Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Tories 40% behind in the Red Wall – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 20 in General
imageTories 40% behind in the Red Wall – politicalbetting.com

Given how the “Red Wall” and Labour’s collapse there came to dominate GE2019 analysis the regular regular tracker of opinion in the seats from Redfield & Wilton is very useful but terrifying for all the new CON MPs who entered Parliament from the seats there after making gains from LAB at the last election.

Read the full story here

«13456710

Comments

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,735
    First, like Liz-out-the-door?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,361
    What is “Liz” short for?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    DougSeal said:

    What is “Liz” short for?

    Lizaster.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    "Questionable" understates it. Only non-horrendous result has been Cameron.

    Howard tried to reverse it.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 2,021
    All this 'blue wall' and 'red wall' distinction doesn't matter in the end

    It's a national contest and at the moment it looks like CON are heading for meltdown everywhere!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,091
    DougSeal said:

    What is “Liz” short for?

    Lizard, as in alien variety thereof.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,735
    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    It is curious. Most natural Conservatives I talk to round here are going to vote LD or not at all.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    edited October 19
    DougSeal said:

    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    I don’t think these are protest votes. I think these are we want change votes.
    Even so, you would expect the Lib Dems to rise with the tide. And there are plenty of places where change means a LibDem MP. It's odd.

    The uptick of RFM is there, but nothing for the LDs. They look moribund.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,091

    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    It is curious. Most natural Conservatives I talk to round here are going to vote LD or not at all.
    I suspect the opinion of some on here is correct, that in the event some voters might feel safe to vote for their specialised perversions such as the LDs or the MRLP or whatever, on the assumption that Labour will win. And some normal Tories might just stay at home.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176
    Someone's trying to back Penny Mordaunt on Exchange with over £1,500.

    Way deeper than the rest of the market.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461
    Nick Robinson eviscerating James Cleverly.

    Quite extraordinary. Better than Robin Cook at the height of his powers!

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    In the Commons tea room, the mood is mutinous. Even newer MPs normally reluctant to stick their heads above the parapet are telling the whips she should go. Members of the Old Guard are in despair, not least at the calibre of the Cabinet. “There needs to be a total clear-out and the return of experienced, wiser, greyer heads,” said one.

    Telegrph
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604

    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    I live in a seat where Labour don't really exist. A LibDem member. I would totally tell a pollster I am voting Labour if they ask - need apply maximum pressure on the Tories.

    In a real general election - especially a fuck the Tories ELE spectacular - we will see tactical voting off the scale. I expect my party to do much better than the UNS suggests because our votes will coalesce in seats we can win.
    Indeed, but I would expect at least some uptick for LDs in the polls. They may be strong locally, but they are invisible nationally. I find it odd.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465
    Well, that's decades of progress, culminating in May and Boris making strides, undone in a moment.

    Plus, they must have really disliked Corbyn and ecstatic to be able to return to the fold.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    I've asked this before and the informed response from other posters was that tactical voting only crystallises in the run up to elections. We can expect to see them surge later.

    Having said that, I do wonder if an election were to happen now it would be quite tricky to work out who would be the nearest challenger to the Tories given how mad the polls are.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,091
    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    I've asked this before and the informed response from other posters was that tactical voting only crystallises in the run up to elections. We can expect to see them surge later.

    Having said that, I do wonder if an election were to happen now it would be quite tricky to work out who would be the nearest challenger to the Tories given how mad the polls are.
    Especially in Scotland. Just think of all the dodgy LD bar histograms.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    .@bbcnickrobinson "What was Liz Truss doing on Oct 2, just 17 days ago, when she guaranteed the pensions triple lock wd remain?"
    @JamesCleverly "Well that was in response to, er, the announcements that were made, erm, at the time."

    1 of Govt's best communicators struggling tday

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1582636600269631488
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    Ishmael_Z said:

    "Questionable" understates it. Only non-horrendous result has been Cameron.

    Howard tried to reverse it.

    Do why did they go for Cameron? 13 years in the wilderness and they finally got desperate enough?

    On that basis, you'd expect another leadership election to go for someone sensible given the latest mess. I don't see it though, think they'll double down.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819

    FPT:

    The Bill for social care Cap has received royal assent. In fact, in a sense it has been passed twice. Once by Cameron and once by Johnson. The trials for the Cap start in next couple of months.

    It is beyond a disgrace that this is once again going to be abandoned.

    Plus, the reform is about other issues than just the Cap.

    Unless you have direct day-to-day experience of the social care system (I have) you have no idea how broken and not fit for purpose it is. And getting worse all the time.

    I have experience from levels removed - temporary agencies can only find staff by playing every trick under the sun.

    And then often the worker and client disappear into a cash in hand underworld
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    👷‍♂️ Labour will table a binding motion on the prospect of banning fracking in the UK, creating a headache for the government. https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/labour-vote-fracking-ban-opposition-day-conservative-mps-jacob-rees-mogg
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819

    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    I live in a seat where Labour don't really exist. A LibDem member. I would totally tell a pollster I am voting Labour if they ask - need apply maximum pressure on the Tories.

    In a real general election - especially a fuck the Tories ELE spectacular - we will see tactical voting off the scale. I expect my party to do much better than the UNS suggests because our votes will coalesce in seats we can win.
    The Lib Dems only issue is going to be making sure voters know who the likely winner in each seat is going to be. A bit of quiet help from Labour - (by utterly ignoring the seat and focussing all campaign work elsewhere) would do wonders all round.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461
    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    These aren't protest voters. These are angry voters. They want the Tories out as fast as possible and they know that Labour are the the ones who'll do it. I can't remember such anger before. Apathy is normally the overriding emotion.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,392
    DougSeal said:

    What is “Liz” short for?

    Living in zugzwang
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204
    edited October 19
    No care cost cap and care costs now outside of the scope of 7 IHT year rule. Easy. Wealthy older people pay their own way and their kids won't benefit from asset transfers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    Which month's figures are used for determining the rise in phone/broadband contract prices?

    December.
    Which means that next April unless we have a quite extraordinary turnaround in the next month people are going to see around a 14% (one-seventh) increase in their broadband and mobile phone prices.

    ISTR you flagged this up before, Mr Eagles. But it looks as though you may have underestimated the problem.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,392
    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    My guess is there is a part of their vote which is “really labour but they can’t win here”. Who now feel emboldened to say labour when asked
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,361
    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    I've asked this before and the informed response from other posters was that tactical voting only crystallises in the run up to elections. We can expect to see them surge later.

    Having said that, I do wonder if an election were to happen now it would be quite tricky to work out who would be the nearest challenger to the Tories given how mad the polls are.
    My 18th birthday was in January 1992 so I cast my first GE vote that Spring, tactically, for the Lib Dems on the basis that “Labour could never win Canterbury”. I’m an absolute sage me.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    edited October 19
    kle4 said:

    Well, that's decades of progress, culminating in May and Boris making strides, undone in a moment.

    Plus, they must have really disliked Corbyn and ecstatic to be able to return to the fold.

    Where IS the Conservative vote actually holding up ?

    Essex and Lincolnshire redoubts maybe ?

    Kwarteng's short stint as an unashamedly pro business southern England chancellor has probably done lasting damage to the red wall beyond the general carnage.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819

    All this 'blue wall' and 'red wall' distinction doesn't matter in the end

    It's a national contest and at the moment it looks like CON are heading for meltdown everywhere!

    Red Wall seats are clear Labour targets and gains.

    The Tories worst fear is that Labour and Lib Dems are organised enough to effectively target Blue Wall seats - even if it means Labour potentially end up with 10 or so less seats - because by the looks of it they won't need them.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    Will KK make a resignation speech today?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    IanB2 said:

    Senior Tory MPs have told Express.co.uk it is “now common knowledge” that Mr Hunt is organising a reshuffle of Ms Truss’ ministerial team.

    It will be interesting to see what role he gives Truss. Maybe she'll be given some extra responsibility as a minister in the health department.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,392

    In the Commons tea room, the mood is mutinous. Even newer MPs normally reluctant to stick their heads above the parapet are telling the whips she should go. Members of the Old Guard are in despair, not least at the calibre of the Cabinet. “There needs to be a total clear-out and the return of experienced, wiser, greyer heads,” said one.

    Telegrph

    Member of the Old Guard argues for the return of the Old Guard
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,044
    Time for the Tories to give Rishi a chance to turn things around.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    Jonathan said:

    Will KK make a resignation speech today?

    It sounds as though there are lots of speeches full of resignation being made.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465
    AlistairM said:

    IanB2 said:

    Senior Tory MPs have told Express.co.uk it is “now common knowledge” that Mr Hunt is organising a reshuffle of Ms Truss’ ministerial team.

    Doesn't Truss have to go for her own self-respect now?
    Its tricky.

    Go now and she is by some distance the shortest serving PM. Very embarrassing.

    Stick around and have Hunt do whatever he wants and ignore her. Very embarrassing.

    I think avoiding the former is something she would bear a lot for.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    I've asked this before and the informed response from other posters was that tactical voting only crystallises in the run up to elections. We can expect to see them surge later.

    Having said that, I do wonder if an election were to happen now it would be quite tricky to work out who would be the nearest challenger to the Tories given how mad the polls are.
    Especially in Scotland. Just think of all the dodgy LD bar histograms.
    Just looking through the Tory seats, the SNP are the main challengers in every single one by a wide margin. Lib Dems won't make any progress against SNP in the other rural seats, so no gains up here I reckon.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    kle4 said:

    AlistairM said:

    IanB2 said:

    Senior Tory MPs have told Express.co.uk it is “now common knowledge” that Mr Hunt is organising a reshuffle of Ms Truss’ ministerial team.

    Doesn't Truss have to go for her own self-respect now?
    Its tricky.

    Go now and she is by some distance the shortest serving PM. Very embarrassing.

    Stick around and have Hunt do whatever he wants and ignore her. Very embarrassing.

    I think avoiding the former is something she would bear a lot for.
    I would have thought that any incoming PM would like Truss to eat the worst of the shit and then take over.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465
    When one side is so far ahead or behind tactical voting for third parties may break down. You're so motivated for a party or against another, and can see the national picture, that straight switches seem effective even in areas it didnt used to be.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465

    In the Commons tea room, the mood is mutinous. Even newer MPs normally reluctant to stick their heads above the parapet are telling the whips she should go. Members of the Old Guard are in despair, not least at the calibre of the Cabinet. “There needs to be a total clear-out and the return of experienced, wiser, greyer heads,” said one.

    Telegrph

    Member of the Old Guard argues for the return of the Old Guard
    Sure, but things did seem better then.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    kle4 said:

    Go now and she is by some distance the shortest serving PM. Very embarrassing.

    The length of her tenure is the least embarrassing thing about it.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    "The temptation for the Tories will be to blame Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng and focus on failures in presentation. The problem, in truth, runs much deeper."

    Must-read piece by @DavidGauke on a bonfire of delusions.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/conservatives/2022/10/liz-truss-a-bonfire-of-delusions-david-gauke
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    Go now and she is by some distance the shortest serving PM. Very embarrassing.

    The length of her tenure is the least embarrassing thing about it.
    Are you saying it's not length that matters, but what you do with it?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    kle4 said:

    AlistairM said:

    IanB2 said:

    Senior Tory MPs have told Express.co.uk it is “now common knowledge” that Mr Hunt is organising a reshuffle of Ms Truss’ ministerial team.

    Doesn't Truss have to go for her own self-respect now?
    Its tricky.

    Go now and she is by some distance the shortest serving PM. Very embarrassing.

    Stick around and have Hunt do whatever he wants and ignore her. Very embarrassing.

    I think avoiding the former is something she would bear a lot for.
    She needs a tangible achievement to show for having been PM. Perhaps the deal could be that she goes but her pledge to build the Northern Powerhouse Rail is kept.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,091
    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    I've asked this before and the informed response from other posters was that tactical voting only crystallises in the run up to elections. We can expect to see them surge later.

    Having said that, I do wonder if an election were to happen now it would be quite tricky to work out who would be the nearest challenger to the Tories given how mad the polls are.
    Especially in Scotland. Just think of all the dodgy LD bar histograms.
    Just looking through the Tory seats, the SNP are the main challengers in every single one by a wide margin. Lib Dems won't make any progress against SNP in the other rural seats, so no gains up here I reckon.
    Indeed. Doesn't measn they won't try - they could try to win Tory seats too - and they have to defend seats in which some folk might no longer be voting Liberal-rather-than-Labour-because-of-Mr-Corbyn.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,091
    Jonathan said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    Go now and she is by some distance the shortest serving PM. Very embarrassing.

    The length of her tenure is the least embarrassing thing about it.
    Are you saying it's not length that matters, but what you do with it?
    Thickness.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604

    kle4 said:

    AlistairM said:

    IanB2 said:

    Senior Tory MPs have told Express.co.uk it is “now common knowledge” that Mr Hunt is organising a reshuffle of Ms Truss’ ministerial team.

    Doesn't Truss have to go for her own self-respect now?
    Its tricky.

    Go now and she is by some distance the shortest serving PM. Very embarrassing.

    Stick around and have Hunt do whatever he wants and ignore her. Very embarrassing.

    I think avoiding the former is something she would bear a lot for.
    She needs a tangible achievement to show for having been PM. Perhaps the deal could be that she goes but her pledge to build the Northern Powerhouse Rail is kept.
    She achieved her three major objectives. She opened a new era in British politics, she had a direct, measurable impact on the British economy and put clear space between Labour and the Tories in the polls.

    She can leave with real achievements.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,882
    It's over for the Conservatives for the next election. The MPs all know it. Anyone who thinks and tells you otherwise is living in cloud cuckoo land.

    The only question now is how they limit their inevitable losses. The solution to that does not lie with Liz Truss.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,091
    DougSeal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    I've asked this before and the informed response from other posters was that tactical voting only crystallises in the run up to elections. We can expect to see them surge later.

    Having said that, I do wonder if an election were to happen now it would be quite tricky to work out who would be the nearest challenger to the Tories given how mad the polls are.
    My 18th birthday was in January 1992 so I cast my first GE vote that Spring, tactically, for the Lib Dems on the basis that “Labour could never win Canterbury”. I’m an absolute sage me.
    Slicing onion time?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,735
    Jonathan said:

    Will KK make a resignation speech today?

    "Nothing has changed" ?
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,882
    Andy_JS said:

    Time for the Tories to give Rishi a chance to turn things around.

    He cannot "turn things around". The most he can do is to stop the ship foundering altogether.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    Polling guru Lord Hayward tells @SkyNews "the polls are absolutely awful" for the prime minister. He suggests the indication *might be* that Liz Truss is the problem, not the whole Tory party.
    https://twitter.com/SophiaSleigh/status/1582641064078295040
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    Peston has a 20 tweet thread up at https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582640973594574853 which is just too complex.

    He's right in saying the mini-budget was so bad that even reversing the mini-budget doesn't fix the damage it created but that will take a lot of explaining to the general public.

    The story Labour needs to tell the general public needs to be simpler. But he is 110% correct that the budget has destroyed any ability for the Tory Party to use economic and low tax arguments in the next 15-20 years
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    Having reflected on some of the discussions that I have read on here, I've come around to the view that the best way forward is for a form of NI to be payable on all forms of income. This would include pensions, dividend income, capital gains etc.

    In the interests of fairness and to avoid hardship, the actual rate payable could be varied based on total personal income; but the total amount should be at least 13.5% in the case of pensioners who have an income that is higher than the median average wage, but for those who are relying on the state pension, or have a very small private pension the rate should be zero. This would be the core revenue raising part of the policy.

    The flipside of this would be that the state pension would rise slightly, and the triple lock would remain - and is paid universally. So the policy would benefit a majority of pensioners.

    Politically I think a revolt of wealthy pensioners would be comical and counterproductive. Their mouths have been stuffed with gold for too long.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    edited October 19
    Scott_xP said:

    Polling guru Lord Hayward tells @SkyNews "the polls are absolutely awful" for the prime minister. He suggests the indication *might be* that Liz Truss is the problem, not the whole Tory party.
    https://twitter.com/SophiaSleigh/status/1582641064078295040

    Rightly so, Truss is less popular than the Tory party. She is the problem today.

    However. There is an underlying problem The Tory party chose Truss. Even if they switch a good proportion of the blue kippers Tories want what she offers. That's a problem for whoever takes over.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    Go now and she is by some distance the shortest serving PM. Very embarrassing.

    The length of her tenure is the least embarrassing thing about it.
    Extending her tenure is more embarrassing long term then removing her now.

    It's clear from Monday (and will probably be even clearer today) that she isn't mentally well at the moment and keeping her in place because you can't work out how to replace her isn't a good look.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,540
    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    People have bypassed the protest stage, and gone directly to the Tories are a danger to my economic security stage. So it's not enough not to vote for the Tories. One has to ensure they aren't in government. On a national level, that means a Labour government instead.

    The change in the polls was so large, and so rapid, that it represents a visceral fear-based response. When it comes to the election, it's quite possible that the Lib Dems will be able to win many voters on the basis of tactical voting. Also, if a Labour victory comes to be seen as certain, then some voters will feel confident to pre-emptively protest vote against the incoming Labour government by voting Lib Dem.

    You'd expect the Lib Dems to do very well as an opposition to Labour first-term government, while the Tories are still in some disarray and disrepute.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    eek said:

    Peston has a 20 tweet thread up at https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582640973594574853 which is just too complex.

    He's right in saying the mini-budget was so bad that even reversing the mini-budget doesn't fix the damage it created but that will take a lot of explaining to the general public.

    The story Labour needs to tell the general public needs to be simpler. But he is 110% correct that the budget has destroyed any ability for the Tory Party to use economic and low tax arguments in the next 15-20 years

    That's a good thread. Truss and Kwarteng's lunacy has made us all poorer and there is no way back from it. It's unforgiveable, and the Tories need to be turfed out at the next election.
  • FPT
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    Which month's figures are used for determining the rise in phone/broadband contract prices?

    December.
    Edit - sorry, misunderstood something.

    Which means that next April unless we have a quite extraordinary turnaround in the next month people are going to struggle to afford their broadband contracts.
    Not just broadband, pretty much all the mobile networks, except Sky Mobile, have CPI/RPI +3.9% increases baked in from next March as well.

    Top end contracts are £100+ per month, which means there's going to be £20 monthly increases there.

    O2 are pretty good at splitting their airtime and device costs so you only pay the increase on the airtime, EE and others, the whole contract
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,767
    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    Peston has a 20 tweet thread up at https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582640973594574853 which is just too complex.

    He's right in saying the mini-budget was so bad that even reversing the mini-budget doesn't fix the damage it created but that will take a lot of explaining to the general public.

    The story Labour needs to tell the general public needs to be simpler. But he is 110% correct that the budget has destroyed any ability for the Tory Party to use economic and low tax arguments in the next 15-20 years

    That's a good thread. Truss and Kwarteng's lunacy has made us all poorer and there is no way back from it. It's unforgiveable, and the Tories need to be turfed out at the next election.
    To what extent is the permanent damage the markets pricing in a Labour government?
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,855

    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    My guess is there is a part of their vote which is “really labour but they can’t win here”. Who now feel emboldened to say labour when asked
    It's not a mystery why Libdems aren't doing better.
    Most people want the Conservatives out. The last time Libdem MPs held the balance of power at Westminster they put the Conservatives in.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,179
    edited October 19

    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    People have bypassed the protest stage, and gone directly to the Tories are a danger to my economic security stage. So it's not enough not to vote for the Tories. One has to ensure they aren't in government. On a national level, that means a Labour government instead.

    The change in the polls was so large, and so rapid, that it represents a visceral fear-based response. When it comes to the election, it's quite possible that the Lib Dems will be able to win many voters on the basis of tactical voting. Also, if a Labour victory comes to be seen as certain, then some voters will feel confident to pre-emptively protest vote against the incoming Labour government by voting Lib Dem.

    You'd expect the Lib Dems to do very well as an opposition to Labour first-term government, while the Tories are still in some disarray and disrepute.
    In 1997 the Lib Dems had a charismatic leader in Paddy Ashdown and one or two other charismatic people, such as Charlie Kennedy. There is no one like that now!
    Layla Moran looked as though she was going to be, but doesn't seem to have broken through.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    Not really. They're getting no coverage and 'Labour' is the shorthand for 'Tories out!" right now.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,540
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    Peston has a 20 tweet thread up at https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582640973594574853 which is just too complex.

    He's right in saying the mini-budget was so bad that even reversing the mini-budget doesn't fix the damage it created but that will take a lot of explaining to the general public.

    The story Labour needs to tell the general public needs to be simpler. But he is 110% correct that the budget has destroyed any ability for the Tory Party to use economic and low tax arguments in the next 15-20 years

    That's a good thread. Truss and Kwarteng's lunacy has made us all poorer and there is no way back from it. It's unforgiveable, and the Tories need to be turfed out at the next election.
    To what extent is the permanent damage the markets pricing in a Labour government?
    My guess is that, if Corbyn was still leading the opposition, the damage the markets would be pricing in would be greater because (a) Starmer is seen as less dangerous economically, and, (b) there would be more of a chance that the Tories would still win, despite their disastrous performance.

    Furthermore, I'd guess that if the next general election had to be within a year, rather than two years, then the markets would probably be pricing in less damage.

    This may change as the election approaches. At the moment Labour are very much not-Tories, but as they announce more policies we can expect these to receive more attention from the markets, since they will fairly soon become government policies.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,179
    kamski said:

    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    My guess is there is a part of their vote which is “really labour but they can’t win here”. Who now feel emboldened to say labour when asked
    It's not a mystery why Libdems aren't doing better.
    Most people want the Conservatives out. The last time Libdem MPs held the balance of power at Westminster they put the Conservatives in.
    kamski said:

    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    My guess is there is a part of their vote which is “really labour but they can’t win here”. Who now feel emboldened to say labour when asked
    It's not a mystery why Libdems aren't doing better.
    Most people want the Conservatives out. The last time Libdem MPs held the balance of power at Westminster they put the Conservatives in.
    That's true, I suspect. That there was no alternative doesn't seem to register.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461
    edited October 19
    Brilliant exchange between Cleverley and Robinson.....

    NR. "When I asked you at the Tory Party Conference who supports her economic policy you said -and I'll play it to you -

    JC......... "The Prime Minister made it REALLY clear what her philosophy was and if people weren't listening it's their problem not hers!"

    NR. (Close to exploding) OUR PROBLEM NOT HERS! I put it to you you didn't listen to the Office of budget responsibility. You didn't listen to the Bank of England .You didn't listen to your former Chancellor. You didn't listen to virtually every economist in in Britain. When I asked her to name a single economist who agreed with her -after a long pause -she said 'Patric Mimford'! AND YOU SAY ITS OUR PROBLEM NOT YOURS.....

    (Goodbye James Cleverly!)
  • eek said:

    Peston has a 20 tweet thread up at https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582640973594574853 which is just too complex.

    He's right in saying the mini-budget was so bad that even reversing the mini-budget doesn't fix the damage it created but that will take a lot of explaining to the general public.

    The story Labour needs to tell the general public needs to be simpler. But he is 110% correct that the budget has destroyed any ability for the Tory Party to use economic and low tax arguments in the next 15-20 years

    Starmer needs to follow Dave and George's lead from 2008 onwards and explain to the country why austerity is essential and if we don't the medicine later on will be much much worse.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    Roger said:

    Nick Robinson eviscerating James Cleverly.

    Quite extraordinary. Better than Robin Cook at the height of his powers!

    Robin Day?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,520
    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    Not really. They're getting no coverage and 'Labour' is the shorthand for 'Tories out!" right now.
    Yep, I would expect them to do better than the polls suggest in Tory/lib dem fights.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    darkage said:

    Having reflected on some of the discussions that I have read on here, I've come around to the view that the best way forward is for a form of NI to be payable on all forms of income. This would include pensions, dividend income, capital gains etc.

    In the interests of fairness and to avoid hardship, the actual rate payable could be varied based on total personal income; but the total amount should be at least 13.5% in the case of pensioners who have an income that is higher than the median average wage, but for those who are relying on the state pension, or have a very small private pension the rate should be zero. This would be the core revenue raising part of the policy.

    The flipside of this would be that the state pension would rise slightly, and the triple lock would remain - and is paid universally. So the policy would benefit a majority of pensioners.

    Politically I think a revolt of wealthy pensioners would be comical and counterproductive. Their mouths have been stuffed with gold for too long.

    I am astonished by the genius of my own proposal upthread: people who want a cap can pay for it by insurance, but - this is the clever bit - not by some new administratively difficult premium scheme but by forgoing all or a substantial proportion of their state pension. So people with no assets to worry about get the full pension, the rich forgo it - huge saving for the state - the in-between work out that maybe they are not that rich if 10,000 a year extra income matters to them, that it is the state giving them that 10,000 and they really can't expect care home fees on top of that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    edited October 19
    Of course Hague himself led the Tories to a landslide defeat in 2001 having been elected only by MPs. The only Conservative leaders to win majorities since 2000, Cameron and Boris, were both elected by party members. 43% of Tory members also voted for Sunak last month and polling shows members now prefer him to Truss
  • Heathener said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Time for the Tories to give Rishi a chance to turn things around.

    He cannot "turn things around". The most he can do is to stop the ship foundering altogether.
    It is fair to say the conservatives are heading into the wilderness but at the same time the next election is 2 years away which is a long time in politics, and if the conservative mps can act now and install Sunak or Mordaunt as PM they have an opportunity to mitigate the 2024 election result

    However, in 2024 Labour will need to satisfy the OBR and IMF on their plans and they certainly will be constrained in what they can do, hence why I do not think many fear a labour government who will have to grapple with this problem throughout their 5 year term

    Also on the rises in broadband/ mobile contracts in April at inflation plus 3.9% I recently agreed a new 2 year contact with BT and on referring to this unacceptable increase I was told that if I contact them between the 1st and 31st of March they will just add £2 or so to the contract.

    Not sure I believe that but it is for Ofcom to step in a rule this increase frozen
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    Peston has a 20 tweet thread up at https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582640973594574853 which is just too complex.

    He's right in saying the mini-budget was so bad that even reversing the mini-budget doesn't fix the damage it created but that will take a lot of explaining to the general public.

    The story Labour needs to tell the general public needs to be simpler. But he is 110% correct that the budget has destroyed any ability for the Tory Party to use economic and low tax arguments in the next 15-20 years

    That's a good thread. Truss and Kwarteng's lunacy has made us all poorer and there is no way back from it. It's unforgiveable, and the Tories need to be turfed out at the next election.
    To what extent is the permanent damage the markets pricing in a Labour government?
    None - The prospect of a Labour Gov't at most 2 yrs away acted as a cushion immediately post-budget.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    kjh said:

    In the Commons tea room, the mood is mutinous. Even newer MPs normally reluctant to stick their heads above the parapet are telling the whips she should go. Members of the Old Guard are in despair, not least at the calibre of the Cabinet. “There needs to be a total clear-out and the return of experienced, wiser, greyer heads,” said one.

    Telegrph

    Boris cleared out nearly all the old guard. The destruction of the Tories starts with him. Truss is simply a symptom. HYUFD thinks he is their winner, whereas Boris is the cause of their collapse.
    No he isn't, the Labour lead was half what it is now when Boris left No 10
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    MikeL said:

    LATEST CUT:

    Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.

    Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
    Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).

    Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.

    It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
    What's wrong with people getting bankrupted?

    If they run out of money, they run out of money, but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to prevent that.

    They're at the end of their life and can't take it with them, anyway. And if you have a cap it should be that the final x amount of your savings are protected, not that the first x amount won't be.

    It's perverse to say someone with £1mn in assets must only pay £150k to avoid being bankrupted, with the taxpayer then covering their £850k after that, while saying someone with £200k (more than the mean House price in much of the Nort) should also pay £150k.
    To step back a bit, bankruptcy in general is a mechanism by which the state absorbs the costs of someone running out of money. It means an individual isn’t pursued in perpetuity for money and can re-build, with the state telling debtors they have to lump it. I wondered if you disapproved of the very concept of bankruptcy, given it’s anti-libertarian?

    No. The debtors just have to lump it and should be more careful.

    I'm a libertarian not an anarchist, I dont think there should be no state or no rules at all.

    I would oppose the state (read: taxpayer) stepping in to pay so the debtors don't lump it.
    But if someone subsequently, post-bankruptcy, makes lots of money, you’re OK with the state telling the debtors that they can’t have any of that?
    Yes. People should be able to rebuild their lives and the fact they have shouldn't mean that debtors who made bad choices investing in them before they did shouldn't be able to evade the consequences of their own choices.

    Responsibility cuts both ways.
    Creditors have "invested in" their debtors?
    Yes. Typically for an expected return, not normally out of charity of the goodness of their own heart.

    And frequently with risk premiums associated too, so if that investment goes south then that's their own responsibility.

    Personal responsibility means things can go bad as well as good. The state should not bail people out of bad decisions, apart from as a safety net, and if you lend to someone who can't pay you back, that's your own fault.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204

    eek said:

    Peston has a 20 tweet thread up at https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582640973594574853 which is just too complex.

    He's right in saying the mini-budget was so bad that even reversing the mini-budget doesn't fix the damage it created but that will take a lot of explaining to the general public.

    The story Labour needs to tell the general public needs to be simpler. But he is 110% correct that the budget has destroyed any ability for the Tory Party to use economic and low tax arguments in the next 15-20 years

    Starmer needs to follow Dave and George's lead from 2008 onwards and explain to the country why austerity is essential and if we don't the medicine later on will be much much worse.
    I don't think Starmer has it in him to go for a Nixon to China moment. He's not brave enough to tell Labour supporters the truth of what's coming over the next decade.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148

    eek said:

    Peston has a 20 tweet thread up at https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582640973594574853 which is just too complex.

    He's right in saying the mini-budget was so bad that even reversing the mini-budget doesn't fix the damage it created but that will take a lot of explaining to the general public.

    The story Labour needs to tell the general public needs to be simpler. But he is 110% correct that the budget has destroyed any ability for the Tory Party to use economic and low tax arguments in the next 15-20 years

    Starmer needs to follow Dave and George's lead from 2008 onwards and explain to the country why austerity is essential and if we don't the medicine later on will be much much worse.
    Then the Unions will strike even more and Labour left MPs will revolt.

    Hence Starmer will likely just have to heavily increase tax
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,540
    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    Go now and she is by some distance the shortest serving PM. Very embarrassing.

    The length of her tenure is the least embarrassing thing about it.
    Extending her tenure is more embarrassing long term then removing her now.

    It's clear from Monday (and will probably be even clearer today) that she isn't mentally well at the moment and keeping her in place because you can't work out how to replace her isn't a good look.
    If Truss can manage to turn up to PMQs, and get through it without breaking down, it will demonstrate a degree of mental fortitude that I don't think I have. I'm sure I don't have. Even at Theresa May's nadir there was a sense that implementing Brexit was difficult, that anyone would be finding it hard, but the situation Truss finds herself in is so completely self-inflicted that it must make it the most difficult PMQs in our political history.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    Peston has a 20 tweet thread up at https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582640973594574853 which is just too complex.

    He's right in saying the mini-budget was so bad that even reversing the mini-budget doesn't fix the damage it created but that will take a lot of explaining to the general public.

    The story Labour needs to tell the general public needs to be simpler. But he is 110% correct that the budget has destroyed any ability for the Tory Party to use economic and low tax arguments in the next 15-20 years

    Starmer needs to follow Dave and George's lead from 2008 onwards and explain to the country why austerity is essential and if we don't the medicine later on will be much much worse.
    I don't think Starmer has it in him to go for a Nixon to China moment. He's not brave enough to tell Labour supporters the truth of what's coming over the next decade.
    I don't think they need to do much beyond - the future is going to be tight.

    And then tighten the screw on local government spending because a lot of councils are now Tory lead and will revert to Labour as the local Tory council cops the blame for everything falling apart.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    darkage said:

    Having reflected on some of the discussions that I have read on here, I've come around to the view that the best way forward is for a form of NI to be payable on all forms of income. This would include pensions, dividend income, capital gains etc.

    In the interests of fairness and to avoid hardship, the actual rate payable could be varied based on total personal income; but the total amount should be at least 13.5% in the case of pensioners who have an income that is higher than the median average wage, but for those who are relying on the state pension, or have a very small private pension the rate should be zero. This would be the core revenue raising part of the policy.

    The flipside of this would be that the state pension would rise slightly, and the triple lock would remain - and is paid universally. So the policy would benefit a majority of pensioners.

    Politically I think a revolt of wealthy pensioners would be comical and counterproductive. Their mouths have been stuffed with gold for too long.

    Is your last paragraph right? The alleged stuffing is the triple lock on the STATE pension which is irrelevant because it is pocket money to anyone describable by any stretch as wealthy. What else? Bus passes?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,767
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    Peston has a 20 tweet thread up at https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582640973594574853 which is just too complex.

    He's right in saying the mini-budget was so bad that even reversing the mini-budget doesn't fix the damage it created but that will take a lot of explaining to the general public.

    The story Labour needs to tell the general public needs to be simpler. But he is 110% correct that the budget has destroyed any ability for the Tory Party to use economic and low tax arguments in the next 15-20 years

    That's a good thread. Truss and Kwarteng's lunacy has made us all poorer and there is no way back from it. It's unforgiveable, and the Tories need to be turfed out at the next election.
    To what extent is the permanent damage the markets pricing in a Labour government?
    None - The prospect of a Labour Gov't at most 2 yrs away acted as a cushion immediately post-budget.
    But not now? Labour haven't changed...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAbCsyjil4Y
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Peston has a 20 tweet thread up at https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582640973594574853 which is just too complex.

    He's right in saying the mini-budget was so bad that even reversing the mini-budget doesn't fix the damage it created but that will take a lot of explaining to the general public.

    The story Labour needs to tell the general public needs to be simpler. But he is 110% correct that the budget has destroyed any ability for the Tory Party to use economic and low tax arguments in the next 15-20 years

    Starmer needs to follow Dave and George's lead from 2008 onwards and explain to the country why austerity is essential and if we don't the medicine later on will be much much worse.
    Then the Unions will strike even more and Labour left MPs will revolt.

    Hence Starmer will likely just have to heavily increase tax
    Which is why we need Labour with a 100+ seat majority and it looks like they are going to get it.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461
    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    Peston has a 20 tweet thread up at https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1582640973594574853 which is just too complex.

    He's right in saying the mini-budget was so bad that even reversing the mini-budget doesn't fix the damage it created but that will take a lot of explaining to the general public.

    The story Labour needs to tell the general public needs to be simpler. But he is 110% correct that the budget has destroyed any ability for the Tory Party to use economic and low tax arguments in the next 15-20 years

    Starmer needs to follow Dave and George's lead from 2008 onwards and explain to the country why austerity is essential and if we don't the medicine later on will be much much worse.
    I don't think Starmer has it in him to go for a Nixon to China moment. He's not brave enough to tell Labour supporters the truth of what's coming over the next decade.
    Actually courage is one thing he doesn't seem short of.

    (He could be a bit more articulate for a lawyer)
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    Go now and she is by some distance the shortest serving PM. Very embarrassing.

    The length of her tenure is the least embarrassing thing about it.
    Extending her tenure is more embarrassing long term then removing her now.

    It's clear from Monday (and will probably be even clearer today) that she isn't mentally well at the moment and keeping her in place because you can't work out how to replace her isn't a good look.
    If Truss can manage to turn up to PMQs, and get through it without breaking down, it will demonstrate a degree of mental fortitude that I don't think I have. I'm sure I don't have. Even at Theresa May's nadir there was a sense that implementing Brexit was difficult, that anyone would be finding it hard, but the situation Truss finds herself in is so completely self-inflicted that it must make it the most difficult PMQs in our political history.
    I don't think PMQ's is that difficult for her if she just don't answer the questions and repeats the same soundbites robotically, whatever the question (as is her way). As long as she a) turns up and b) doesn't have a breakdown she will survive today, is my guess.
  • IanB2 said:

    Senior Tory MPs have told Express.co.uk it is “now common knowledge” that Mr Hunt is organising a reshuffle of Ms Truss’ ministerial team.

    It will be interesting to see what role he gives Truss. Maybe she'll be given some extra responsibility as a minister in the health department.
    Punching bag.

    Turd bucket.

    Lightning rod.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    edited October 19
    MaxPB said:

    No care cost cap and care costs now outside of the scope of 7 IHT year rule. Easy. Wealthy older people pay their own way and their kids won't benefit from asset transfers.

    If the care costs cap has not come in by the next general election there will be hell to pay for the Tories in the blue wall, it would be dementia tax 2 except worse. The redwall as the thread header says has already gone back to Labour, if the bluewall goes too then that is annihilation for Tory MPs.

    Lifelong Tory voters in the Home counties and West London will simply stay home or vote RefUK or even LD, as if they and their heirs get their assets taken at least they know the LDs don't want to build over the greenbelt unlike Truss.

    A temporary delay given the deficit manageable but the £86k cap must come in by the next election
  • eek said:

    FPT

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    Which month's figures are used for determining the rise in phone/broadband contract prices?

    December.
    Edit - sorry, misunderstood something.

    Which means that next April unless we have a quite extraordinary turnaround in the next month people are going to struggle to afford their broadband contracts.
    Not just broadband, pretty much all the mobile networks, except Sky Mobile, have CPI/RPI +3.9% increases baked in from next March as well.

    Top end contracts are £100+ per month, which means there's going to be £20 monthly increases there.

    O2 are pretty good at splitting their airtime and device costs so you only pay the increase on the airtime, EE and others, the whole contract
    Tis why all 4 mobile contracts we have are sim only and even then, I'm ruthless at shopping round.

    If looking (and depending on the data you need)

    Plusnet if not much data
    Giffgaff / Smarty if it's for teenagers who use Gbs a day. both of them still have Eu roaming as well.

    And buy the phone separately - there is sod all real difference between an iphone 12 pro and a 14 pro.
    SIM only is always the cheapest option, I'm fortunate that I have like 18 contracts with EE and they give me hefty discounts when I renew my SIM only deals.

    Plus I get a 25% discount via work which makes it very good deal.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461
    IanB2 said:

    Roger said:

    Nick Robinson eviscerating James Cleverly.

    Quite extraordinary. Better than Robin Cook at the height of his powers!

    Robin Day?
    No. Robin Cook. Robin Day loved himself too much to be one of the best
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,220
    Ishmael_Z said:

    darkage said:

    Having reflected on some of the discussions that I have read on here, I've come around to the view that the best way forward is for a form of NI to be payable on all forms of income. This would include pensions, dividend income, capital gains etc.

    In the interests of fairness and to avoid hardship, the actual rate payable could be varied based on total personal income; but the total amount should be at least 13.5% in the case of pensioners who have an income that is higher than the median average wage, but for those who are relying on the state pension, or have a very small private pension the rate should be zero. This would be the core revenue raising part of the policy.

    The flipside of this would be that the state pension would rise slightly, and the triple lock would remain - and is paid universally. So the policy would benefit a majority of pensioners.

    Politically I think a revolt of wealthy pensioners would be comical and counterproductive. Their mouths have been stuffed with gold for too long.

    Is your last paragraph right? The alleged stuffing is the triple lock on the STATE pension which is irrelevant because it is pocket money to anyone describable by any stretch as wealthy. What else? Bus passes?
    Don't take my bus pass! I love it. Makes me feel special. I'd rather pay a big new wealth tax and keep my bus pass.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    No care cost cap and care costs now outside of the scope of 7 IHT year rule. Easy. Wealthy older people pay their own way and their kids won't benefit from asset transfers.

    If the care costs cap has not come in by the next general election there will be hell to pay for the Tories in the blue wall, it would be dementia tax 2 except worse.

    Lifelong Tory voters in the Home counties and West London will simply stay home or vote RefUK or even LD, as if they and their heirs get their assets taken at least they know the LDs don't want to build over the greenbelt.

    A temporary delay given the deficit manageable but the £86k cap must come in by the next election
    But it's unlimited cost to the Government beyond £86,000 - given what Truss did to the economy it's likely going to have to go - especially as the tax specifically announced by Bozo that was designed to pay for it has gone.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Ishmael_Z said:

    MikeL said:

    LATEST CUT:

    Per The Times: Hunt will postpone cap on Social Care costs.

    Good. The oldies (and their heirs) need to pay their way.
    Nah - you should protect against catastrophic risk. Care costs about £50k per year (between about £850 p/w for public funding and can be substantially higher for private).

    Most people spend 18-24 months in a home at the outside (people like to spend as long as possible at home). But sad cases - especially Alzheimer’s - can be 10+ years in a home.

    It’s reasonable to set a cap (say at £150k) *and* minimum of 2 years at which point the state steps in as insurer of last resort (or you could require people to take out insurance for years 2-5). Otherwise you can end up with people bankrupted through bad luck (in which case the state pays for them anyway).
    What's wrong with people getting bankrupted?

    If they run out of money, they run out of money, but the taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to prevent that.

    They're at the end of their life and can't take it with them, anyway. And if you have a cap it should be that the final x amount of your savings are protected, not that the first x amount won't be.

    It's perverse to say someone with £1mn in assets must only pay £150k to avoid being bankrupted, with the taxpayer then covering their £850k after that, while saying someone with £200k (more than the mean House price in much of the Nort) should also pay £150k.
    To step back a bit, bankruptcy in general is a mechanism by which the state absorbs the costs of someone running out of money. It means an individual isn’t pursued in perpetuity for money and can re-build, with the state telling debtors they have to lump it. I wondered if you disapproved of the very concept of bankruptcy, given it’s anti-libertarian?

    No. The debtors just have to lump it and should be more careful.

    I'm a libertarian not an anarchist, I dont think there should be no state or no rules at all.

    I would oppose the state (read: taxpayer) stepping in to pay so the debtors don't lump it.
    But if someone subsequently, post-bankruptcy, makes lots of money, you’re OK with the state telling the debtors that they can’t have any of that?
    Yes. People should be able to rebuild their lives and the fact they have shouldn't mean that debtors who made bad choices investing in them before they did shouldn't be able to evade the consequences of their own choices.

    Responsibility cuts both ways.
    Creditors have "invested in" their debtors?
    Yes. Typically for an expected return, not normally out of charity of the goodness of their own heart.

    And frequently with risk premiums associated too, so if that investment goes south then that's their own responsibility.

    Personal responsibility means things can go bad as well as good. The state should not bail people out of bad decisions, apart from as a safety net, and if you lend to someone who can't pay you back, that's your own fault.
    Bart, the tenuity of your connection with the real world amazes more and more. The creditors in a typical bankruptcy are not convertible preferred class A 5% bond holders, they are the Inland Revenue and the butchers and bakers who have unpaid bills outstanding.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,855

    kamski said:

    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    My guess is there is a part of their vote which is “really labour but they can’t win here”. Who now feel emboldened to say labour when asked
    It's not a mystery why Libdems aren't doing better.
    Most people want the Conservatives out. The last time Libdem MPs held the balance of power at Westminster they put the Conservatives in.
    kamski said:

    Jonathan said:

    One of the mysteries in the last few weeks is why the LibDems are suffering. They are normally a safe haven for protest votes.

    My guess is there is a part of their vote which is “really labour but they can’t win here”. Who now feel emboldened to say labour when asked
    It's not a mystery why Libdems aren't doing better.
    Most people want the Conservatives out. The last time Libdem MPs held the balance of power at Westminster they put the Conservatives in.
    That's true, I suspect. That there was no alternative doesn't seem to register.

    Arguably it would have been better for Libdem medium-term prospects if they had instead allowed a Conservative minority government. Also going back on their most solemn promise not to increase tuition fees really destroyed their reputation.

    But they were always going to lose a lot of their anti-tory support for allowing a conservative government. It's going to take a while to get it back - or a hung parliament where they support a labour-led government, which might instead lose them their anti-labour supporters...
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,918
    edited October 19
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    In the Commons tea room, the mood is mutinous. Even newer MPs normally reluctant to stick their heads above the parapet are telling the whips she should go. Members of the Old Guard are in despair, not least at the calibre of the Cabinet. “There needs to be a total clear-out and the return of experienced, wiser, greyer heads,” said one.

    Telegrph

    Boris cleared out nearly all the old guard. The destruction of the Tories starts with him. Truss is simply a symptom. HYUFD thinks he is their winner, whereas Boris is the cause of their collapse.
    No he isn't, the Labour lead was half what it is now when Boris left No 10
    What part of 'starts' don't you get? What part of 'simply a symptom ' don't you get?

    Yep Labour lead was half then. So what. He created the mess that has led to Truss with his half baked Brexit, his lies, his corruption, his attempts to corrupt the constitution. He is the cause of this mess. The Tories are now relying on one of the sane old guard to finally stop the slide.

    Truss is simply a symptom of the destruction Boris caused.
  • HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    In the Commons tea room, the mood is mutinous. Even newer MPs normally reluctant to stick their heads above the parapet are telling the whips she should go. Members of the Old Guard are in despair, not least at the calibre of the Cabinet. “There needs to be a total clear-out and the return of experienced, wiser, greyer heads,” said one.

    Telegrph

    Boris cleared out nearly all the old guard. The destruction of the Tories starts with him. Truss is simply a symptom. HYUFD thinks he is their winner, whereas Boris is the cause of their collapse.
    No he isn't, the Labour lead was half what it is now when Boris left No 10
    You are really poor at politics if you cannot accept Johnson's toxic behaviour which led to public resentment and anger was not the start of the process, which through the memberships choice of Truss is leading to the near extinction of the party
This discussion has been closed.