The main thing this shows is the sad decline of the Telegraph as a serious newspaper.
If Sunak has any sense (and whist he has massive failings as a politician, he's clearly sensible), Johnson doesn't survive the Privileges Committee report.
Sunak doesn’t seem to have strength or depth in his support. More tolerated than loved. He’s more chairman than leader. That may not be a bad thing for government, but he does appear to be vulnerable.
He is [...] honest and reasonable [...]
He's thoroughly dishonest. A tax evading multi-millionaire non-dom.
And it's highly questionable whether he's reasonable.
Tax evasion is illegal. You saying he's a criminal?
There is little difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance/minimisation except that one is legal and one isn’t. I don’t think Sunak has done the illegal one has he?
Bit like saying there is little difference between being alive and dead, except that one involves breathing and one doesn't.
I take it you don’t approve of ISAs then…
Nor of non sequiturs.
It refers back to my previous post. Almost all of us take advantage of legal, government approved ways to minimise tax. Most of us don’t evade tax.
200 seats is towards the upper end of the range I'm expecting the Conservatives to win at the next GE. 250 would be a roaring success and probably represents an upper limit.
Otoh, if things go badly 100 or less is definitely possible. The floor is probably 2.
Please don't tell me you've drunk the kool-aid too, Peter?
What seriously does Labour think that structural racism has to do with Black people struggling more to pay their energy bills? They use the word 'counterparts' but it's clear they are not comparing like with like ie poor white people v black poor people but the white and black populations more generally.
There is nothing there that suggests poor white people have some sort of 'structural advantage' when it comes to paying their gas, rent etc vs poor black people yet Dodds et al manages to crowbar it into whatever discussion. Maybe the energy companies are operating a 10% surcharge for non-white customers that we don't know about.
If I'm a poor white person listening to Labour telling me I have some sort of structural advantage over a poor black person, and therefore need less help, I suspect that's not going to be well received.
They just can't help themselves. They are getting away with it now, I suspect less so as we get closer to the GE.
The Telegraph has gone batshit crazy. Article after article is off the wall. A reactionary rump of rabid right-wingers dribbling into their dotage.
On the other hand, I fear Johnson more than any other leader. He's toxic but he would be the only one who could drag the tories to c. 200 MPs at the next election.
A lot of the traditional right wing papers seems to have gone “off the rails”. Presumably that is what happens when you increasingly cater for an older readership which increasingly has little reflection on reality
Yes I've noticed the same. I'm trying to recall if the same thing happened in '97 but I was too young to remember it well enough.
I think what happens is the growing realisation that a sufficient majority of the country are moving on (and probably already have), so you're left sounding increasingly desperate and shrill, preaching to an ever decreasing circle of true believers.
prior to 97 there was a push to get a label on Blair - Bambi/Demon Eyes etc. none of it cut through and New Labour managed to get Murdoch on side and the 5 pledges thing was sufficiently bland not to cause alarm. Major's government spent 3 years running on fumes.
Sunak however is more charismatic and competent than Major and Starmer less charismatic and less centrist than Blair (even if more centrist than Corbyn)
Really? Can't say I've noted Sunak oozing of either.
What seriously does Labour think that structural racism has to do with [b]lack people struggling more to pay their energy bills? They use the word 'counterparts' but it's clear they are not comparing like with like ie poor white people v black poor people but the white and black populations more generally.
There is nothing there that suggests poor white people have some sort of 'structural advantage' when it comes to paying their gas, rent etc vs poor black people yet Dodds et al manages to crowbar it into whatever discussion. Maybe the energy companies are operating a 10% surcharge for non-white customers that we don't know about.
If I'm a poor white person listening to Labour telling me I have some sort of structural advantage over a poor black person, and therefore need less help, I suspect that's not going to be well received.
They just can't help themselves. They are getting away with it now, I suspect less so as we get closer to the GE.
The whole point of the concept of "structural racism" is that it is when there are differing outcomes on racial lines even when nobody actually acts in a racist way.
It's complete nonsense, of course, but those who would divide us based on immutable characteristics have got to find something they can use even though most of us are sensible and just want to see people as people.
What seriously does Labour think that structural racism has to do with [b]lack people struggling more to pay their energy bills? They use the word 'counterparts' but it's clear they are not comparing like with like ie poor white people v black poor people but the white and black populations more generally.
There is nothing there that suggests poor white people have some sort of 'structural advantage' when it comes to paying their gas, rent etc vs poor black people yet Dodds et al manages to crowbar it into whatever discussion. Maybe the energy companies are operating a 10% surcharge for non-white customers that we don't know about.
If I'm a poor white person listening to Labour telling me I have some sort of structural advantage over a poor black person, and therefore need less help, I suspect that's not going to be well received.
They just can't help themselves. They are getting away with it now, I suspect less so as we get closer to the GE.
The whole point of the concept of "structural racism" is that it is when there are differing outcomes on racial lines even when nobody actually acts in a racist way.
It's complete nonsense, of course, but those who would divide us based on immutable characteristics have got to find something they can use even though most of us are sensible and just want to see people as people.
But only for the things that are “appropriate”
Under the definition, the Green Belt policy is thoroughly racist. But it is not good to point it out.
The government has announced there will be a “metro mayor” for the entire North East.
That’s quite a big “metro”.
Yep - it's frankly insane but unavoidable due to the politics that has occurred over the years.
Northumbria and County Durham should be separate areas but the local councillors in both places didn't want to lose their "power" so voted against retaining control with their own mayor.
The irony is that it's really just the North East Regional Assembly with Teesside separated out with limited powers.
The government has announced there will be a “metro mayor” for the entire North East.
That’s quite a big “metro”.
Yep - it's frankly insane but unavoidable due to the politics that has occurred over the years.
Northumbria and County Durham should be separate areas but the local councillors in both places didn't want to lose their "power" so voted against retaining control with their own mayor.
The irony is that it's really just the North East Regional Assembly with Teesside separated out with limited powers.
The government has announced there will be a “metro mayor” for the entire North East.
That’s quite a big “metro”.
Yep - it's frankly insane but unavoidable due to the politics that has occurred over the years.
Northumbria and County Durham should be separate areas but the local councillors in both places didn't want to lose their "power" so voted against retaining control with their own mayor.
The irony is that it's really just the North East Regional Assembly with Teesside separated out with limited powers.
Dumbinic Cummings is going to go apeshit.
So it's not a totally insane idea.
The NE assembly referendum was in 2004, so we're technically a generation on.
The number 2034 is floating across my mind for some reason.
The Telegraph has gone batshit crazy. Article after article is off the wall. A reactionary rump of rabid right-wingers dribbling into their dotage.
On the other hand, I fear Johnson more than any other leader. He's toxic but he would be the only one who could drag the tories to c. 200 MPs at the next election.
A lot of the traditional right wing papers seems to have gone “off the rails”. Presumably that is what happens when you increasingly cater for an older readership which increasingly has little reflection on reality
Yes I've noticed the same. I'm trying to recall if the same thing happened in '97 but I was too young to remember it well enough.
I think what happens is the growing realisation that a sufficient majority of the country are moving on (and probably already have), so you're left sounding increasingly desperate and shrill, preaching to an ever decreasing circle of true believers.
Ah, I see your age has changed again. Today you're younger than me.
More faces than the town clock
7/10 - signs of a return to form.
I’m starting to think hat where you go wrong is when you stamp on the rage pedal. You are over swinging with the bat. More technique, less brute force?
Some on here need the bat unfortunately, knock some sense into their empty heads.
The government has announced there will be a “metro mayor” for the entire North East.
That’s quite a big “metro”.
Yep - it's frankly insane but unavoidable due to the politics that has occurred over the years.
Northumbria and County Durham should be separate areas but the local councillors in both places didn't want to lose their "power" so voted against retaining control with their own mayor.
The irony is that it's really just the North East Regional Assembly with Teesside separated out with limited powers.
At the risk of going all @Leon early in the morning the US has now identified no less than 4 variants of Covid which seem to manage to ignore antibodies created by current vaccines: BQ.1, BQ1.1, XBB, and XBB.1
With cases in China now running in excess of 1m new cases a day the likelihood of further variants that have similar characteristics is very high. We may find ourselves, once again, back in an almost pre-vaccine world. So far the effect of this has been offset by reduced severity since Omicron but a variant that is more potent simply cannot be ruled out.
It seems to me that our government should be doing some careful analysis of what worked and what didn't in respect of preventative steps. The current inquiry seems to me, and I was speaking to someone involved in the Scottish branch of this yesterday, to be working on entirely the wrong time scale to address what might be fairly imminent problems.
Hi David. What is the source of your story? I have no doubt it is referring neutralising antibodies, not the whole of the immune response to covid. In the U.K. we are in pretty good shape as we have high vaccine cover and have had almost everyone infected with covid. This leads to pretty broad cover in the round. The vaccines presented the spike protein to train the immune system so that when the infection hit there was a head start. Infection with the virus generates antibodies against the whole pathogen not just the spike. Hence mutation of the spike protein is less of an issue than if you are relying on just the vaccination to keep you safe.
Cheers. Note the ‘neutralising antibodies’ in the first line. Actually, if people have had covid, it’s probably a good question as to whether further vaccination with the older vaccines does much, so I guess that’s the perspective. However in terms of the U.K. we are in good shape.
I think 32 000 deaths in 2022 to end of November where covid was mentioned on the death certificate as either cause or underlying cause, so not yet trivial.
The main thing this shows is the sad decline of the Telegraph as a serious newspaper.
If Sunak has any sense (and whist he has massive failings as a politician, he's clearly sensible), Johnson doesn't survive the Privileges Committee report.
Sunak doesn’t seem to have strength or depth in his support. More tolerated than loved. He’s more chairman than leader. That may not be a bad thing for government, but he does appear to be vulnerable.
He is [...] honest and reasonable [...]
He's thoroughly dishonest. A tax evading multi-millionaire non-dom.
And it's highly questionable whether he's reasonable.
Tax evasion is illegal. You saying he's a criminal?
Legal for those and such as those Peter, Morally corrupt if not criminal. Ho wyou can have the brass neck to pretend to be doing public service while using every dodgy tax out known is far from integrity etc. These clowns should pay their way.
I love the idea Boris would magically turn things around. It seems to be contingent on ignoring just how damaging he must have been in order to face a mutiny after only years.
It also requires some truly epic mental gymnastics to act like polling now is not impacted by the damage he caused - it's like a knife wound, the Tory rating has declined further due in no small part to the damage he caused on the way out. And the open glee with which his supporters want the Tories to fail to punish the MPs. They cannot seriously think someone deemed unfit by close to a majority of his own MPs is going to turn things round.
The main thing this shows is the sad decline of the Telegraph as a serious newspaper.
If Sunak has any sense (and whist he has massive failings as a politician, he's clearly sensible), Johnson doesn't survive the Privileges Committee report.
Sunak doesn’t seem to have strength or depth in his support. More tolerated than loved. He’s more chairman than leader. That may not be a bad thing for government, but he does appear to be vulnerable.
He is [...] honest and reasonable [...]
He's thoroughly dishonest. A tax evading multi-millionaire non-dom.
And it's highly questionable whether he's reasonable.
Tax evasion is illegal. You saying he's a criminal?
There is little difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance/minimisation except that one is legal and one isn’t. I don’t think Sunak has done the illegal one has he?
He's a fool if he has, but I don't think he's a fool.
Otoh I expect he has often engaged in tax avoidance. I have and so have most taxpayers.
I really don't have a problem with people exploiting the law as long as it applies equally to us all.
The main thing this shows is the sad decline of the Telegraph as a serious newspaper.
If Sunak has any sense (and whist he has massive failings as a politician, he's clearly sensible), Johnson doesn't survive the Privileges Committee report.
Sunak doesn’t seem to have strength or depth in his support. More tolerated than loved. He’s more chairman than leader. That may not be a bad thing for government, but he does appear to be vulnerable.
He is [...] honest and reasonable [...]
He's thoroughly dishonest. A tax evading multi-millionaire non-dom.
And it's highly questionable whether he's reasonable.
Tax evasion is illegal. You saying he's a criminal?
There is little difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance/minimisation except that one is legal and one isn’t. I don’t think Sunak has done the illegal one has he?
He's a fool if he has, but I don't think he's a fool.
Otoh I expect he has often engaged in tax avoidance. I have and so have most taxpayers.
I really don't have a problem with people exploiting the law as long as it applies equally to us all.
But in practice it doesn't since rich people are much more able to know about and access such schemes and may even have options only open if you have X large amount.
I accept most of the time this stuff is legal, but it seems to serve no purpose, as far as the state is concerned, other than to make things more complex so richer people can benefit.
Its rarely mentioned why so many ways to avoid are necessary or even beneficial. They just sit there to help those with good accountants to dodge. Don't have that? Shit out of luck then.
I love the idea Boris would magically turn things around. It seems to be contingent on ignoring just how damaging he must have been in order to face a mutiny after only years.
It also requires some truly epic mental gymnastics to act like polling now is not impacted by the damage he caused - it's like a knife wound, the Tory rating has declined further due in no small part to the damage he caused on the way out. And the open glee with which his supporters want the Tories to fail to punish the MPs. They cannot seriously think someone deemed unfit by close to a majority of his own MPs is going to turn things round.
Once the Conservatives allowed themselves to become the Boris Party, there was always a decent chance of it ending like this.
The main thing this shows is the sad decline of the Telegraph as a serious newspaper.
If Sunak has any sense (and whist he has massive failings as a politician, he's clearly sensible), Johnson doesn't survive the Privileges Committee report.
Sunak doesn’t seem to have strength or depth in his support. More tolerated than loved. He’s more chairman than leader. That may not be a bad thing for government, but he does appear to be vulnerable.
He is [...] honest and reasonable [...]
He's thoroughly dishonest. A tax evading multi-millionaire non-dom.
And it's highly questionable whether he's reasonable.
Tax evasion is illegal. You saying he's a criminal?
There is little difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance/minimisation except that one is legal and one isn’t. I don’t think Sunak has done the illegal one has he?
Bit like saying there is little difference between being alive and dead, except that one involves breathing and one doesn't.
I take it you don’t approve of ISAs then…
Nor of non sequiturs.
It refers back to my previous post. Almost all of us take advantage of legal, government approved ways to minimise tax. Most of us don’t evade tax.
Only because we can't, because it's deducted at source (which is or course why the government deducts stuff at source) or because we're too terrified of the (in my experience generally lazy and incompetent) HMRC.
Very, very few pay more than they think they can get away with.
The main thing this shows is the sad decline of the Telegraph as a serious newspaper.
If Sunak has any sense (and whist he has massive failings as a politician, he's clearly sensible), Johnson doesn't survive the Privileges Committee report.
Sunak doesn’t seem to have strength or depth in his support. More tolerated than loved. He’s more chairman than leader. That may not be a bad thing for government, but he does appear to be vulnerable.
He is [...] honest and reasonable [...]
He's thoroughly dishonest. A tax evading multi-millionaire non-dom.
And it's highly questionable whether he's reasonable.
Tax evasion is illegal. You saying he's a criminal?
There is little difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance/minimisation except that one is legal and one isn’t. I don’t think Sunak has done the illegal one has he?
He's a fool if he has, but I don't think he's a fool.
Otoh I expect he has often engaged in tax avoidance. I have and so have most taxpayers.
I really don't have a problem with people exploiting the law as long as it applies equally to us all.
The main thing this shows is the sad decline of the Telegraph as a serious newspaper.
If Sunak has any sense (and whist he has massive failings as a politician, he's clearly sensible), Johnson doesn't survive the Privileges Committee report.
Sunak doesn’t seem to have strength or depth in his support. More tolerated than loved. He’s more chairman than leader. That may not be a bad thing for government, but he does appear to be vulnerable.
He is [...] honest and reasonable [...]
He's thoroughly dishonest. A tax evading multi-millionaire non-dom.
And it's highly questionable whether he's reasonable.
Tax evasion is illegal. You saying he's a criminal?
There is little difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance/minimisation except that one is legal and one isn’t. I don’t think Sunak has done the illegal one has he?
He's a fool if he has, but I don't think he's a fool.
Otoh I expect he has often engaged in tax avoidance. I have and so have most taxpayers.
I really don't have a problem with people exploiting the law as long as it applies equally to us all.
But in practice it doesn't since rich people are much more able to know about and access such schemes and may even have options only open if you have X large amount.
I accept most of the time this stuff is legal, but it seems to serve no purpose, as far as the state is concerned, other than to make things more complex so richer people can benefit.
Its rarely mentioned why so many ways to avoid are necessary or even beneficial. They just sit there to help those with good accountants to dodge. Don't have that? Shit out of luck then.
And the left goes apeshit when you suggest flattening the tax system…
Which is the way to eliminate vast swathes of dodges.
Fold NI into income tax. Simplify the bands. Lineup investment income tax with earned income tax.
I love the idea Boris would magically turn things around. It seems to be contingent on ignoring just how damaging he must have been in order to face a mutiny after only years.
It also requires some truly epic mental gymnastics to act like polling now is not impacted by the damage he caused - it's like a knife wound, the Tory rating has declined further due in no small part to the damage he caused on the way out. And the open glee with which his supporters want the Tories to fail to punish the MPs. They cannot seriously think someone deemed unfit by close to a majority of his own MPs is going to turn things round.
Once the Conservatives allowed themselves to become the Boris Party, there was always a decent chance of it ending like this.
It's at its funniest when it turns erstwhile traditional Conservatives like Rees-Mogg into radical revolutionaries over our constitution and power of parliament. Eg over PCP being able to change leader
Which would be fine, except he still pretends he's a traditionalist and some believe him.
The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.
There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.
Agree on the first point, which is why the Conservatives are trapped into making right-wing noises. (I say trapped, because I'm sure it costs them lots of centrist Dad votes. But if they let Farage back into the game, they really are stuffed.)
Disagree on the second. Fed up Conservative voters can always just stay at home.
The government has announced there will be a “metro mayor” for the entire North East.
That’s quite a big “metro”.
Yep - it's frankly insane but unavoidable due to the politics that has occurred over the years.
Northumbria and County Durham should be separate areas but the local councillors in both places didn't want to lose their "power" so voted against retaining control with their own mayor.
The irony is that it's really just the North East Regional Assembly with Teesside separated out with limited powers.
Dumbinic Cummings is going to go apeshit.
So it's not a totally insane idea.
Given that Mr Cummings hatred came from his fears from what would happen to secondary areas (such as County Durham) - the one thing this plan does is ensure all his fears will come true.
Little to no investment will occur in Durham as it will all head towards Newcastle and to a lesser extent Sunderland / Washington.
Mr. Walker, ha, that's hilarious, especially given the politicians down south are dead against a mayor for the whole of Yorkshire.
A mayor for a whole region is daft to me. But it seems that it was the only way to get both the north-tyners and the south-tyners on board, and that is to be welcomed.
The south of Tyne authorities rejected this proposal, which was how the North of Tyne mayoral role was created in the first place.
A very strange way to give local communities more power, by imposing an unwanted structure from Whitehall.
What seriously does Labour think that structural racism has to do with [b]lack people struggling more to pay their energy bills? They use the word 'counterparts' but it's clear they are not comparing like with like ie poor white people v black poor people but the white and black populations more generally.
There is nothing there that suggests poor white people have some sort of 'structural advantage' when it comes to paying their gas, rent etc vs poor black people yet Dodds et al manages to crowbar it into whatever discussion. Maybe the energy companies are operating a 10% surcharge for non-white customers that we don't know about.
If I'm a poor white person listening to Labour telling me I have some sort of structural advantage over a poor black person, and therefore need less help, I suspect that's not going to be well received.
They just can't help themselves. They are getting away with it now, I suspect less so as we get closer to the GE.
The whole point of the concept of "structural racism" is that it is when there are differing outcomes on racial lines even when nobody actually acts in a racist way.
It's complete nonsense, of course, but those who would divide us based on immutable characteristics have got to find something they can use even though most of us are sensible and just want to see people as people.
The article is devoid of any detail of any proposes policies to tackle this.
Labour have already committed to a new racial equality act anyway, and have been looking into what it should comprise of.
The government has announced there will be a “metro mayor” for the entire North East.
That’s quite a big “metro”.
Yep - it's frankly insane but unavoidable due to the politics that has occurred over the years.
Northumbria and County Durham should be separate areas but the local councillors in both places didn't want to lose their "power" so voted against retaining control with their own mayor.
The irony is that it's really just the North East Regional Assembly with Teesside separated out with limited powers.
Dumbinic Cummings is going to go apeshit.
So it's not a totally insane idea.
Given that Mr Cummings hatred came from his fears from what would happen to secondary areas (such as County Durham) - the one thing this plan does is ensure all his fears will come true.
Little to no investment will occur in Durham as it will all head towards Newcastle and to a lesser extent Sunderland / Washington.
Sort of like how many of the endpoints of the fallout of 2016 leave the UK with less control of its destiny?
The main thing this shows is the sad decline of the Telegraph as a serious newspaper.
If Sunak has any sense (and whist he has massive failings as a politician, he's clearly sensible), Johnson doesn't survive the Privileges Committee report.
Problem is while Boris is still yearned for by a sizable chunk he is powerful. Government money has been spent to give a legal pretext to ignore any report outcomes they don't like.
If he'd had a proper honeymoon Sunak might have been able to let Boris sink. As it is he'll need to throw him a rope, lest he be hanged with it himself. A lot of Tories are reverting to their Farage flirtations, if only to warn him.
At the risk of going all @Leon early in the morning the US has now identified no less than 4 variants of Covid which seem to manage to ignore antibodies created by current vaccines: BQ.1, BQ1.1, XBB, and XBB.1
With cases in China now running in excess of 1m new cases a day the likelihood of further variants that have similar characteristics is very high. We may find ourselves, once again, back in an almost pre-vaccine world. So far the effect of this has been offset by reduced severity since Omicron but a variant that is more potent simply cannot be ruled out.
It seems to me that our government should be doing some careful analysis of what worked and what didn't in respect of preventative steps. The current inquiry seems to me, and I was speaking to someone involved in the Scottish branch of this yesterday, to be working on entirely the wrong time scale to address what might be fairly imminent problems.
Hi David. What is the source of your story? I have no doubt it is referring neutralising antibodies, not the whole of the immune response to covid. In the U.K. we are in pretty good shape as we have high vaccine cover and have had almost everyone infected with covid. This leads to pretty broad cover in the round. The vaccines presented the spike protein to train the immune system so that when the infection hit there was a head start. Infection with the virus generates antibodies against the whole pathogen not just the spike. Hence mutation of the spike protein is less of an issue than if you are relying on just the vaccination to keep you safe.
Edit, anecdotally I have been astonished by the number of people I have heard of who have been ill with Covid over the Christmas period. To my knowledge they had all been vaccinated, often had Covid before and yet they were quite ill, if not requiring hospital treatment.
Yes, there is a lot about, but it’s heartening that in the main, they do not need hospital care. This is what it means when a pandemic is moving into endemic. People still get ill, but the severity is now much reduced.
I still wonder what covid means in terms of 'on average - how many sick days a year do you have'. A large number of HR departments have rules along the lines of '9 days a year - after that you're getting a talking to' which might need revised. And ontop of that just places like small shops, cafe's etc being maybe down an extra 2-5-? days a year of staff time.
Enough people who are fully jabbed, boosted, have previously had covid etc, are still being floored with it so it makes me wonder what the medium term economic effects will be.
The fact some see tax cuts as the "answer" when the country continues to run a significant deficit and has to spend twice what it spends on defence just to manage the existing debt shows the disconnection between political rhetoric and economic reality.
No, the right kind of tax cut can increase revenue through stimulating economic activity. Corporate and payroll taxes are particularly good for this, and what were the first taxes Sunak increased?
In essence, we have spent the last 40 years or so aspiring for European public services on an American or Anglo-American style taxation regime.
This is often said, but doesn't really stand up, except in the sense that we, like people everywhere, want to have our cake and eat it. That isn't a British characteristic - lots of Americans would like fuller public services and many Europeans would like much lower taxes. For that matter, many Americans want lower taxes too. Our taxation "regime" is a full five points of GDP higher than America's, and we tolerate gaps in public services that the French won't. What we seem to have aspired to is a compromise, not an inconsistency: rather fewer taxes than many (though not all) Europeans pay and rather more public services than Americans demand. This compromise is also what Canadians and Australians have.
It's indicative of the debate that current tax rates are called "growth destroying" by some even though many other European countries seem able to grow on higher individual and corporate tax takes.
Nobody ever said that levels of taxation are the ONLY determinant of economic growth, only that they are an IMPORTANT element. The European countries that seem to do fairly well economically, such as the Nordics, Germany and Switzerland, have other virtues, such as less complicated tax codes, less regulated product markets, better vocational education, and above all looser planning controls and pro-development land use policies.
Calling high levels of taxation "growth destroying" doesn't mean that there will be no growth with them. It means that growth is likely to be higher, cet. par., without them.
What seriously does Labour think that structural racism has to do with [b]lack people struggling more to pay their energy bills? They use the word 'counterparts' but it's clear they are not comparing like with like ie poor white people v black poor people but the white and black populations more generally.
There is nothing there that suggests poor white people have some sort of 'structural advantage' when it comes to paying their gas, rent etc vs poor black people yet Dodds et al manages to crowbar it into whatever discussion. Maybe the energy companies are operating a 10% surcharge for non-white customers that we don't know about.
If I'm a poor white person listening to Labour telling me I have some sort of structural advantage over a poor black person, and therefore need less help, I suspect that's not going to be well received.
They just can't help themselves. They are getting away with it now, I suspect less so as we get closer to the GE.
The whole point of the concept of "structural racism" is that it is when there are differing outcomes on racial lines even when nobody actually acts in a racist way.
It's complete nonsense, of course, but those who would divide us based on immutable characteristics have got to find something they can use even though most of us are sensible and just want to see people as people.
The article is devoid of any detail of any proposes policies to tackle this.
Labour have already committed to a new racial equality act anyway, and have been looking into what it should comprise of.
Well, that is an unexpected development and not at all in keeping with Labour's recent history.
The government has announced there will be a “metro mayor” for the entire North East.
That’s quite a big “metro”.
Fan though I am of muddled evolution, devolution and regionalism in thus country takes it a bit too far. It's a complete confusing mess.
I believe they can call such bods governors if they want now, or other approves terms.
I'd go with Exarch, it sounds cool.
As the son of a proper civic Mayor, I agree. But since many of these metros are actual counties, or Heathite pseudo-counties, I propose we have elected Counts.
Mr. Walker, ha, that's hilarious, especially given the politicians down south are dead against a mayor for the whole of Yorkshire.
A mayor for a whole region is daft to me. But it seems that it was the only way to get both the north-tyners and the south-tyners on board, and that is to be welcomed.
The south of Tyne authorities rejected this proposal, which was how the North of Tyne mayoral role was created in the first place.
A very strange way to give local communities more power, by imposing an unwanted structure from Whitehall.
The south of Tyne authorities agreed to this proposal because the bribe offered was sufficient to change minds.
The issue is that Northumbria and County Durham are included and that will do the extremities no good at all.
At least with the regional assembly Teesside had enough pull that Newton Aycliffe / Bishop Auckland etc wouldn't have been completely ignored.
The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.
Mmm, when I see seat predictions like that it seems to me likely to be some kind of electoral model that's been pushed outside its range of reliability, rather than a plausible forecast. Complete collapse results *can* happen (that Canadian example, Labour in Scotland, etc) but more often they don't. There's lots of scope for "big Tory loss" without getting down near the 100 mark.
The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.
There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.
Agree on the first point, which is why the Conservatives are trapped into making right-wing noises. (I say trapped, because I'm sure it costs them lots of centrist Dad votes. But if they let Farage back into the game, they really are stuffed.)
Disagree on the second. Fed up Conservative voters can always just stay at home.
They can, yes, but that relies on Labour being non-threatening and not giving a reason to rally to the colours.
I already have my reason. I know Labour will be coming after me and my family.
I saw him and John Fortune as the support act for Rory Bremner. RB was very good but B&F were even better. Great talents, and you had the impression they really enjoyed what they were doing.
The main thing this shows is the sad decline of the Telegraph as a serious newspaper.
If Sunak has any sense (and whist he has massive failings as a politician, he's clearly sensible), Johnson doesn't survive the Privileges Committee report.
Sunak doesn’t seem to have strength or depth in his support. More tolerated than loved. He’s more chairman than leader. That may not be a bad thing for government, but he does appear to be vulnerable.
He is [...] honest and reasonable [...]
He's thoroughly dishonest. A tax evading multi-millionaire non-dom.
And it's highly questionable whether he's reasonable.
Tax evasion is illegal. You saying he's a criminal?
There is little difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance/minimisation except that one is legal and one isn’t. I don’t think Sunak has done the illegal one has he?
He's a fool if he has, but I don't think he's a fool.
Otoh I expect he has often engaged in tax avoidance. I have and so have most taxpayers.
I really don't have a problem with people exploiting the law as long as it applies equally to us all.
The main thing this shows is the sad decline of the Telegraph as a serious newspaper.
If Sunak has any sense (and whist he has massive failings as a politician, he's clearly sensible), Johnson doesn't survive the Privileges Committee report.
Sunak doesn’t seem to have strength or depth in his support. More tolerated than loved. He’s more chairman than leader. That may not be a bad thing for government, but he does appear to be vulnerable.
He is [...] honest and reasonable [...]
He's thoroughly dishonest. A tax evading multi-millionaire non-dom.
And it's highly questionable whether he's reasonable.
Tax evasion is illegal. You saying he's a criminal?
There is little difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance/minimisation except that one is legal and one isn’t. I don’t think Sunak has done the illegal one has he?
He's a fool if he has, but I don't think he's a fool.
Otoh I expect he has often engaged in tax avoidance. I have and so have most taxpayers.
I really don't have a problem with people exploiting the law as long as it applies equally to us all.
But in practice it doesn't since rich people are much more able to know about and access such schemes and may even have options only open if you have X large amount.
I accept most of the time this stuff is legal, but it seems to serve no purpose, as far as the state is concerned, other than to make things more complex so richer people can benefit.
Its rarely mentioned why so many ways to avoid are necessary or even beneficial. They just sit there to help those with good accountants to dodge. Don't have that? Shit out of luck then.
You re taliking about the sophisticated end of the scale, but anyone who uses an ISA is engaging in tax avoidance.
If you want to get real about tackling sharp practice you have to contemplate a GAAR (General Anti Avoidance Regulation) which many countries use. I'm personally in favour but it is not without its downsides, as any of the many tax nerds that inhabit this site will tell you.
What seriously does Labour think that structural racism has to do with [b]lack people struggling more to pay their energy bills? They use the word 'counterparts' but it's clear they are not comparing like with like ie poor white people v black poor people but the white and black populations more generally.
There is nothing there that suggests poor white people have some sort of 'structural advantage' when it comes to paying their gas, rent etc vs poor black people yet Dodds et al manages to crowbar it into whatever discussion. Maybe the energy companies are operating a 10% surcharge for non-white customers that we don't know about.
If I'm a poor white person listening to Labour telling me I have some sort of structural advantage over a poor black person, and therefore need less help, I suspect that's not going to be well received.
They just can't help themselves. They are getting away with it now, I suspect less so as we get closer to the GE.
The whole point of the concept of "structural racism" is that it is when there are differing outcomes on racial lines even when nobody actually acts in a racist way.
It's complete nonsense, of course, but those who would divide us based on immutable characteristics have got to find something they can use even though most of us are sensible and just want to see people as people.
The article is devoid of any detail of any proposes policies to tackle this.
Labour have already committed to a new racial equality act anyway, and have been looking into what it should comprise of.
It's a crude, fairly unintelligent and hyperbolic analysis.
I don't doubt that black people are treated, quite often, in different ways than I would be as a white person, and even if subtle that unfriendly air of suspicion must grind you down. However, there are wide disparities between afro-carribean and black African families, and nothing comes close to explaining how Chinese families do better than any other. Nor does it explain why white traveller families are at the bottom of the pack.
The big unspoken truth is that how much having a stable and driven two-parent family helps you, and that far exceeds any impact of race by a country mile.
I saw him and John Fortune as the support act for Rory Bremner. RB was very good but B&F were even better. Great talents, and you had the impression they really enjoyed what they were doing.
One of the most glorious bits of near-corpsing, up there with TMS's Leg Over;
The main thing this shows is the sad decline of the Telegraph as a serious newspaper.
If Sunak has any sense (and whist he has massive failings as a politician, he's clearly sensible), Johnson doesn't survive the Privileges Committee report.
Sunak doesn’t seem to have strength or depth in his support. More tolerated than loved. He’s more chairman than leader. That may not be a bad thing for government, but he does appear to be vulnerable.
He is [...] honest and reasonable [...]
He's thoroughly dishonest. A tax evading multi-millionaire non-dom.
And it's highly questionable whether he's reasonable.
Tax evasion is illegal. You saying he's a criminal?
Legal for those and such as those Peter, Morally corrupt if not criminal. Ho wyou can have the brass neck to pretend to be doing public service while using every dodgy tax out known is far from integrity etc. These clowns should pay their way.
Careful Malc, or someone will quote the Thomas More speech from A Man For All Seasons at you.
Something about cutting down the law to get at the devil...?
I can hardly wait to see the England team back in action. The first four days of the first Test of the Ashes series are already sold out. I bought a fifth day ticket for £25 but absent bad weather I can't see any of the five games going to a fifth day.
The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.
There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.
Indeed, it might have happened had May stayed PM and Tory leader in 2019 with Brexit not done and the Tories overtaken by Farage and the Brexit Party, it won't happen now that Brexit has been done.
Sunak has also recovered the Tory voteshare somewhat from the depths Truss led it to
Mr. Walker, ha, that's hilarious, especially given the politicians down south are dead against a mayor for the whole of Yorkshire.
A mayor for a whole region is daft to me. But it seems that it was the only way to get both the north-tyners and the south-tyners on board, and that is to be welcomed.
The south of Tyne authorities rejected this proposal, which was how the North of Tyne mayoral role was created in the first place.
A very strange way to give local communities more power, by imposing an unwanted structure from Whitehall.
The south of Tyne authorities agreed to this proposal because the bribe offered was sufficient to change minds.
The issue is that Northumbria and County Durham are included and that will do the extremities no good at all.
At least with the regional assembly Teesside had enough pull that Newton Aycliffe / Bishop Auckland etc wouldn't have been completely ignored.
County Durham came late to this deal, it was originally agreed with the Northern 6 councils in the summer and now extended to include Durham.
"3. The deal outlined in this document is the product of two separate negotiations. The first negotiation was amongst the 6 local authorities of Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside, and Sunderland (the “LA6”). A North East deal, negotiated on an LA6 basis, was agreed in late summer 2022. Subsequent negotiations have focused on incorporating Durham County Council into this agreement. The final agreement outlined in this document ensures a strong deal for the whole of the North East."
The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.
There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.
A moderate split could do it, if they are unlucky.
I think sub 100 is unlikely, but 150-200 looks pretty achievable.
Well that would still be better than 1997 or 2001 for the Tories and about the same as 2005
Yes, and if I try to be impartial for a moment I'd say that would be quite a good result for them, especially in the long-term when you would expect them to reform and regroup. A lot of water has yet to flow under the bridge yet though and our current estimates will no doubt be revised accordingly as it does.
I'm going for 150/200 at the moment but given the volatile nature of our politics and the iniquitous FPTP system that could be well out either way.
Back on track: #Germany is heading into 2023 with #gas reserves close to 90%. We could manage an extremely cold January/February now. Storages may end up at >70% in March. Essentially, we are already solving the problem of next winter these days. https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1607683259961573377
Brilliant news, and very lucky to have such a mild winter in Europe. The question for me though, is how much demand destruction has there already been in European industry? It's less about Germans not switching their heating on, and more about German industry deciding energy prices are too high and either packing up for the winter or packing the whole thing in altogether. There may be enough gas, but how much harm has already been done by high energy prices? (The same question goes for the UK, to be honest).
Firstly, because natural gas is only a direct cost for a relatively small part of the German industrial economy.
Secondly, because natural gas and energy prices are highly correlated. Germany's increase in energy prices is barely any different to the UK's (or for that matter India or Pakistan.) So, why should German industry be any more affected than anyone else's?
Thirdly, because industrial production was weak in the 2H of 2021 because of China lockdowns and supply chain issues. This means there's a fair amount of snap back. This can be most obviously seen in the German auto production numbers, which are showing very strong growth.
The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.
There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.
A moderate split could do it, if they are unlucky.
I think sub 100 is unlikely, but 150-200 looks pretty achievable.
Well that would still be better than 1997 or 2001 for the Tories and about the same as 2005
Yes, and if I try to be impartial for a moment I'd say that would be quite a good result for them, especially in the long-term when you would expect them to reform and regroup. A lot of water has yet to flow under the bridge yet though and our current estimates will no doubt be revised accordingly as it does.
I'm going for 150/200 at the moment but given the volatile nature of our politics and the iniquitous FPTP system that could be well out either way.
I think my advice, for any gambler looking at GE2024/25, would be to find value bets that cover the broadest seat range possible.
Back on track: #Germany is heading into 2023 with #gas reserves close to 90%. We could manage an extremely cold January/February now. Storages may end up at >70% in March. Essentially, we are already solving the problem of next winter these days. https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1607683259961573377
Brilliant news, and very lucky to have such a mild winter in Europe. The question for me though, is how much demand destruction has there already been in European industry? It's less about Germans not switching their heating on, and more about German industry deciding energy prices are too high and either packing up for the winter or packing the whole thing in altogether. There may be enough gas, but how much harm has already been done by high energy prices? (The same question goes for the UK, to be honest).
Firstly, because natural gas is only a direct cost for a relatively small part of the German industrial economy.
Secondly, because natural gas and energy prices are highly correlated. Germany's increase in energy prices is barely any different to the UK's (or for that matter India or Pakistan.) So, why should German industry be any more affected than anyone else's?
Thirdly, because industrial production was weak in the 2H of 2021 because of China lockdowns and supply chain issues. This means there's a fair amount of snap back. This can be most obviously seen in the German auto production numbers, which are showing very strong growth.
China letting rip with Covid won't be pretty (lots of deaths) but it will probably help the global economy bounceback inside 12-18 months, provided they don't do something silly with Taiwan.
I saw him and John Fortune as the support act for Rory Bremner. RB was very good but B&F were even better. Great talents, and you had the impression they really enjoyed what they were doing.
I recall their duologues (?) from Bremner’s TV show very fondly. Excellent journeys that ended up using absurdity to mock often quite widely held opinions. Genius.
Mr. Walker, ha, that's hilarious, especially given the politicians down south are dead against a mayor for the whole of Yorkshire.
A mayor for a whole region is daft to me. But it seems that it was the only way to get both the north-tyners and the south-tyners on board, and that is to be welcomed.
The south of Tyne authorities rejected this proposal, which was how the North of Tyne mayoral role was created in the first place.
A very strange way to give local communities more power, by imposing an unwanted structure from Whitehall.
The south of Tyne authorities agreed to this proposal because the bribe offered was sufficient to change minds.
The issue is that Northumbria and County Durham are included and that will do the extremities no good at all.
At least with the regional assembly Teesside had enough pull that Newton Aycliffe / Bishop Auckland etc wouldn't have been completely ignored.
County Durham came late to this deal, it was originally agreed with the Northern 6 councils in the summer and now extended to include Durham.
"3. The deal outlined in this document is the product of two separate negotiations. The first negotiation was amongst the 6 local authorities of Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside, and Sunderland (the “LA6”). A North East deal, negotiated on an LA6 basis, was agreed in late summer 2022. Subsequent negotiations have focused on incorporating Durham County Council into this agreement. The final agreement outlined in this document ensures a strong deal for the whole of the North East."
I know that - my point was that it's not a great deal for the Southern parts of County Durham as places like Newton Aycliffe now need to compete internally against places like Washington for investment..
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.
There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.
Agree on the first point, which is why the Conservatives are trapped into making right-wing noises. (I say trapped, because I'm sure it costs them lots of centrist Dad votes. But if they let Farage back into the game, they really are stuffed.)
Disagree on the second. Fed up Conservative voters can always just stay at home.
They can, yes, but that relies on Labour being non-threatening and not giving a reason to rally to the colours.
I already have my reason. I know Labour will be coming after me and my family.
This reminds me of the Evelyn Waugh quote beloved by the late Ishmael (RIP).
The English middle classes consider themselves landed gentry in the eyes of God.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
I think that could be the plan, but it relies on him getting a majority of more than 20.
Seems very likely at this point in time. I get told this every morning around 5.30 am (at least that’s when the posts are made). I do wonder about poor heatheners sleep patterns. It’s tricky when you are in your 20’s/40’s/60’s (delete as appropriate).
The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.
There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.
It only takes Farage to launch / relaunch a party with a suitable reason (immigration say) and sub 100 seats is certainly possible.
Potentially, yes, but bear in mind Farage did that before (in 2010 and 2015) and got votes in the low teens and it still didn't happen.
Farage surely realises that absent a unifying issue like Brexit (English nationalism?) he’s onto a loser running candidates in every seat, which is what it would take to really diminish the Tory seat count. He will always follow the money. It could happen, but it seems unlikely to me.
Tories in the 200-250 range I reckon, though - on topic - Uxbridge will bin Spaffer.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
I think that could be the plan, but it relies on him getting a majority of more than 20.
I think he's so cautious that the bigger the majority the more concerned he will be not to scare off the first time labbers. Everything points to that. Probable upgrade to quadruple lock.
The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.
There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.
A moderate split could do it, if they are unlucky.
I think sub 100 is unlikely, but 150-200 looks pretty achievable.
Well that would still be better than 1997 or 2001 for the Tories and about the same as 2005
Yes, and if I try to be impartial for a moment I'd say that would be quite a good result for them, especially in the long-term when you would expect them to reform and regroup. A lot of water has yet to flow under the bridge yet though and our current estimates will no doubt be revised accordingly as it does.
I'm going for 150/200 at the moment but given the volatile nature of our politics and the iniquitous FPTP system that could be well out either way.
I think my advice, for any gambler looking at GE2024/25, would be to find value bets that cover the broadest seat range possible.
Yes, I'd agree, but the range has to be very broad because of our stupid voting system which means that a few percentage points in the vote share can make a huge difference to the seat total, and that's without taking tactical voting into consideration.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
That's an absolute disgrace. A leader of the Labour Party - yes, the Labour Party - wanting to "move the country leftward with voter assent". Honestly, what next? Democracy, eh?
I love the idea Boris would magically turn things around. It seems to be contingent on ignoring just how damaging he must have been in order to face a mutiny after only years.
It also requires some truly epic mental gymnastics to act like polling now is not impacted by the damage he caused - it's like a knife wound, the Tory rating has declined further due in no small part to the damage he caused on the way out. And the open glee with which his supporters want the Tories to fail to punish the MPs. They cannot seriously think someone deemed unfit by close to a majority of his own MPs is going to turn things round.
The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.
There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.
Agree on the first point, which is why the Conservatives are trapped into making right-wing noises. (I say trapped, because I'm sure it costs them lots of centrist Dad votes. But if they let Farage back into the game, they really are stuffed.)
Disagree on the second. Fed up Conservative voters can always just stay at home.
They can, yes, but that relies on Labour being non-threatening and not giving a reason to rally to the colours.
I already have my reason. I know Labour will be coming after me and my family.
This reminds me of the Evelyn Waugh quote beloved by the late Ishmael (RIP).
The English middle classes consider themselves landed gentry in the eyes of God.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
That's an absolute disgrace. A leader of the Labour Party - yes, the Labour Party - wanting to "move the country leftward with voter assent". Honestly, what next?
The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.
There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.
It only takes Farage to launch / relaunch a party with a suitable reason (immigration say) and sub 100 seats is certainly possible.
Potentially, yes, but bear in mind Farage did that before (in 2010 and 2015) and got votes in the low teens and it still didn't happen.
Farage surely realises that absent a unifying issue like Brexit (English nationalism?) he’s onto a loser running candidates in every seat, which is what it would take to really diminish the Tory seat count. He will always follow the money. It could happen, but it seems unlikely to me.
Tories in the 200-250 range I reckon, though - on topic - Uxbridge will bin Spaffer.
200 - 250 would be my best estimate. Even now, polling shows 33-35% going to the Right.
The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.
There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.
A moderate split could do it, if they are unlucky.
I think sub 100 is unlikely, but 150-200 looks pretty achievable.
Well that would still be better than 1997 or 2001 for the Tories and about the same as 2005
Yes, and if I try to be impartial for a moment I'd say that would be quite a good result for them, especially in the long-term when you would expect them to reform and regroup. A lot of water has yet to flow under the bridge yet though and our current estimates will no doubt be revised accordingly as it does.
I'm going for 150/200 at the moment but given the volatile nature of our politics and the iniquitous FPTP system that could be well out either way.
I think my advice, for any gambler looking at GE2024/25, would be to find value bets that cover the broadest seat range possible.
Yes, I'd agree, but the range has to be very broad because of our stupid voting system which means that a few percentage points in the vote share can make a huge difference to the seat total, and that's without taking tactical voting into consideration.
The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.
There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.
Agree on the first point, which is why the Conservatives are trapped into making right-wing noises. (I say trapped, because I'm sure it costs them lots of centrist Dad votes. But if they let Farage back into the game, they really are stuffed.)
Disagree on the second. Fed up Conservative voters can always just stay at home.
They can, yes, but that relies on Labour being non-threatening and not giving a reason to rally to the colours.
I already have my reason. I know Labour will be coming after me and my family.
The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.
There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.
It only takes Farage to launch / relaunch a party with a suitable reason (immigration say) and sub 100 seats is certainly possible.
Potentially, yes, but bear in mind Farage did that before (in 2010 and 2015) and got votes in the low teens and it still didn't happen.
Farage surely realises that absent a unifying issue like Brexit (English nationalism?) he’s onto a loser running candidates in every seat, which is what it would take to really diminish the Tory seat count. He will always follow the money. It could happen, but it seems unlikely to me.
Tories in the 200-250 range I reckon, though - on topic - Uxbridge will bin Spaffer.
Farage being Farage I doubt he'll be able to stop himself from concentrating his efforts in one seat, and rather ineptly at that, and losing.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
That's an absolute disgrace. A leader of the Labour Party - yes, the Labour Party - wanting to "move the country leftward with voter assent". Honestly, what next? Democracy, eh?
The point is that he would claim voter assent but wouldn't actually have it.
The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.
There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.
It only takes Farage to launch / relaunch a party with a suitable reason (immigration say) and sub 100 seats is certainly possible.
Potentially, yes, but bear in mind Farage did that before (in 2010 and 2015) and got votes in the low teens and it still didn't happen.
Farage surely realises that absent a unifying issue like Brexit (English nationalism?) he’s onto a loser running candidates in every seat, which is what it would take to really diminish the Tory seat count. He will always follow the money. It could happen, but it seems unlikely to me.
Tories in the 200-250 range I reckon, though - on topic - Uxbridge will bin Spaffer.
250 Conservatives and 100 others leaves 300 Labour MPs. Just about enough to ignore the SNP.
200 Conservative MPs and 100 others puts Labour on 350 and a majority of about 50.
If you had offered Starmer that range of outcomes in 2020, he'd have bitten your hand off.
(My guess, if we're allowed a +/- 25 range is 175-225 Conservatives. Not quite as bad as 1997, but pretty close.)
Boris will definitely make a move in 2023. I thought he'd try again when Truss imploded, but clearly decided to bide his time. He'll want Rishi's premiership to be crushed beneath a tidal wave of public-service collapse, soaring inflation, crippling tax rises, urban riots and rampant food-and-fuel poverty before making his move.
I saw him and John Fortune as the support act for Rory Bremner. RB was very good but B&F were even better. Great talents, and you had the impression they really enjoyed what they were doing.
I recall their duologues (?) from Bremner’s TV show very fondly. Excellent journeys that ended up using absurdity to mock often quite widely held opinions. Genius.
Edited for typo…
They also had their own series as a spin off from the Rory Bremner show.
It allowed them to flesh out a short sketch into a 15 minute sketch.
The only way the Tories get to sub 100 seats is if there's a huge split on the Right.
There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.
Agree on the first point, which is why the Conservatives are trapped into making right-wing noises. (I say trapped, because I'm sure it costs them lots of centrist Dad votes. But if they let Farage back into the game, they really are stuffed.)
Disagree on the second. Fed up Conservative voters can always just stay at home.
They can, yes, but that relies on Labour being non-threatening and not giving a reason to rally to the colours.
I already have my reason. I know Labour will be coming after me and my family.
This reminds me of the Evelyn Waugh quote beloved by the late Ishmael (RIP).
The English middle classes consider themselves landed gentry in the eyes of God.
That is a simply superb quote which could be used to preface the entire political economy of the United Kingdom.
Boris will definitely make a move in 2023. I thought he'd try again when Truss imploded, but clearly decided to bide his time. He'll want Rishi's premiership to be crushed beneath a tidal wave of public-service collapse, soaring inflation, crippling tax rises, urban riots and rampant food-and-fuel poverty before making his move.
He will need to let the parliamentary investigation take its course and hope the outcome is not too bad for him.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
That's an absolute disgrace. A leader of the Labour Party - yes, the Labour Party - wanting to "move the country leftward with voter assent". Honestly, what next? Democracy, eh?
The point is that he would claim voter assent but wouldn't actually have it.
We've had pols saying they had voter assent (English & Welsh viewers only) for whichever of the 57 varieties of Brexit they've been proposing for the last 6 years, so plus ça change. However I've said before that Red Starmer is about as likely as the Tory party coming up with a competent government so I think all you lads are getting in an unnecessary tizzy. I see it as a reflex similar to folk enjoying a good ghost story at Christmas, pleasurable but totally anodyne fear in front of a roaring fire.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
That's an absolute disgrace. A leader of the Labour Party - yes, the Labour Party - wanting to "move the country leftward with voter assent". Honestly, what next? Democracy, eh?
The point is that he would claim voter assent but wouldn't actually have it.
I don’t agree with Finkelstein’s full thesis posted above. Starmer is left-wing, yes, but no more left wing than Miliband or, say, John Smith.
I don’t think he was quite content with Corbyn, either. Just that Corbyn was the only show in town at the time. And thank goodness Keir and some others did continue to serve, or we’d have Pidcock or Burgon as LotO.
Boris will definitely make a move in 2023. I thought he'd try again when Truss imploded, but clearly decided to bide his time. He'll want Rishi's premiership to be crushed beneath a tidal wave of public-service collapse, soaring inflation, crippling tax rises, urban riots and rampant food-and-fuel poverty before making his move.
There is that already bar riots, by next summer there may be a peace deal in Ukraine and lower inflation.
Boris had over 100 MPs ready to back him when Truss went, mainly redwall. His problem was Rishi had 200 MPs backing him as most bluewall MPs were backing him
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
That's an absolute disgrace. A leader of the Labour Party - yes, the Labour Party - wanting to "move the country leftward with voter assent". Honestly, what next? Democracy, eh?
The point is that he would claim voter assent but wouldn't actually have it.
Cough. Sunak tax rises. Cough.
Right. You can get away with it if you have a large enough majority. My whole point for months has been that Sir Keir has been trying to get a large enough majority by default without disclosing any actual policies. If it works, he can do whatever he wants - but if he only scrapes through he'll be in office but not in power from day 1. It's a big gamble.
North East devolution has long been hampered by petty and self-defeating trans-Tyne rivalries.
The new solution is “fine”, I suppose, although it effectively re-creates a region rather than a metro as such.
The Gardenwalker solution would have been a Northumberland County, a Durham County, and a Newcastle-Sunderland Metro with lower level authorities underneath for local planning etc.
The metro would have an elected mayor, the counties would have elected sheriffs…
Boris will definitely make a move in 2023. I thought he'd try again when Truss imploded, but clearly decided to bide his time. He'll want Rishi's premiership to be crushed beneath a tidal wave of public-service collapse, soaring inflation, crippling tax rises, urban riots and rampant food-and-fuel poverty before making his move.
There is that already bar riots, by next summer there may be a peace deal in Ukraine and lower inflation.
Boris had over 100 MPs ready to back him when Truss went, mainly redwall. His problem was Rishi had 200 MPs backing him as most bluewall MPs were backing him
Barring war in Taiwan, inflation will be falling this year. At some point, wage rises will start to outpace inflation.
North East devolution has long been hampered by petty and self-defeating trans-Tyne rivalries.
The new solution is “fine”, I suppose, although it effectively re-creates a region rather than a metro as such.
The Gardenwalker solution would have been a Northumberland County, a Durham County, and a Newcastle-Sunderland Metro with lower level authorities underneath for local planning etc.
The metro would have an elected mayor, the counties would have elected sheriffs…
I’ve already been seeing a few comments on some of the Facebook groups that this is a disaster and will simply be set up for the benefit of Newcastle.
The trans Tyne rivalry really should be put aside when it comes to non soccer related issues.
I am pleased something is now getting up and running. We need some investment and more local decision making. However the mayor is going to be key and I hope the main parties pick the right candidate. On labours side I cannot see either Driscoll or Kim McGuinness being that.
North East devolution has long been hampered by petty and self-defeating trans-Tyne rivalries.
The new solution is “fine”, I suppose, although it effectively re-creates a region rather than a metro as such.
The Gardenwalker solution would have been a Northumberland County, a Durham County, and a Newcastle-Sunderland Metro with lower level authorities underneath for local planning etc.
The metro would have an elected mayor, the counties would have elected sheriffs…
I’ve already been seeing a few comments on some of the Facebook groups that this is a disaster and will simply be set up for the benefit of Newcastle.
The trans Tyne rivalry really should be put aside when it comes to non soccer related issues.
I am pleased something is now getting up and running. We need some investment and more local decision making. However the mayor is going to be key and I hope the main parties pick the right candidate. On labours side I cannot see either Driscoll or Kim McGuinness being that.
I'm not sure the trans-Tyne rivalry has much to do with it. There have been other examples of mergers between councils and usually the biggest name (not necessarily the biggest population) seems to get most of the attention from the combined authority.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Back on track: #Germany is heading into 2023 with #gas reserves close to 90%. We could manage an extremely cold January/February now. Storages may end up at >70% in March. Essentially, we are already solving the problem of next winter these days. https://twitter.com/jakluge/status/1607683259961573377
Brilliant news, and very lucky to have such a mild winter in Europe. The question for me though, is how much demand destruction has there already been in European industry? It's less about Germans not switching their heating on, and more about German industry deciding energy prices are too high and either packing up for the winter or packing the whole thing in altogether. There may be enough gas, but how much harm has already been done by high energy prices? (The same question goes for the UK, to be honest).
Firstly, because natural gas is only a direct cost for a relatively small part of the German industrial economy.
Secondly, because natural gas and energy prices are highly correlated. Germany's increase in energy prices is barely any different to the UK's (or for that matter India or Pakistan.) So, why should German industry be any more affected than anyone else's?
Thirdly, because industrial production was weak in the 2H of 2021 because of China lockdowns and supply chain issues. This means there's a fair amount of snap back. This can be most obviously seen in the German auto production numbers, which are showing very strong growth.
Thanks for replying with this. I was looking for hard figures (admittedly not looking very hard) and google was just throwing up opinion pieces.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
I think that could be the plan, but it relies on him getting a majority of more than 20.
I think he's so cautious that the bigger the majority the more concerned he will be not to scare off the first time labbers. Everything points to that. Probable upgrade to quadruple lock.
Under Even Newer Labour, it will be the sextuple lock. Pensions will rise at the highest of:
Prices Michael Gove 2% The Baltic Dry Index Wages The increase in Conservative vote share at the most recent council by-election
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/28/labour-reaffirms-pledge-to-fight-structural-racism-amid-disparity-figures
What seriously does Labour think that structural racism has to do with Black people struggling more to pay their energy bills? They use the word 'counterparts' but it's clear they are not comparing like with like ie poor white people v black poor people but the white and black populations more generally.
There is nothing there that suggests poor white people have some sort of 'structural advantage' when it comes to paying their gas, rent etc vs poor black people yet Dodds et al manages to crowbar it into whatever discussion. Maybe the energy companies are operating a 10% surcharge for non-white customers that we don't know about.
If I'm a poor white person listening to Labour telling me I have some sort of structural advantage over a poor black person, and therefore need less help, I suspect that's not going to be well received.
They just can't help themselves. They are getting away with it now, I suspect less so as we get closer to the GE.
It's complete nonsense, of course, but those who would divide us based on immutable characteristics have got to find something they can use even though most of us are sensible and just want to see people as people.
Under the definition, the Green Belt policy is thoroughly racist. But it is not good to point it out.
So it's not a totally insane idea.
The number 2034 is floating across my mind for some reason.
I don’t want to annoy c****.
It also requires some truly epic mental gymnastics to act like polling now is not impacted by the damage he caused - it's like a knife wound, the Tory rating has declined further due in no small part to the damage he caused on the way out. And the open glee with which his supporters want the Tories to fail to punish the MPs. They cannot seriously think someone deemed unfit by close to a majority of his own MPs is going to turn things round.
I accept most of the time this stuff is legal, but it seems to serve no purpose, as far as the state is concerned, other than to make things more complex so richer people can benefit.
Its rarely mentioned why so many ways to avoid are necessary or even beneficial. They just sit there to help those with good accountants to dodge. Don't have that? Shit out of luck then.
Very, very few pay more than they think they can get away with.
Which is the way to eliminate vast swathes of dodges.
Fold NI into income tax. Simplify the bands. Lineup investment income tax with earned income tax.
There's a large centre-right constituency in this country that simply won't go Labour/LD/SNP or Green.
Which would be fine, except he still pretends he's a traditionalist and some believe him.
Disagree on the second. Fed up Conservative voters can always just stay at home.
Little to no investment will occur in Durham as it will all head towards Newcastle and to a lesser extent Sunderland / Washington.
I think sub 100 is unlikely, but 150-200 looks pretty achievable.
A very strange way to give local communities more power, by imposing an unwanted structure from Whitehall.
Labour have already committed to a new racial equality act anyway, and have been looking into what it should comprise of.
If he'd had a proper honeymoon Sunak might have been able to let Boris sink. As it is he'll need to throw him a rope, lest he be hanged with it himself. A lot of Tories are reverting to their Farage flirtations, if only to warn him.
I believe they can call such bods governors if they want now, or other approves terms.
I'd go with Exarch, it sounds cool.
Enough people who are fully jabbed, boosted, have previously had covid etc, are still being floored with it so it makes me wonder what the medium term economic effects will be.
Calling high levels of taxation "growth destroying" doesn't mean that there will be no growth with them. It means that growth is likely to be higher, cet. par., without them.
But since many of these metros are actual counties, or Heathite pseudo-counties, I propose we have elected Counts.
"John Bird: Actor and comedian dies aged 86"
The issue is that Northumbria and County Durham are included and that will do the extremities no good at all.
At least with the regional assembly Teesside had enough pull that Newton Aycliffe / Bishop Auckland etc wouldn't have been completely ignored.
I already have my reason. I know Labour will be coming after me and my family.
I saw him and John Fortune as the support act for Rory Bremner. RB was very good but B&F were even better. Great talents, and you had the impression they really enjoyed what they were doing.
If you want to get real about tackling sharp practice you have to contemplate a GAAR (General Anti Avoidance Regulation) which many countries use. I'm personally in favour but it is not without its downsides, as any of the many tax nerds that inhabit this site will tell you.
I don't doubt that black people are treated, quite often, in different ways than I would be as a white person, and even if subtle that unfriendly air of suspicion must grind you down. However, there are wide disparities between afro-carribean and black African families, and nothing comes close to explaining how Chinese families do better than any other. Nor does it explain why white traveller families are at the bottom of the pack.
The big unspoken truth is that how much having a stable and driven two-parent family helps you, and that far exceeds any impact of race by a country mile.
https://youtu.be/jCnDS3h1-qI
Something about cutting down the law to get at the devil...?
If Ben Stokes were captain he'd probably declare.
I can hardly wait to see the England team back in action. The first four days of the first Test of the Ashes series are already sold out. I bought a fifth day ticket for £25 but absent bad weather I can't see any of the five games going to a fifth day.
Sunak has also recovered the Tory voteshare somewhat from the depths Truss led it to
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/north-east-devolution-deal--2/north-east-devolution-deal
"3. The deal outlined in this document is the product of two separate negotiations. The first negotiation was amongst the 6 local authorities of Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside, and Sunderland (the “LA6”). A North East deal, negotiated on an LA6 basis, was agreed in late summer 2022. Subsequent negotiations have focused on incorporating Durham County Council into this agreement. The final agreement outlined in this document ensures a strong deal for the whole of the North East."
I'm going for 150/200 at the moment but given the volatile nature of our politics and the iniquitous FPTP system that could be well out either way.
Why?
Firstly, because natural gas is only a direct cost for a relatively small part of the German industrial economy.
Secondly, because natural gas and energy prices are highly correlated. Germany's increase in energy prices is barely any different to the UK's (or for that matter India or Pakistan.) So, why should German industry be any more affected than anyone else's?
Thirdly, because industrial production was weak in the 2H of 2021 because of China lockdowns and supply chain issues. This means there's a fair amount of snap back. This can be most obviously seen in the German auto production numbers, which are showing very strong growth.
Edited for typo…
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.
But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7
The English middle classes consider themselves landed gentry in the eyes of God.
Tories in the 200-250 range I reckon, though - on topic - Uxbridge will bin Spaffer.
Makes me glad I've given up serious punting.
Hope you still find some joy in it.
200 Conservative MPs and 100 others puts Labour on 350 and a majority of about 50.
If you had offered Starmer that range of outcomes in 2020, he'd have bitten your hand off.
(My guess, if we're allowed a +/- 25 range is 175-225 Conservatives. Not quite as bad as 1997, but pretty close.)
It allowed them to flesh out a short sketch into a 15 minute sketch.
I don’t think he was quite content with Corbyn, either. Just that Corbyn was the only show in town at the time. And thank goodness Keir and some others did continue to serve, or we’d have Pidcock or Burgon as LotO.
Neo-liberalism is as dead as a dodo, it has failed to deliver sustainable and widespread prosperity.
Boris had over 100 MPs ready to back him when Truss went, mainly redwall. His problem was Rishi had 200 MPs backing him as most bluewall MPs were backing him
The new solution is “fine”, I suppose, although it effectively re-creates a region rather than a metro as such.
The Gardenwalker solution would have been a Northumberland County, a Durham County, and a Newcastle-Sunderland Metro with lower level authorities underneath for local planning etc.
The metro would have an elected mayor, the counties would have elected sheriffs…
There is already a word for “Northumberland and Durham” and that is “Northumbria”.
The trans Tyne rivalry really should be put aside when it comes to non soccer related issues.
I am pleased something is now getting up and running. We need some investment and more local decision making. However the mayor is going to be key and I hope the main parties pick the right candidate. On labours side I cannot see either Driscoll or Kim McGuinness being that.
More good news.
He doesn't seem very radical, which means he may have more scope to actually be a bit radical. For better and worse.
Prices
Michael Gove
2%
The Baltic Dry Index
Wages
The increase in Conservative vote share at the most recent council by-election