fall is about far more than just her - it stands for the collapse of a political concept that became further and further removed from reality"
Main German TV news: "The beginning of the end of Brexit? The UK PM's spectacular fall is about far more than just her - it stands for the collapse of a political concept that became further and further removed from reality"
Maybe they should concentrate on supporting Ukraine and their failing economy and accept Merkel was far more of a disaster for Europe then anything Brexit may have caused
They only perk up during the daily half hour of heat. The rest of the time they are trying to defrost sauerkraut with handwarmers
So it looks like Putin is - so far - successfully doing what I said he would do. Relentlessly degrading Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Via a new supply of drones/missiles
If Hunt had led the Tories at the last general election he would not have remained voters lost to the Brexit Party and it would have remained a hung parliament, Brexit would still not be done and Corbyn would still be Labour leader instead of the landslide victory Boris win.
The key thing now is most Tory members prefer Sunak to Truss, so if Tory MPs crown Sunak by coronation to save some of their seats most Tory members won't complain
(Added emphasis)
Would this not actually be a better position for the Tory party today?
Only if the Brexit Party had not by now overtaken them in the polls again, as they briefly did in Spring 2019, given Brexit would still not have got done.
Corbyn still Labour leader not Starmer also bad for the country
Another counterfactual opinion stated as though it is fact. Total bollox in other words
No it was fact, no polling in 2019 had Hunt winning a majority unlike Boris.
Remember Boris only won the leadership as the May and Hunt (Foreign Secretary at the time) Tories had fallen to 3rd place in some polls.
See this May 2019 Opinium poll which had Labour on 29%, the Brexit Party on 24% and Tories on 22%
You are obsessed with polls but clearly don't use their evidence advisedly. If Hunt had been PM/leader he would have had the opportunity to convince the voters of his competence, just as certainly as Truss has shown how crap she is and Johnson demonstrated his dishonesty. The polls you refer to are not fact, they are conjecture. You should try and understand the difference.
Your judgement is very flawed.
If Hunt had been PM he would not have regained any Tory votes lost to the Brexit Party as Boris had done and we may even have ended up with a Corbyn minority government at the December 2019 general election
That is your opinion, and in a parallel universe it might be true, but then again it is probably bollox. Let's get this straight. You are a blind follower of the most dishonest and inappropriate person ever to hold high office in this country, so one must accept that you find dishonesty and incompetence acceptable, which is for your conscience, but I find it difficult to see how that squares with your stated religeous belief and values. Added to that your political analysis is highly simplistic and your judgement clearly highly flawed.
If Hunt had led the Tories at the last general election he would not have remained voters lost to the Brexit Party and it would have remained a hung parliament, Brexit would still not be done and Corbyn would still be Labour leader instead of the landslide victory Boris win.
The key thing now is most Tory members prefer Sunak to Truss, so if Tory MPs crown Sunak by coronation to save some of their seats most Tory members won't complain
(Added emphasis)
Would this not actually be a better position for the Tory party today?
Only if the Brexit Party had not by now overtaken them in the polls again, as they briefly did in Spring 2019, given Brexit would still not have got done.
Corbyn still Labour leader not Starmer also bad for the country
Another counterfactual opinion stated as though it is fact. Total bollox in other words
No it was fact, no polling in 2019 had Hunt winning a majority unlike Boris.
Remember Boris only won the leadership as the May and Hunt (Foreign Secretary at the time) Tories had fallen to 3rd place in some polls.
See this May 2019 Opinium poll which had Labour on 29%, the Brexit Party on 24% and Tories on 22%
You are obsessed with polls but clearly don't use their evidence advisedly. If Hunt had been PM/leader he would have had the opportunity to convince the voters of his competence, just as certainly as Truss has shown how crap she is and Johnson demonstrated his dishonesty. The polls you refer to are not fact, they are conjecture. You should try and understand the difference.
Your judgement is very flawed.
If Hunt had been PM he would not have regained any Tory votes lost to the Brexit Party as Boris had done and we may even have ended up with a Corbyn minority government at the December 2019 general election
That is your opinion, and in a parallel universe it might be true, but then again it is probably bollox. Let's get this straight. You are a blind follower of the most dishonest and inappropriate person ever to hold high office in this country, so one must accept that you find dishonesty and incompetence acceptable, which is for your conscience, but I find it difficult to see how that squares with your stated religeous belief and values. Added to that your political analysis is highly simplistic and your judgement clearly highly flawed.
I said Boris would beat Corbyn and deliver Brexit in early 2019 and he did both by Christmas. Nothing more needs to be said
Theory doing the rounds that we’re set to see a lot of kites flown on cuts. Defence. Triple lock. NHS. And then Hunt turns round and says “Right. There you go, you didn’t like that did you. So you decide - it’s either welfare, or the pensioners, squaddies and nurses take the hit. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1582355565103050754
Whatever they settle on, we can look forward to Labour opportunistically opposing all the 'tory cuts', whilst also promising to 'balance the books';
Yet Norfolk SW was actually a Labour -held seat until 1964 when - against the national tide- it was gained by the Tories!
Lots of rural Norfolk was red, that all changed when the agricultural worker base vote faded away
Indeed so. North Norfolk was Labour until 1970. I find it surprising,however, that the Tories would lose Norfolk S but hang on to Norfolk SW.
Norfolk South would be next to drop after Broadland, both contain large chunks of suburban Norwich and voting patterns in those sections closer to Norwich city than the county. Truss has Thetford which is ripe for Labour but the rest is 'very' Tory, ditto NW outside Kings Lynn and Mid outwith Dereham
Of the Norfolk rural seats Labour's best prospect would likely be Norfolk NW which it won in 1997 - quite similar to the former Kings Lynn seat. South Norfolk last went Labour in 1945 - when Christopher Mayhew was elected.In recent decades only the LDs have been vaguely competitive there.Labour came fairly close - 2,000 or so - to unseating Gillian Shephard in Norfolk SW in 1997.
No, i disagree. Theres not much LD vote to work on anymore in NW and the Tories are in 65% compared to lower totals in Broadland and South. South Norfolk actually had an evenly split opposition in 2001 and 2005, in either year opposition votes coalescing would have led to it dropping. Its much more vulnersble than NW Norfolk at this time
i'm with wooliedyed on this one Barry. The North West and Yarmouth are very differnt to South and Broadland. The South West is the poster constituency for the 'grey vote'.
If Hunt had led the Tories at the last general election he would not have remained voters lost to the Brexit Party and it would have remained a hung parliament, Brexit would still not be done and Corbyn would still be Labour leader instead of the landslide victory Boris win.
The key thing now is most Tory members prefer Sunak to Truss, so if Tory MPs crown Sunak by coronation to save some of their seats most Tory members won't complain
(Added emphasis)
Would this not actually be a better position for the Tory party today?
Only if the Brexit Party had not by now overtaken them in the polls again, as they briefly did in Spring 2019, given Brexit would still not have got done.
Corbyn still Labour leader not Starmer also bad for the country
Another counterfactual opinion stated as though it is fact. Total bollox in other words
No it was fact, no polling in 2019 had Hunt winning a majority unlike Boris.
Remember Boris only won the leadership as the May and Hunt (Foreign Secretary at the time) Tories had fallen to 3rd place in some polls.
See this May 2019 Opinium poll which had Labour on 29%, the Brexit Party on 24% and Tories on 22%
You are obsessed with polls but clearly don't use their evidence advisedly. If Hunt had been PM/leader he would have had the opportunity to convince the voters of his competence, just as certainly as Truss has shown how crap she is and Johnson demonstrated his dishonesty. The polls you refer to are not fact, they are conjecture. You should try and understand the difference.
Your judgement is very flawed.
If Hunt had been PM he would not have regained any Tory votes lost to the Brexit Party as Boris had done and we may even have ended up with a Corbyn minority government at the December 2019 general election
Boris showed the magic formula for the Tories: tough on low skill immigration and investing in levelling up outside the South East. When it looked like he was doing both he stormed ahead. When his mismanagement made it clear he wasn't doing that the polling ebbed away. And the dishonesty was the nail is his coffin.
Get in a team that can speak to the Red Wall and will actually get stuff done there (i.e. Mordaunt) with a HS that's tough on immigration (Badenoch). Then have serious, competent figures in the Treasury and FO and they will do well. The economic policy will blunt Labour attacks if it is high profile enough, and then you can clobber them on immigration.
So it looks like Putin is - so far - successfully doing what I said he would do. Relentlessly degrading Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Via a new supply of drones/missiles
Yet Norfolk SW was actually a Labour -held seat until 1964 when - against the national tide- it was gained by the Tories!
Lots of rural Norfolk was red, that all changed when the agricultural worker base vote faded away
Indeed so. North Norfolk was Labour until 1970. I find it surprising,however, that the Tories would lose Norfolk S but hang on to Norfolk SW.
Norfolk South would be next to drop after Broadland, both contain large chunks of suburban Norwich and voting patterns in those sections closer to Norwich city than the county. Truss has Thetford which is ripe for Labour but the rest is 'very' Tory, ditto NW outside Kings Lynn and Mid outwith Dereham
Of the Norfolk rural seats Labour's best prospect would likely be Norfolk NW which it won in 1997 - quite similar to the former Kings Lynn seat. South Norfolk last went Labour in 1945 - when Christopher Mayhew was elected.In recent decades only the LDs have been vaguely competitive there.Labour came fairly close - 2,000 or so - to unseating Gillian Shephard in Norfolk SW in 1997.
No, i disagree. Theres not much LD vote to work on anymore in NW and the Tories are in 65% compared to lower totals in Broadland and South. South Norfolk actually had an evenly split opposition in 2001 and 2005, in either year opposition votes coalescing would have led to it dropping. Its much more vulnersble than NW Norfolk at this time
But the former Kings Lynn seat was often a Tight marginal - the Tories won by 33 votes in 1970.NW Norfolk very close too in both 74 elections. Not sure how demographics have changed there.
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
They're not paying less for it if interest rates have risen. Nor is your assumption that the saved deposit would be sufficient correct; in a falling market, mortgage suppliers will demand a larger cushion. And in any case, in a falling market sellers takes their properties off the market, and new houses get built in smaller numbers.
Like the stock market, housing is not at all a simple classical market where behaviour responds to price signals in the obvious way.
To take an extreme example, if someone has a 50% deposit and prices fall 50%, they become a cash buyer. Prices are set at the margins and even if the volume falls, transactions still take place and buyers are better placed, hence the expression "a buyer's market".
More precisely, transactions still take place and some buyers are better placed. In practice those buyers are those with cash who are able to take a very long term view and not worry about negative equity. What you're missing is that this is a dynamic market: behaviour depends a huge amount on expectations about future price moves, as well as (crucially) the expectations of mortgage lenders.
On the other side of the coin, there are some huge losers: mostly young families pushed into negative equity at a time of rising interest rates.
There is also the knock-on effect on the economy: housing transactions are a big driver of economic activity, and so the fall in volumes which is associated with big price drops is in itself a very negative factor. It also hits labour mobility.
Basically you don't wont to go there, which is why governments of all stripes take measures to support prices when a big drop looks imminent - eg the Labour government in 2008.
If Hunt had led the Tories at the last general election he would not have remained voters lost to the Brexit Party and it would have remained a hung parliament, Brexit would still not be done and Corbyn would still be Labour leader instead of the landslide victory Boris win.
The key thing now is most Tory members prefer Sunak to Truss, so if Tory MPs crown Sunak by coronation to save some of their seats most Tory members won't complain
(Added emphasis)
Would this not actually be a better position for the Tory party today?
Only if the Brexit Party had not by now overtaken them in the polls again, as they briefly did in Spring 2019, given Brexit would still not have got done.
Corbyn still Labour leader not Starmer also bad for the country
Another counterfactual opinion stated as though it is fact. Total bollox in other words
No it was fact, no polling in 2019 had Hunt winning a majority unlike Boris.
Remember Boris only won the leadership as the May and Hunt (Foreign Secretary at the time) Tories had fallen to 3rd place in some polls.
See this May 2019 Opinium poll which had Labour on 29%, the Brexit Party on 24% and Tories on 22%
You are obsessed with polls but clearly don't use their evidence advisedly. If Hunt had been PM/leader he would have had the opportunity to convince the voters of his competence, just as certainly as Truss has shown how crap she is and Johnson demonstrated his dishonesty. The polls you refer to are not fact, they are conjecture. You should try and understand the difference.
Your judgement is very flawed.
If Hunt had been PM he would not have regained any Tory votes lost to the Brexit Party as Boris had done and we may even have ended up with a Corbyn minority government at the December 2019 general election
That is your opinion, and in a parallel universe it might be true, but then again it is probably bollox. Let's get this straight. You are a blind follower of the most dishonest and inappropriate person ever to hold high office in this country, so one must accept that you find dishonesty and incompetence acceptable, which is for your conscience, but I find it difficult to see how that squares with your stated religeous belief and values. Added to that your political analysis is highly simplistic and your judgement clearly highly flawed.
I said Boris would beat Corbyn and deliver Brexit in early 2019 and he did both by Christmas. Nothing more needs to be said
Oh my God, you are Nostradamus and I claim my £5. You are a fucking genius. How did you ever work that one out? I mean Corbyn, that electoral colossus who had the appeal of JFK and the oratorical abilities of Marcus Cicero. However did "Boris", the Poundshop Churchill achieve this remarkable victory against such a magnificent adversary. And you! You predicted it all. You have my undying admiration.
So it looks like Putin is - so far - successfully doing what I said he would do. Relentlessly degrading Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Via a new supply of drones/missiles
Theory doing the rounds that we’re set to see a lot of kites flown on cuts. Defence. Triple lock. NHS. And then Hunt turns round and says “Right. There you go, you didn’t like that did you. So you decide - it’s either welfare, or the pensioners, squaddies and nurses take the hit. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1582355565103050754
Whatever they settle on, we can look forward to Labour opportunistically opposing all the 'tory cuts', whilst also promising to 'balance the books';
Advantage of opposition. You can have your cake and eat it.
The last time Labour came to power without being gifted a golden economic situation was almost 50 years ago (1974). They hung on for one 5 year term of strife until ejected by Thatcher. If (when) Labour win the next General Election they are going to be ripped asunder by having to try to balance the books whilst dealing with the Unions.
I think it is increasingly likely that State pension and welfare/benefits etc will only be uplifted by earnings rather than CPI at April 2023 ie around 5.9% not 10%.
The government can say 'we have helped you with your energy' and help has been particularly targeted on pensioners and welfare recipients.
So it looks like Putin is - so far - successfully doing what I said he would do. Relentlessly degrading Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Via a new supply of drones/missiles
I think the political history of this crisis really needs to focus on (and begin with) the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader. The tories reacted by ditching sensible and pursuing various incarnations of fantasy and nutty in the belief they could get away with it and take the voters with them, ever since.
It ended in what is basically a solvency crisis, having drained the treasury.
They got drunk on power.
This time, there really is no money left.
Yes, this crisis is all Labour's fault. LoL
Margaret Beckett’s fault, to be specific.
The trail of damage that she has caused puts her up there with…well, you can imagine.
No - Harriet Harman should carry the can for Corbyn's election in 2015.
Eric Joyce.
...a Scotsman flaps his wings in the Strangers' Bar...
On the other hand, that takes matters back to Dennis Canavan in 2000 resigning his MP's seat as a matter of principle when he thumpingly won the equivalent Holyrood constituency as an Independent, Labour HQ having deselected him. Hence Mr Joyce winning the by-election ...
Canavan's passion for Scots independence was confirmed when Scotland beat England 2-1 at Wembley in 1977, a game he attended and in which he partook in the infamous pitch invasion.
The scorer of the winning goal that day? One Kenneth Dalglish...
A good move, but it looks like the Tories have thrown in the towel for the next election.
I think this is very encouraging - is Hunt calculating that the Tories have lost, and so he can/should do what is actually best for the country's long term position?
If the Triple Lock goes, along with the Health and Social Care Levy going, then Truss will have done two very good things.
Now merge NI into Income Tax so all incomes, earned and unearned, are taxed evenly and trigger a housing market crash and the Tories can head into opposition having sorted out the biggest problems in the economy.
And have millions in negative equity, effectively unable to move to where the jobs are? You, sir, are a great poster, but can also be a prize idiot.
Main German TV news: "The beginning of the end of Brexit? The UK PM's spectacular fall is about far more than just her - it stands for the collapse of a political concept that became further and further removed from reality"
"The Belgians have shielded trade in Russian diamonds. The Greeks ship Russian oil unimpeded. France and several other nations still import Russian uranium for nuclear power generation." @MatinaStevis reports on continued EU-Russia trade https://twitter.com/VALERIEinNYT/status/1582259893045641219
So it looks like Putin is - so far - successfully doing what I said he would do. Relentlessly degrading Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Via a new supply of drones/missiles
Yet Norfolk SW was actually a Labour -held seat until 1964 when - against the national tide- it was gained by the Tories!
Lots of rural Norfolk was red, that all changed when the agricultural worker base vote faded away
Indeed so. North Norfolk was Labour until 1970. I find it surprising,however, that the Tories would lose Norfolk S but hang on to Norfolk SW.
Norfolk South would be next to drop after Broadland, both contain large chunks of suburban Norwich and voting patterns in those sections closer to Norwich city than the county. Truss has Thetford which is ripe for Labour but the rest is 'very' Tory, ditto NW outside Kings Lynn and Mid outwith Dereham
Of the Norfolk rural seats Labour's best prospect would likely be Norfolk NW which it won in 1997 - quite similar to the former Kings Lynn seat. South Norfolk last went Labour in 1945 - when Christopher Mayhew was elected.In recent decades only the LDs have been vaguely competitive there.Labour came fairly close - 2,000 or so - to unseating Gillian Shephard in Norfolk SW in 1997.
No, i disagree. Theres not much LD vote to work on anymore in NW and the Tories are in 65% compared to lower totals in Broadland and South. South Norfolk actually had an evenly split opposition in 2001 and 2005, in either year opposition votes coalescing would have led to it dropping. Its much more vulnersble than NW Norfolk at this time
But the former Kings Lynn seat was often a Tight marginal - the Tories won by 33 votes in 1970.NW Norfolk very close too in both 74 elections. Not sure how demographics have changed there.
Vast amounts of pensioner in-comers and lots and LOTS of new build bungalows. Anywhere that isn't 'working class' Kings Lynn is basically God's waiting room. And with that goes voting patterns.
(Disclaimer: I'm not only a regretful Truss voter. I also live in her constituency. Imagine what it's like to be me at the moment)
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
Teresa May last price matched 18. Back/Lay range 14-30.
Just as an aside, it is Theresa May... with an aitch (or haitch.... who knows). If you search Teresa May, whilst it now does default to 'Theresa May' (at least for my search results), about twenty years ago you would've got a completely different Teresa May.
Theory doing the rounds that we’re set to see a lot of kites flown on cuts. Defence. Triple lock. NHS. And then Hunt turns round and says “Right. There you go, you didn’t like that did you. So you decide - it’s either welfare, or the pensioners, squaddies and nurses take the hit. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1582355565103050754
Whatever they settle on, we can look forward to Labour opportunistically opposing all the 'tory cuts', whilst also promising to 'balance the books';
Advantage of opposition. You can have your cake and eat it.
The last time Labour came to power without being gifted a golden economic situation was almost 50 years ago (1974). They hung on for one 5 year term of strife until ejected by Thatcher. If (when) Labour win the next General Election they are going to be ripped asunder by having to try to balance the books whilst dealing with the Unions.
Is Suella the new Maggie then, if Rishi takes over as PM from Truss before Christmas, loses the next general election but saves a few seats and Suella becomes Leader of the Opposition to PM Starmer?
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
If this hypothetical buyer has saved a deposit, it becomes relatively bigger with every fall in prices, so not only do they need to borrow a smaller amount of money, but their loan-to-value ratio also gets better. It's absolutely perverse to argue that people can't benefit from paying less for something.
That much is true of course but if our experience of buying during 2009 is anything to go by, once house prices start to fall consistently, the supply dries up. Anyone who doesn't need to sell doesn't.
That puts any potential buyers in a much more difficult position.
Theory doing the rounds that we’re set to see a lot of kites flown on cuts. Defence. Triple lock. NHS. And then Hunt turns round and says “Right. There you go, you didn’t like that did you. So you decide - it’s either welfare, or the pensioners, squaddies and nurses take the hit. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1582355565103050754
As iI said earlier it was blindingly obvious yesterday that was Hunt's line and also deliberately exaggeratin g the level of worst case scenarios so that the actual medicine will be somewhat less harsh. Meanwhile of course the journos lap it all up and race out to Jo Public for all the 'not me guv' responses.
Comments
Labour are very pro the triple lock, so it'll be interesting to see how they pay for it's return.
A housing crash does not help buyers much if it is more difficult for them to get a mortgage, as it would be
Corbyn still Labour leader not Starmer also bad for the country
To be honest a purge of the career politicians from time to time isn't the worst thing in the world to happen.
There is no way of knowing how well Hunt would have performed against Corbyn. My view is that he would have beaten him comprehensively and this is because voters, in the main, voted Conservative to keep Corbyn out, and those few swivel-eyed nutters who wouldn't vote Conservative because of Hunt would have been replaced by people like myself who would not vote for a liar and a clown in a million years. You are not a "proper" Conservative, you are a blind-loyalty Johnsonian populist. You are part of the problem for the Tories.
Indeed, I might suggest that too often this is how the police respond to all sorts of crimes. Although, that said, I once reported an election-related offence and was surprised how a Met police officer soon came to meet with me and took my concerns seriously. A much better experience than I’d had previously reporting other crimes.
No One:
Liz Truss: Yes. I’m ready to be the maximum unpopular. https://twitter.com/ashcowburn/status/1582346186471919616
When Starmer/Reeves suggested the energy support package should be in place for 6 months in the first place, to be reviewed after that, they were widely derided for being so mean and not providing certainty.
When Starmer/Reeves suggested a windfall tax should be extended further to raise more money for the public purse, they were widely derided, and told that would damage investment.
Now that Jeremy Hunt has decided on the former, and is considering the latter, it's a sign that the grown-ups are in charge and we are heading back towards fiscal credibility. Well I never.
#LizTrussPM https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1582347815426359298
Remember Boris only won the leadership as the May and Hunt (Foreign Secretary at the time) Tories had fallen to 3rd place in some polls.
See this May 2019 Opinium poll which had Labour on 29%, the Brexit Party on 24% and Tories on 22%
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/political-polling-14th-may-2019/
Oh god.
The police blogs, before they were censored out of existence, were quite candid about how such lists existed. If you, a junior police officer, started logging the "wrong kind" of crimes, you'd be lucky to end up in Sanford.
I still find it funny to claim some sort of conspiracy NOT to find fraud, when such evidence would support what the government that has been in power for 12 years wants to do
Indeed Harper was leader of the Canadian Alliance at the time and led the new party too, Peter Mackay, the Progressive Conservatives leader, became Harper's Foreign Affairs and then Defence Minister
https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/1582308143429603328?s=20&t=N7M9yc4Elb7H6i9akgGwBw
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1582355565103050754
"Our view
It is important that the UK’s electoral system is both secure and accessible.
There are already checks in place to confirm a voter’s identity if they are voting by post. But there are no similar checks in place at polling stations in Great Britain to prevent someone claiming to be someone else and voting in their name. This makes polling station voting in Great Britain vulnerable to fraud.
In Northern Ireland, there has been a requirement to show ID when voting since 1985, updated to photo ID in 2003.
The UK has very low levels of proven electoral fraud, and voters should feel confident about their vote. But we know from our public opinion research that it is an issue that concerns some voters. Two-thirds of people say they would feel more confident in the security of the voting system if there was a requirement to show ID.
At the 2018 and 2019 local elections, the UK Government trialled voter ID in a number of areas in England. We carried out independent, statutory evaluations in both years. Based on the evidence collected, we identified three key areas that need further consideration before voter ID is introduced:...."
Which isn't opposed to photo ID, but also suggests that there isn't evidence of much in-person fraud.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-views-and-research/elections-act/requirement-show-id-polling-stations
Well, some actual evidence.
If there is evidence that there is a problem, then maybe photo ID is a good idea. I'm opposed to introducing this kind of change without a good reason, when it is seen as favoring one party.
The triple lock going is the right thing to do and remember I am a pensioner, but you suggest Starmer should vow to reverse it for political gain when the country cannot afford it
I really do despair
From the very first page of that report.
The Electoral Commission recommendation was for proof of identity to be in place by no later than the 2019 European Parliament and Local Elections.
It looks stable but not boring, radical (LT) but responsible (JH) at the same time, and it might be acceptable to the one-nation and ERG wings of the Conservative party.
Perhaps it needed the scary dose of chaos to bring it about, even the KK collateral damage.
Look at the jumps in reporting of sexual offences against women when it becomes a government priority.
Or Rotherham (and similar instances). Remember how that came to light? After the farce of the Met operation to find a fictitious nonce ring, Mrs May announced that policy was now that all allegations be taken seriously. Which suddenly caused....
Like the stock market, housing is not at all a simple classical market where behaviour responds to price signals in the obvious way.
Your judgement is very flawed.
Like you, I benefit from it but it simply has to go, never to return. When Starmer gets in, there is going to be a hell of a mess to sort out and cosseting a group that has been cossetted too long is not going to help.
And I honestly don't think there will that many votes in it.
ht @rstein
https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/grossbritannien-truss-torys-101.html
China and/or the EU I imagine.
It doesn't seem to contain any evidence of electoral fraud at all.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/ukraine-says-30-of-its-power-plants-destroyed-in-last-eight-days
Building up to a new invasion?
Get in a team that can speak to the Red Wall and will actually get stuff done there (i.e. Mordaunt) with a HS that's tough on immigration (Badenoch). Then have serious, competent figures in the Treasury and FO and they will do well. The economic policy will blunt Labour attacks if it is high profile enough, and then you can clobber them on immigration.
On the other side of the coin, there are some huge losers: mostly young families pushed into negative equity at a time of rising interest rates.
There is also the knock-on effect on the economy: housing transactions are a big driver of economic activity, and so the fall in volumes which is associated with big price drops is in itself a very negative factor. It also hits labour mobility.
Basically you don't wont to go there, which is why governments of all stripes take measures to support prices when a big drop looks imminent - eg the Labour government in 2008.
The last time Labour came to power without being gifted a golden economic situation was almost 50 years ago (1974). They hung on for one 5 year term of strife until ejected by Thatcher. If (when) Labour win the next General Election they are going to be ripped asunder by having to try to balance the books whilst dealing with the Unions.
The government can say 'we have helped you with your energy' and help has been particularly targeted on pensioners and welfare recipients.
The only problem is that Russia seems A-OK with militarily stupid actions.
The scorer of the winning goal that day? One Kenneth Dalglish... And have millions in negative equity, effectively unable to move to where the jobs are? You, sir, are a great poster, but can also be a prize idiot.
There was a brief mention of the latest tax U-turns near the end of the news (no mention of Brexit)
"The Belgians have shielded trade in Russian diamonds. The Greeks ship Russian oil unimpeded. France and several other nations still import Russian uranium for nuclear power generation."
@MatinaStevis reports on continued EU-Russia trade
https://twitter.com/VALERIEinNYT/status/1582259893045641219
Which opens up all kinds of interesting options.
(Disclaimer: I'm not only a regretful Truss voter. I also live in her constituency. Imagine what it's like to be me at the moment)
If you search Teresa May, whilst it now does default to 'Theresa May' (at least for my search results), about twenty years ago you would've got a completely different Teresa May.
That puts any potential buyers in a much more difficult position.