Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
There's a mathematical model that's been created based on that "rule" which has been featured in academic papers I believe.
That said, my my most likely expected scenario is for the Tories to be out of office for at least two Parliamentary terms, because I expect that they will make poor choices when first in opposition. But clearly this is a prediction that is contingent on those choices, rather than being inevitable.
It wasn't the rule between the wars. It wasn't the rule after the wars. And it certainly wasn't the rule in the 1970s.
Indeed, you could say, in economically and politically turbulent times that turbulence will extend to domestic politics.
As I became aware of politics in the early 70s I assumed that every election brought a change of government. And to be fair, absent the Falklands that might have continued into the 80s with Labour scraping a victory in 1983 and the Tories a landslide in 1987(ish).
The one rule that does hold true and immutable* of course is that the Tories and Labour will be forever swapping power between them.
(*until it doesn't)
It wasn't the Falklands that won the 1983 election for the Tories. It was the SDP.
Except for the fact that the polls show that SDP voters preferred a Thatcher led Tory government to a Foot led Labour government.
So if it wasn't for the SDP then Thatcher's landslide could have been even bigger had there been a forced choice.
Other than that, good point.
There wasn't a forced choice though, was there? At one stage it looked as though the Liberal-SDP Alliance would be taking over.
It is the same today. A lot of posters here polarise and reduce everything to either Sunak-Johnson-Truss or Starmer. Devil or the deep blue sea? A lot of people say "Neither, thank you very much".
No it wasn't a forced choice, voters had 3 choices and positively chose Thatcher's Tories.
Oh no we didn't, Mr Roberts! We had a useless voting system then and we have a useless voting system now. Thatcher's Tories squeaked through the middle. There was no enthusiam for them, except among her devotees.
Don't you remember?
I was less than a year old.
Have a guess if I remember or not.
Voters made their choice though, and that's democracy. They could have chosen the SDP, 2 years earlier it looked like they would, and had the SDP won a majority from the same voting system that would be democracy too, but they chose something else.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
There's a mathematical model that's been created based on that "rule" which has been featured in academic papers I believe.
That said, my my most likely expected scenario is for the Tories to be out of office for at least two Parliamentary terms, because I expect that they will make poor choices when first in opposition. But clearly this is a prediction that is contingent on those choices, rather than being inevitable.
It wasn't the rule between the wars. It wasn't the rule after the wars. And it certainly wasn't the rule in the 1970s.
Indeed, you could say, in economically and politically turbulent times that turbulence will extend to domestic politics.
Well, yes, I think that's a rule one might create on the basis of the historical record of economic turbulence.
I think that pattern-matching by humans is a very useful trait, though we have a tendency to overfit our mental models, which is why we've ended up with so many superstitions.
I don't think there's any patterns that can be applied to it.
I'm simply arguing for different perspectives and thus an open mind.
I think that you can use the claimed pattern as a starting point for an interesting set of analysis to try and explain why such a pattern might exist, and then even though you might reject the pattern it will still leave you with some interesting ideas which you can apply to contemporary events.
So you might explain the pattern by arguing that the electorate is generally quite conservative, and prefers to leave an incumbent government in place unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. This speaks to the credibility problem an opposition has where, because they're not in government, they appear less credible as a future government.
It speaks to the saying that opposition's don't win elections, government's lose them, which feeds into the sense that, with FPTP, voters often vote against a party, as much as for another.
You might look at the instances where it has happened and say that a party fresh in opposition after a long stint in government tends to have become more inward-looking, and so has often spent a period in opposition arguing with itself, rather than engaging with the voters, and that this means it fails to attract the new voters required to win back power.
None of these explanations would be sufficient for me to conclude that it was inevitable that the Tories will spend at least two terms out of office when they next lose an election, but I think they're a decent set of ideas with which to look at what happens and judge how likely the Tories will be to regain power (once they lose it).
I'm not suggesting one simply blindly applies a historical pattern to contemporary events. And the most important thing about the future is how it is different to the past, but to an extent that is guesswork.
Before our NZ emigré poster opines definitively on the matter, it seems that China looms large in the NZ election.
Reuters: For the first time in decades, foreign and defence policy are in the electoral spotlight in New Zealand, as opinion surveys show public concern about the security environment and the major parties wrestle with how to respond to an assertive China.
The first part of the country’s defence review, released last week, said that New Zealand's military capabilities had fallen behind and that its geographical isolation was no longer a security guarantee.
Is this the main reason for the swing to the Right in NZ? Does that explain younger people becoming more right wing too?
The only other stuff I could find was that they are having a severe cost-of-loving crisis, like us. So just punishing the incumbent perhaps, which explains the swing to the Greens too.
Lesson for UK Labour might be to be hawkish on Ukraine and focus on cost-of-living domestically.
Lovely typo. I've lived in a permanent cost-of-loving crisis.
Especially for @Leon : boost for flint-knapping, inter alia.
It means the future of 34 flint castles and abbeys in the east of England will be safeguarded.
It gets better. Shortage of flintknappers.
Masonry flintknapper Duncan Berry of Berry Stonework in Chichester, West Sussex, welcomed the funding news, saying there is a “big shortage” of flintknappers, although he would want to train more if he had the space: “We’re inundated with people wanting to learn.”
He added that there was huge demand for flint work, both for historic and contemporary buildings: “Flint has been used from the earliest structures. Even Roman buildings used flint. So it’s been used as a building material ever since they worked out that you could stick things together with lime mortars. It’s an amazing building material because it’s actually carbon neutral as well. You just pick it off the fields and stack it up.”
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
The LDS were third in North Shropshire which didn't turn out to be an impediment. If Davey's party goes "full gas" they almost always win. The last time they didn't was Witney in 2016. The LDs will go "full gas" in Mid-Beds if there is a by election.
Is that the difference?
In a general election, Labour have a decent chance in Mid Beds on national swing and the Lib Dems probably wouldn't bother much with the seat.
In a by election, LibDems can throw one of their limited number of sinks at the place and they win.
Yes. And there is a greater willingness for soft Tories to vote LD rather than Lab particularly as a protest.
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.
If Lab fight this, that looks likely, they take a huge risk. If they win fine, but if the Tories hold on they will be heavily criticised. If they lose to the LDs after putting the effort in they will be humiliated, although it would bode well for the LDs in the blue wall in focusing on who the real challengers are. Constituency polls before the campaign, when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading. As I mentioned before, in your neck of the woods, a private poll in S W Surrey in 1997 before the election had Lab in 2nd place even though it was a LD target. In the election the LDs missed it by under 1000. Having said that LDs made a huge effort and Lab did nothing as you would expect, so not analogous to Mid Beds, but worth noting. Blue wall constituency polls showing Lab will win in a non target seat when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading when it comes to the actual campaign.
If Starmer wants to be PM with an overall majority of course he should be targeting seats like Mid Bedfordshire where Labour not the LDs were second to the Tories at the last general election, especially as Labour are clearly ahead in the polls.
The app, created by supermarket chain Pak ‘n’ Save, was advertised as a way for customers to creatively use up leftovers during the cost of living crisis. It asks users to enter in various ingredients in their homes, and auto-generates a meal plan or recipe, along with cheery commentary. It initially drew attention on social media for some unappealing recipes, including an “oreo vegetable stir-fry”.
When customers began experimenting with entering a wider range of household shopping list items into the app, however, it began to make even less appealing recommendations. One recipe it dubbed “aromatic water mix” would create chlorine gas. The bot recommends the recipe as “the perfect nonalcoholic beverage to quench your thirst and refresh your senses”'
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
Before our NZ emigré poster opines definitively on the matter, it seems that China looms large in the NZ election.
Reuters: For the first time in decades, foreign and defence policy are in the electoral spotlight in New Zealand, as opinion surveys show public concern about the security environment and the major parties wrestle with how to respond to an assertive China.
The first part of the country’s defence review, released last week, said that New Zealand's military capabilities had fallen behind and that its geographical isolation was no longer a security guarantee.
Is this the main reason for the swing to the Right in NZ? Does that explain younger people becoming more right wing too?
The only other stuff I could find was that they are having a severe cost-of-loving crisis, like us. So just punishing the incumbent perhaps, which explains the swing to the Greens too.
Lesson for UK Labour might be to be hawkish on Ukraine and focus on cost-of-living domestically.
Most governments in every western nation are behind in the polls at present due to historically high inflation, whether that government is of the right here or the left like New Zealand.
Only significant exceptions Meloni's right wing government in Italy and Albanese's Labor government in Australia which still lead polls but they were both only recently elected in 2022
The app, created by supermarket chain Pak ‘n’ Save, was advertised as a way for customers to creatively use up leftovers during the cost of living crisis. It asks users to enter in various ingredients in their homes, and auto-generates a meal plan or recipe, along with cheery commentary. It initially drew attention on social media for some unappealing recipes, including an “oreo vegetable stir-fry”.
When customers began experimenting with entering a wider range of household shopping list items into the app, however, it began to make even less appealing recommendations. One recipe it dubbed “aromatic water mix” would create chlorine gas. The bot recommends the recipe as “the perfect nonalcoholic beverage to quench your thirst and refresh your senses”'
'When I said 'pass the mustard,' that wasn't what I meant!'
Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.
If Lab fight this, that looks likely, they take a huge risk. If they win fine, but if the Tories hold on they will be heavily criticised. If they lose to the LDs after putting the effort in they will be humiliated, although it would bode well for the LDs in the blue wall in focusing on who the real challengers are. Constituency polls before the campaign, when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading. As I mentioned before, in your neck of the woods, a private poll in S W Surrey in 1997 before the election had Lab in 2nd place even though it was a LD target. In the election the LDs missed it by under 1000. Having said that LDs made a huge effort and Lab did nothing as you would expect, so not analogous to Mid Beds, but worth noting. Blue wall constituency polls showing Lab will win in a non target seat when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading when it comes to the actual campaign.
If Starmer wants to be PM with an overall majority of course he should be targeting seats like Mid Bedfordshire where Labour not the LDs were second to the Tories at the last general election, especially as Labour are clearly ahead in the polls.
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.
If Lab fight this, that looks likely, they take a huge risk. If they win fine, but if the Tories hold on they will be heavily criticised. If they lose to the LDs after putting the effort in they will be humiliated, although it would bode well for the LDs in the blue wall in focusing on who the real challengers are. Constituency polls before the campaign, when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading. As I mentioned before, in your neck of the woods, a private poll in S W Surrey in 1997 before the election had Lab in 2nd place even though it was a LD target. In the election the LDs missed it by under 1000. Having said that LDs made a huge effort and Lab did nothing as you would expect, so not analogous to Mid Beds, but worth noting. Blue wall constituency polls showing Lab will win in a non target seat when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading when it comes to the actual campaign.
If Starmer wants to be PM with an overall majority of course he should be targeting seats like Mid Bedfordshire where Labour not the LDs were second to the Tories at the last general election, especially as Labour are clearly ahead in the polls.
Good advice for your opponent.
May I offer you advice? Best to stick with Sunak who will win with just a small majority than turf him out and win big with the fragrant Penny.
One thing to watch about Rutherglen is that Yousless has been campaigning there a lot and has very much associated his face with the campaign. This may be because he is living up to his name, of course, but a First Minister who spends quite so much time on the ground campaigning is unusual. Presumably he thinks they have a chance. It's not as if his in box is not overflowing with problems.
Campaigning is probably a nice distraction from problems you can't do anything to actually fix...
The interview is interesting in that he is focusing on Sir Kid Starver's policies being basically the same as the Tories. The iron fiscal discipline imposed by Labour may not be doing them much harm in England but in Scotland there is a fantasist choice.
But the Slab candidate started off by attacking the bairn starving himself, so what are the SNP supposed to do? Support SKS?
They are supposed to do exactly what they are doing. I was just making the point that the tactics used by SKS in England, which basically amount to don't frighten the horses when they are riding your way, is slightly more problematic in Scotland where they are facing an opponent essentially to the left of them who have never cared if the numbers add up. Rutherglen is not going to be a one off in this context and Labour are likely to need some better answers in Scotland come the general if they are to pick up the seats they are counting on.
Starmer can get Conservative and LD tactical votes in Scotland to beat the SNP, he won't be getting any Conservative tactical votes in England though
One thing to watch about Rutherglen is that Yousless has been campaigning there a lot and has very much associated his face with the campaign. This may be because he is living up to his name, of course, but a First Minister who spends quite so much time on the ground campaigning is unusual. Presumably he thinks they have a chance. It's not as if his in box is not overflowing with problems.
It definitely is, assuming as we do that there's a by-election. There are lots of seats with Con/Lab/LD results in 2017/19 where we fancy our chances in a by-election if we can win the tactical vote, but a LD "winning here" strategy will potentially enable the Tories to hold. It's difficult, because there are seats where the LDs clearly are the main challenger. Those of tactical voting disposition are arguably safest going for whichever non-Con was second last time - that factors in factors like LD campaign strength, improved Lab polling and Con weakness.
Before our NZ emigré poster opines definitively on the matter, it seems that China looms large in the NZ election.
Reuters: For the first time in decades, foreign and defence policy are in the electoral spotlight in New Zealand, as opinion surveys show public concern about the security environment and the major parties wrestle with how to respond to an assertive China.
The first part of the country’s defence review, released last week, said that New Zealand's military capabilities had fallen behind and that its geographical isolation was no longer a security guarantee.
Is this the main reason for the swing to the Right in NZ? Does that explain younger people becoming more right wing too?
The only other stuff I could find was that they are having a severe cost-of-loving crisis, like us. So just punishing the incumbent perhaps, which explains the swing to the Greens too.
Lesson for UK Labour might be to be hawkish on Ukraine and focus on cost-of-living domestically.
Most governments in every western nation are behind in the polls at present due to historically high inflation, whether that government is of the right here or the left like New Zealand.
Only significant exceptions Meloni's right wing government in Italy and Albanese's Labor government in Australia which still lead polls but they were both only recently elected in 2022
You are increasingly sharing your thoughts in a free verse Poems on the Underground sort of format. This one works very well, but is there a reason?
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.
If Lab fight this, that looks likely, they take a huge risk. If they win fine, but if the Tories hold on they will be heavily criticised. If they lose to the LDs after putting the effort in they will be humiliated, although it would bode well for the LDs in the blue wall in focusing on who the real challengers are. Constituency polls before the campaign, when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading. As I mentioned before, in your neck of the woods, a private poll in S W Surrey in 1997 before the election had Lab in 2nd place even though it was a LD target. In the election the LDs missed it by under 1000. Having said that LDs made a huge effort and Lab did nothing as you would expect, so not analogous to Mid Beds, but worth noting. Blue wall constituency polls showing Lab will win in a non target seat when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading when it comes to the actual campaign.
If Starmer wants to be PM with an overall majority of course he should be targeting seats like Mid Bedfordshire where Labour not the LDs were second to the Tories at the last general election, especially as Labour are clearly ahead in the polls.
Oh dear, young HY. You are forgetting that the 2019 general election was the one where the key issue was what to do about Brexit. Were we going to reverse it or not?
At that election, the Labour Party posed as the great hope for reversing it. This was when Corbyn was their leader, so there was never any chance of that. Nevertheless there were opinion polls centred on the question of who was best placd in each constituency to reverse Brexit. The basisfor their recommendations was nation-wide opinion polls. A lot of Lib Dems voted Labour then, because they were told Labour had the best chance in their constituency.
So the 2019 election result was a complete distortion, but some Labour supporters are even now clinging to the hope that Labour is well-placed to win a particular seat next time.
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.
If Lab fight this, that looks likely, they take a huge risk. If they win fine, but if the Tories hold on they will be heavily criticised. If they lose to the LDs after putting the effort in they will be humiliated, although it would bode well for the LDs in the blue wall in focusing on who the real challengers are. Constituency polls before the campaign, when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading. As I mentioned before, in your neck of the woods, a private poll in S W Surrey in 1997 before the election had Lab in 2nd place even though it was a LD target. In the election the LDs missed it by under 1000. Having said that LDs made a huge effort and Lab did nothing as you would expect, so not analogous to Mid Beds, but worth noting. Blue wall constituency polls showing Lab will win in a non target seat when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading when it comes to the actual campaign.
If Starmer wants to be PM with an overall majority of course he should be targeting seats like Mid Bedfordshire where Labour not the LDs were second to the Tories at the last general election, especially as Labour are clearly ahead in the polls.
Oh dear, young HY. You are forgetting that the 2019 general election was the one where the key issue was what to do about Brexit. Were we going to reverse it or not?
At that election, the Labour Party posed as the great hope for reversing it. This was when Corbyn was their leader, so there was never any chance of that. Nevertheless there were opinion polls centred on the question of who was best placd in each constituency to reverse Brexit. The basisfor their recommendations was nation-wide opinion polls. A lot of Lib Dems voted Labour then, because they were told Labour had the best chance in their constituency.
So the 2019 election result was a complete distortion, but some Labour supporters are even now clinging to the hope that Labour is well-placed to win a particular seat next time.
And of course SKS has gone all-out brexiter. So ...
And to Greens. More disenchantment with Labour I think.
The right doesn't have much to say for young people here, but does appeal in other parts of the world.
Maybe the NZ youth weren't quite as keen on Jacinda's super-Wokery as we'd been led to believe?
Though the LabGrn block is pretty similar across the age range. It's just that older voters are more likely to be red and younger ones green. Same for the right block (Nat/ACT/NZ1); younger voters are more mainstream right and older ones more populist right.
Which could point to Jacinda not being woke enough for the young.
ACT are free market rather than Nationalist right but yes in most nations older voters tend to be more mainstream conservative right unlike New Zealand on that polling
Never in all of human history has a by-election that has not been called provoked as much comment as Mid Beds.
In somewhat related news...
Absentee Oregon lawmakers face disqualification from running in 2024 The Senate minority leader, who was among those in a GOP-led walkout, plans to sue.
LaVonne Griffin-Valade, who was recently appointed secretary, said in a statement she has directed her office to implement an administrative rule making it clear to legislators that Measure 113 will prevent them from running for a subsequent term. The measure was passed by voters in 2022 intending to end the walkouts by minority parties that have dogged the Legislature for years.
“It is clear voters intended Measure 113 to disqualify legislators from running for reelection if they had 10 or more unexcused absences in a legislative session,” said Griffin-Valade. “My decision honors the voters’ intent by enforcing the measure the way it was commonly understood when Oregonians added it to our state constitution.”..
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
The LDS were third in North Shropshire which didn't turn out to be an impediment. If Davey's party goes "full gas" they almost always win. The last time they didn't was Witney in 2016. The LDs will go "full gas" in Mid-Beds if there is a by election.
At the time of the North Shropshire by election Labour were polling 5 to 10% less than they are now
Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
If he's making loan repayments then he's likely earning over £27,925. That's approximately the median UK salary. The most militant groups in the public sector seem to be the highest paid - I'm neutral on UBI, but I don't see how you make it work - particularly if it's to be a net benefit on people earning over 30k without raising taxes on the higher paid and they're the ones who might f*** off to Australia to earn twice what they are here doing hip ops or whatever. I also fear it could be inflationary tbh.
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.
If Lab fight this, that looks likely, they take a huge risk. If they win fine, but if the Tories hold on they will be heavily criticised. If they lose to the LDs after putting the effort in they will be humiliated, although it would bode well for the LDs in the blue wall in focusing on who the real challengers are.
Personally I'd be inclined to criticise the LDs for their effort to muddy the waters when they came a bad third with 12.6% last time (in 2017 they barely saved their deposit). But this discussion is why I hope we won't actually see a by-election - it will do real harm to amicable tactical voting efforts. But I expect Nadine will quit just before the Tory conference, timed to irritate Sunak and sell her book.
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
I was thinking more like Joe Denly and his Denturies.
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.
If Lab fight this, that looks likely, they take a huge risk. If they win fine, but if the Tories hold on they will be heavily criticised. If they lose to the LDs after putting the effort in they will be humiliated, although it would bode well for the LDs in the blue wall in focusing on who the real challengers are. Constituency polls before the campaign, when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading. As I mentioned before, in your neck of the woods, a private poll in S W Surrey in 1997 before the election had Lab in 2nd place even though it was a LD target. In the election the LDs missed it by under 1000. Having said that LDs made a huge effort and Lab did nothing as you would expect, so not analogous to Mid Beds, but worth noting. Blue wall constituency polls showing Lab will win in a non target seat when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading when it comes to the actual campaign.
If Starmer wants to be PM with an overall majority of course he should be targeting seats like Mid Bedfordshire where Labour not the LDs were second to the Tories at the last general election, especially as Labour are clearly ahead in the polls.
Oh dear, young HY. You are forgetting that the 2019 general election was the one where the key issue was what to do about Brexit. Were we going to reverse it or not?
At that election, the Labour Party posed as the great hope for reversing it. This was when Corbyn was their leader, so there was never any chance of that. Nevertheless there were opinion polls centred on the question of who was best placd in each constituency to reverse Brexit. The basisfor their recommendations was nation-wide opinion polls. A lot of Lib Dems voted Labour then, because they were told Labour had the best chance in their constituency.
So the 2019 election result was a complete distortion, but some Labour supporters are even now clinging to the hope that Labour is well-placed to win a particular seat next time.
And of course SKS has gone all-out brexiter. So ...
So..... it is very lucky that the Lib Dems are still around, and moreover doing well.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
There's a mathematical model that's been created based on that "rule" which has been featured in academic papers I believe.
That said, my my most likely expected scenario is for the Tories to be out of office for at least two Parliamentary terms, because I expect that they will make poor choices when first in opposition. But clearly this is a prediction that is contingent on those choices, rather than being inevitable.
It wasn't the rule between the wars. It wasn't the rule after the wars. And it certainly wasn't the rule in the 1970s.
Indeed, you could say, in economically and politically turbulent times that turbulence will extend to domestic politics.
As I became aware of politics in the early 70s I assumed that every election brought a change of government. And to be fair, absent the Falklands that might have continued into the 80s with Labour scraping a victory in 1983 and the Tories a landslide in 1987(ish).
The one rule that does hold true and immutable* of course is that the Tories and Labour will be forever swapping power between them.
(*until it doesn't)
It wasn't the Falklands that won the 1983 election for the Tories. It was the SDP.
Managing to forget the “Longest suicide note in political history”?
I watched Labour Party conferences as a kid. With delegates arguing for leaving NATO and the EEC. One lady advocated joining the Warsaw Pact and COMECON…
The Labour Party at that point was jumping over a shark jumping over another shark.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.
If Lab fight this, that looks likely, they take a huge risk. If they win fine, but if the Tories hold on they will be heavily criticised. If they lose to the LDs after putting the effort in they will be humiliated, although it would bode well for the LDs in the blue wall in focusing on who the real challengers are. Constituency polls before the campaign, when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading. As I mentioned before, in your neck of the woods, a private poll in S W Surrey in 1997 before the election had Lab in 2nd place even though it was a LD target. In the election the LDs missed it by under 1000. Having said that LDs made a huge effort and Lab did nothing as you would expect, so not analogous to Mid Beds, but worth noting. Blue wall constituency polls showing Lab will win in a non target seat when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading when it comes to the actual campaign.
If Starmer wants to be PM with an overall majority of course he should be targeting seats like Mid Bedfordshire where Labour not the LDs were second to the Tories at the last general election, especially as Labour are clearly ahead in the polls.
Good advice for your opponent.
May I offer you advice? Best to stick with Sunak who will win with just a small majority than turf him out and win big with the fragrant Penny.
You should show some more empathy and think more like a typical Tory MP. Just imagine all the extra end of office compensation and new Lordships that can be shared amongst them if they switch this lot out for another batch. Trebles all round!
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
On the 1983 election, those of us old enough remember the toxic effect of a) Michael Foot, and b) Labour's manifesto being the "longest suicide note in history". Although Foot was a great chap, his capacity to win a GE was comparable to Corbyn's. I think a) and b) were more significant than the Falklands or the SDP (and, of course, they gave rise to the SDP in the first place).
The Labour Party went Full Tonto - the SDP was a side effect of going ultra hard left.
On the 1983 election, those of us old enough remember the toxic effect of a) Michael Foot, and b) Labour's manifesto being the "longest suicide note in history". Although Foot was a great chap, his capacity to win a GE was comparable to Corbyn's. I think a) and b) were more significant than the Falklands or the SDP (and, of course, they gave rise to the SDP in the first place).
The Labour Party went Full Tonto - the SDP was a side effect of going ultra hard left.
Had Healey been elected Labour leader in 1980 not Foot the SDP likely would never have been formed
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
There's a mathematical model that's been created based on that "rule" which has been featured in academic papers I believe.
That said, my my most likely expected scenario is for the Tories to be out of office for at least two Parliamentary terms, because I expect that they will make poor choices when first in opposition. But clearly this is a prediction that is contingent on those choices, rather than being inevitable.
It wasn't the rule between the wars. It wasn't the rule after the wars. And it certainly wasn't the rule in the 1970s.
Indeed, you could say, in economically and politically turbulent times that turbulence will extend to domestic politics.
As I became aware of politics in the early 70s I assumed that every election brought a change of government. And to be fair, absent the Falklands that might have continued into the 80s with Labour scraping a victory in 1983 and the Tories a landslide in 1987(ish).
The one rule that does hold true and immutable* of course is that the Tories and Labour will be forever swapping power between them.
(*until it doesn't)
It wasn't the Falklands that won the 1983 election for the Tories. It was the SDP.
Managing to forget the “Longest suicide note in political history”?
I watched Labour Party conferences as a kid. With delegates arguing for leaving NATO and the EEC. One lady advocated joining the Warsaw Pact and COMECON…
The Labour Party at that point was jumping over a shark jumping over another shark.
By March 1982 Gallup had the Conservatives ahead again on 35% to 33% for the SDP and 30% for Labour before the Falklands War broke out in April 1982
It definitely is, assuming as we do that there's a by-election. There are lots of seats with Con/Lab/LD results in 2017/19 where we fancy our chances in a by-election if we can win the tactical vote, but a LD "winning here" strategy will potentially enable the Tories to hold. It's difficult, because there are seats where the LDs clearly are the main challenger. Those of tactical voting disposition are arguably safest going for whichever non-Con was second last time - that factors in factors like LD campaign strength, improved Lab polling and Con weakness.
Obviously it is if you win a by election there, as would be the case for the LDs who otherwise wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Otherwise it is not for either party.
What did you think of my other post on the subject @NickPalmer ?
I think this is a big error by Lab when they can easily say it is not one of the seats we need to govern.
Consider the following:
a) Lab stand aside - Nailed on LD win
b) LD stand aside - Probable Tory hold, possible Lab win
c) LD and Lab fight - who knows. 3 way split
In case b) and c) the Tories are potential winners and there is no negative press for them and possibly a lot of positive press for the Tories and negative for Lab.
In case a) there is a lot of negative press for the Tories, neutral for Lab and positive for the LDs
Which do you prefer as a lab supporter? Why take the risk when you don't have to? You are well ahead in the polls.
Edit: Sorry I see you have responded to my other post - cheers.
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Sunak is Kim Hughes ?
Known as "Mr. Reliable" - and subsequently a failure as captain.
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Sunak is Kim Hughes ?
That's Corbyn. Out of his depth, getting brutally beaten, and finally breaking away to lead a rebel side in a bid to undermine his successor.
On the 1983 election, those of us old enough remember the toxic effect of a) Michael Foot, and b) Labour's manifesto being the "longest suicide note in history". Although Foot was a great chap, his capacity to win a GE was comparable to Corbyn's. I think a) and b) were more significant than the Falklands or the SDP (and, of course, they gave rise to the SDP in the first place).
The Labour Party went Full Tonto - the SDP was a side effect of going ultra hard left.
Had Healey been elected Labour leader in 1980 not Foot the SDP likely would never have been formed
New Labour was the realisation that if you get the Moderate Socialists and Social Democrats in a party, they can win stuff. Hard Left Socialism is good for feeling pure in opposition.
Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
If he's making loan repayments then he's likely earning over £27,925. That's approximately the median UK salary. The most militant groups in the public sector seem to be the highest paid - I'm neutral on UBI, but I don't see how you make it work - particularly if it's to be a net benefit on people earning over 30k without raising taxes on the higher paid and they're the ones who might f*** off to Australia to earn twice what they are here doing hip ops or whatever. I also fear it could be inflationary tbh.
Yes, earning the median salary and on a 9% higher rate of Income Tax, in the form of a Graduate Tax, its absurd isn't it?
The way to make it work is to ensure everyone on the same income pays the same rate of tax.
If you're earning £30k from non-salaried means then your marginal tax rate is 20% on that income.
If you're earning £30k from salaried employment with a student loan then your marginal tax rate is 41% on that income.
Why should someone earning a salary pay more than double the tax of someone else who isn't but earns the same amount?
Its even worse if someone earning a salary is on Universal Credit while having a Student Loan. Then the real marginal tax rate is 78.4%
Why the hell should someone on a marginal income be on a real Marginal Tax Rate of 78.4%?
Not to forget of course that tax thresholds are frozen, so inflation alone means if someone gets an inflationary pay-rise they're really losing 78.4% of that to tax so are substantially worse off. Someone needs a pay rise of 5x the rate of inflation nearly just to stand still!
It definitely is, assuming as we do that there's a by-election. There are lots of seats with Con/Lab/LD results in 2017/19 where we fancy our chances in a by-election if we can win the tactical vote, but a LD "winning here" strategy will potentially enable the Tories to hold. It's difficult, because there are seats where the LDs clearly are the main challenger. Those of tactical voting disposition are arguably safest going for whichever non-Con was second last time - that factors in factors like LD campaign strength, improved Lab polling and Con weakness.
Obviously it is if you win a by election there, as would be the case for the LDs who otherwise wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Otherwise it is not for either party.
What did you think of my other post on the subject @NickPalmer ?
I think this is a big error by Lab when they can easily say it is not one of the seats we need to govern.
Consider the following:
a) Lab stand aside - Nailed on LD win
b) LD stand aside - Probable Tory hold, possible Lab win
c) LD and Lab fight - who knows. 3 way split
In case b) and c) the Tories are potential winners and there is no negative press for them and possibly a lot of positive press for the Tories and negative for Lab.
In case a) there is a lot of negative press for the Tories, neutral for Lab and positive for the LDs
Which do you prefer as a lab supporter? Why take the risk when you don't have to? You are well ahead in the polls.
Edit: Sorry I see you have responded to my other post - cheers.
I expect the Labour core vote would prefer a narrow Tory win with Labour second in Mid Bedfordshire than a LD win.
Remember ten years ago the LDs were in government with the Tories pursuing austerity with LD leader Sir Ed Davey a member of Cameron's Cabinet
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Sunak is Kim Hughes ?
That's Corbyn. Out of his depth, getting brutally beaten, and finally breaking away to lead a rebel side in a bid to undermine his successor.
Sunak would be more David Gower.
Thats a very weird one, yet to see any glorious cover drives from Rishi. I suppose the silly waft that brings slip into play perhaps....
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
It's not that we're due another 10-15 of Labour, just noting that has been the trend recently. Its not guaranteed. The alternative 'they will do unpopular things and quickly become hated' is no less a narrative since until they actually do win it too is based on assumption.
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Sunak is Kim Hughes ?
That's Corbyn. Out of his depth, getting brutally beaten, and finally breaking away to lead a rebel side in a bid to undermine his successor.
Sunak would be more David Gower.
Thats a very weird one, yet to see any glorious cover drives from Rishi. I suppose the silly waft that brings slip into play perhaps....
I was thinking more of the captaincy - after a promising start following a series of temporary fill ins, can't do a thing right.
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.
If Lab fight this, that looks likely, they take a huge risk. If they win fine, but if the Tories hold on they will be heavily criticised. If they lose to the LDs after putting the effort in they will be humiliated, although it would bode well for the LDs in the blue wall in focusing on who the real challengers are.
Personally I'd be inclined to criticise the LDs for their effort to muddy the waters when they came a bad third with 12.6% last time (in 2017 they barely saved their deposit). But this discussion is why I hope we won't actually see a by-election - it will do real harm to amicable tactical voting efforts. But I expect Nadine will quit just before the Tory conference, timed to irritate Sunak and sell her book.
I guess we aren't going to agree on this because of our own biases towards the parties we support clouding our judgement. I think you are wrong, but I am sure if I were you I would think I was wrong.
I do appreciate the point you have made several times that avoiding the issue arising would be the best result. Life eh?
PS Might be worth thinking what Tories want eg @hyufd and doing the reverse. He seems keen on Labour fighting it. I wonder why? @hyufd is canny.
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Sunak is Kim Hughes ?
Known as "Mr. Reliable" - and subsequently a failure as captain.
Boris = Mitchell Johnson
He swings to the left, he swings to the right, that Boris Johnson, his politics is shite.
It definitely is, assuming as we do that there's a by-election. There are lots of seats with Con/Lab/LD results in 2017/19 where we fancy our chances in a by-election if we can win the tactical vote, but a LD "winning here" strategy will potentially enable the Tories to hold. It's difficult, because there are seats where the LDs clearly are the main challenger. Those of tactical voting disposition are arguably safest going for whichever non-Con was second last time - that factors in factors like LD campaign strength, improved Lab polling and Con weakness.
Obviously it is if you win a by election there, as would be the case for the LDs who otherwise wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Otherwise it is not for either party.
What did you think of my other post on the subject @NickPalmer ?
I think this is a big error by Lab when they can easily say it is not one of the seats we need to govern.
Consider the following:
a) Lab stand aside - Nailed on LD win
b) LD stand aside - Probable Tory hold, possible Lab win
c) LD and Lab fight - who knows. 3 way split
In case b) and c) the Tories are potential winners and there is no negative press for them and possibly a lot of positive press for the Tories and negative for Lab.
In case a) there is a lot of negative press for the Tories, neutral for Lab and positive for the LDs
Which do you prefer as a lab supporter? Why take the risk when you don't have to? You are well ahead in the polls.
Edit: Sorry I see you have responded to my other post - cheers.
I expect the Labour core vote would prefer a narrow Tory win with Labour second in Mid Bedfordshire than a LD win.
Remember ten years ago the LDs were in government with the Tories pursuing austerity with LD leader Sir Ed Davey a member of Cameron's Cabinet
In what possible world do Republicans think Trump has any respect for them? And Trump is right in thinking that it is his.....because Republicans have lost respect for themselves, democracy and their country.
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Sunak is Kim Hughes ?
That's Corbyn. Out of his depth, getting brutally beaten, and finally breaking away to lead a rebel side in a bid to undermine his successor.
Sunak would be more David Gower.
I don't recall Hughes being crowned as leader by a mass popular movement ?
And I was working on the basis of General elections are the Ashes and Conservatives are Australia.
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Sunak is Kim Hughes ?
Known as "Mr. Reliable" - and subsequently a failure as captain.
Boris = Mitchell Johnson
He swings to the left, he swings to the right, that Boris Johnson, his politics is shite.
I really don't see how LDs can be criticised for potentially muddying the waters in Mid Beds when they've won from very similar situations before.
Lds and labour both have an interest in beating the Tories but they don't owe each anything and neither should get shirty at the other not backing down, they aren't allies even if interests align.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
The reasons I say that the circumstances are poor are these. 1. Very high levels of debt and debt interest. 2. Ongoing demographic transition is increasing costs assumed by the State (Pensions and healthcare) while shrinking the tax base to pay for them. 3. Critical problems in multiple public services due to a lack of investment or chronic underfunding - delays in the criminal justice system, relatively poor performance in Education, hospitals crumbling. 4. Long-term underperformance of economy due to skills shortages and low business investment. 5. Bottlenecks in the economy due to a lack of infrastructure investment in transport, housing, etc. 6. General sense that the British economy has been living beyond its means for some decades now, funded by selling off assets to foreign investors, that there's not much left to sell, and the foreign investors will still want the return on their investment.
So, how do you find the money to pay for increased debt interest, increased costs due to the demographic transition, to fix neglected public services and infrastructure and still leave enough spare money in the economy for business investment and to pay foreign investors, without a drastic cut in household consumption that will crash some domestic sectors of the economy and create an enraged cohort of the electorate that will eject the incumbent government at the next election.
My main problem with Starmer's policies like VAT on private school fees is that I think it is a policy in complete denial of the scale of the problems faced.
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Sunak is Kim Hughes ?
That's Corbyn. Out of his depth, getting brutally beaten, and finally breaking away to lead a rebel side in a bid to undermine his successor.
Sunak would be more David Gower.
Thats a very weird one, yet to see any glorious cover drives from Rishi. I suppose the silly waft that brings slip into play perhaps....
I was thinking more of the captaincy - after a promising start following a series of temporary fill ins, can't do a thing right.
Racing seems more apt. There may be a new driver but this clapped out old banger just cannot do what is being asked of it.
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.
If Lab fight this, that looks likely, they take a huge risk. If they win fine, but if the Tories hold on they will be heavily criticised. If they lose to the LDs after putting the effort in they will be humiliated, although it would bode well for the LDs in the blue wall in focusing on who the real challengers are. Constituency polls before the campaign, when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading. As I mentioned before, in your neck of the woods, a private poll in S W Surrey in 1997 before the election had Lab in 2nd place even though it was a LD target. In the election the LDs missed it by under 1000. Having said that LDs made a huge effort and Lab did nothing as you would expect, so not analogous to Mid Beds, but worth noting. Blue wall constituency polls showing Lab will win in a non target seat when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading when it comes to the actual campaign.
If Starmer wants to be PM with an overall majority of course he should be targeting seats like Mid Bedfordshire where Labour not the LDs were second to the Tories at the last general election, especially as Labour are clearly ahead in the polls.
Oh dear, young HY. You are forgetting that the 2019 general election was the one where the key issue was what to do about Brexit. Were we going to reverse it or not?
At that election, the Labour Party posed as the great hope for reversing it. This was when Corbyn was their leader, so there was never any chance of that. Nevertheless there were opinion polls centred on the question of who was best placd in each constituency to reverse Brexit. The basisfor their recommendations was nation-wide opinion polls. A lot of Lib Dems voted Labour then, because they were told Labour had the best chance in their constituency.
So the 2019 election result was a complete distortion, but some Labour supporters are even now clinging to the hope that Labour is well-placed to win a particular seat next time.
On current polls Labour are 10 to 15% higher than they got in 2019 while the LDs are unchanged or even slightly down
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Sunak is Kim Hughes ?
That's Corbyn. Out of his depth, getting brutally beaten, and finally breaking away to lead a rebel side in a bid to undermine his successor.
Sunak would be more David Gower.
Thats a very weird one, yet to see any glorious cover drives from Rishi. I suppose the silly waft that brings slip into play perhaps....
Early Rishi, maybe... Furlough and half price meals.
In both cases, there's something there, some genuine talent, but something critical missing that makes them fail.
This is fun... Boris as Pietersen? Huge individual talent and ego, no team leadership skills whatsoever?
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
There's a mathematical model that's been created based on that "rule" which has been featured in academic papers I believe.
That said, my my most likely expected scenario is for the Tories to be out of office for at least two Parliamentary terms, because I expect that they will make poor choices when first in opposition. But clearly this is a prediction that is contingent on those choices, rather than being inevitable.
It wasn't the rule between the wars. It wasn't the rule after the wars. And it certainly wasn't the rule in the 1970s.
Indeed, you could say, in economically and politically turbulent times that turbulence will extend to domestic politics.
As I became aware of politics in the early 70s I assumed that every election brought a change of government. And to be fair, absent the Falklands that might have continued into the 80s with Labour scraping a victory in 1983 and the Tories a landslide in 1987(ish).
The one rule that does hold true and immutable* of course is that the Tories and Labour will be forever swapping power between them.
(*until it doesn't)
It wasn't the Falklands that won the 1983 election for the Tories. It was the SDP.
It wasn't the SDP. It was Labour's unpopularity, of which the SDP was a symptom. Analysis of polling at the time asking about people's second preferences shows that the Tories would have won without the SDP.
Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
If he's making loan repayments then he's likely earning over £27,925. That's approximately the median UK salary. The most militant groups in the public sector seem to be the highest paid - I'm neutral on UBI, but I don't see how you make it work - particularly if it's to be a net benefit on people earning over 30k without raising taxes on the higher paid and they're the ones who might f*** off to Australia to earn twice what they are here doing hip ops or whatever. I also fear it could be inflationary tbh.
Yes, earning the median salary and on a 9% higher rate of Income Tax, in the form of a Graduate Tax, its absurd isn't it?
The way to make it work is to ensure everyone on the same income pays the same rate of tax.
If you're earning £30k from non-salaried means then your marginal tax rate is 20% on that income.
If you're earning £30k from salaried employment with a student loan then your marginal tax rate is 41% on that income.
Why should someone earning a salary pay more than double the tax of someone else who isn't but earns the same amount?
Its even worse if someone earning a salary is on Universal Credit while having a Student Loan. Then the real marginal tax rate is 78.4%
Why the hell should someone on a marginal income be on a real Marginal Tax Rate of 78.4%?
Not to forget of course that tax thresholds are frozen, so inflation alone means if someone gets an inflationary pay-rise they're really losing 78.4% of that to tax so are substantially worse off. Someone needs a pay rise of 5x the rate of inflation nearly just to stand still!
The problems are house prices and inflation.
One funny one was discussing with some people the re-wilding of parts of Chicago. Houses being knocked down and the land cleared. It was getting through to people that in some parts of the world a house could be really, actually, surplus. A waste of space.
We have a similar population to France. 8 million fewer properties.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.
If Lab fight this, that looks likely, they take a huge risk. If they win fine, but if the Tories hold on they will be heavily criticised. If they lose to the LDs after putting the effort in they will be humiliated, although it would bode well for the LDs in the blue wall in focusing on who the real challengers are. Constituency polls before the campaign, when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading. As I mentioned before, in your neck of the woods, a private poll in S W Surrey in 1997 before the election had Lab in 2nd place even though it was a LD target. In the election the LDs missed it by under 1000. Having said that LDs made a huge effort and Lab did nothing as you would expect, so not analogous to Mid Beds, but worth noting. Blue wall constituency polls showing Lab will win in a non target seat when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading when it comes to the actual campaign.
That early poll suggests that so few people will vote Tory that there's not much chance of the opposition vote being split and the Tories sneaking through.
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Sunak is Kim Hughes ?
That's Corbyn. Out of his depth, getting brutally beaten, and finally breaking away to lead a rebel side in a bid to undermine his successor.
Sunak would be more David Gower.
Thats a very weird one, yet to see any glorious cover drives from Rishi. I suppose the silly waft that brings slip into play perhaps....
Early Rishi, maybe... Furlough and half price meals.
In both cases, there's something there, some genuine talent, but something critical missing that makes them fail.
This is fun... Boris as Pietersen? Huge individual talent and ego, no team leadership skills whatsoever?
We've been told the Tories = Australia , so no. And in any event, Pietersen was a great player, innovative ahead of his time, and just badly managed, I'd argue.
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Sunak is Kim Hughes ?
That's Corbyn. Out of his depth, getting brutally beaten, and finally breaking away to lead a rebel side in a bid to undermine his successor.
Sunak would be more David Gower.
Thats a very weird one, yet to see any glorious cover drives from Rishi. I suppose the silly waft that brings slip into play perhaps....
I was thinking more of the captaincy - after a promising start following a series of temporary fill ins, can't do a thing right.
There's something here... Cricket captaincy is unusual in sports because it's got the individual achievement and the creating conditions where the rest of the team do well and the ongoing gameplay.
Very much like making love to a beautiful... Sorry. Very much like being Prime Minister.
Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
If he's making loan repayments then he's likely earning over £27,925. That's approximately the median UK salary. The most militant groups in the public sector seem to be the highest paid - I'm neutral on UBI, but I don't see how you make it work - particularly if it's to be a net benefit on people earning over 30k without raising taxes on the higher paid and they're the ones who might f*** off to Australia to earn twice what they are here doing hip ops or whatever. I also fear it could be inflationary tbh.
Yes, earning the median salary and on a 9% higher rate of Income Tax, in the form of a Graduate Tax, its absurd isn't it?
The way to make it work is to ensure everyone on the same income pays the same rate of tax.
If you're earning £30k from non-salaried means then your marginal tax rate is 20% on that income.
If you're earning £30k from salaried employment with a student loan then your marginal tax rate is 41% on that income.
Why should someone earning a salary pay more than double the tax of someone else who isn't but earns the same amount?
Its even worse if someone earning a salary is on Universal Credit while having a Student Loan. Then the real marginal tax rate is 78.4%
Why the hell should someone on a marginal income be on a real Marginal Tax Rate of 78.4%?
Not to forget of course that tax thresholds are frozen, so inflation alone means if someone gets an inflationary pay-rise they're really losing 78.4% of that to tax so are substantially worse off. Someone needs a pay rise of 5x the rate of inflation nearly just to stand still!
The problems are house prices and inflation.
One funny one was discussing with some people the re-wilding of parts of Chicago. Houses being knocked down and the land cleared. It was getting through to people that in some parts of the world a house could be really, actually, surplus. A waste of space.
We have a similar population to France. 8 million fewer properties.
Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
If he's making loan repayments then he's likely earning over £27,925. That's approximately the median UK salary. The most militant groups in the public sector seem to be the highest paid - I'm neutral on UBI, but I don't see how you make it work - particularly if it's to be a net benefit on people earning over 30k without raising taxes on the higher paid and they're the ones who might f*** off to Australia to earn twice what they are here doing hip ops or whatever. I also fear it could be inflationary tbh.
Yes, earning the median salary and on a 9% higher rate of Income Tax, in the form of a Graduate Tax, its absurd isn't it?
The way to make it work is to ensure everyone on the same income pays the same rate of tax.
If you're earning £30k from non-salaried means then your marginal tax rate is 20% on that income.
If you're earning £30k from salaried employment with a student loan then your marginal tax rate is 41% on that income.
Why should someone earning a salary pay more than double the tax of someone else who isn't but earns the same amount?
Its even worse if someone earning a salary is on Universal Credit while having a Student Loan. Then the real marginal tax rate is 78.4%
Why the hell should someone on a marginal income be on a real Marginal Tax Rate of 78.4%?
Not to forget of course that tax thresholds are frozen, so inflation alone means if someone gets an inflationary pay-rise they're really losing 78.4% of that to tax so are substantially worse off. Someone needs a pay rise of 5x the rate of inflation nearly just to stand still!
The problems are house prices and inflation.
One funny one was discussing with some people the re-wilding of parts of Chicago. Houses being knocked down and the land cleared. It was getting through to people that in some parts of the world a house could be really, actually, surplus. A waste of space.
We have a similar population to France. 8 million fewer properties.
France 2.3 x land mass of UK
But that's a very crude number, don't know how much Alp and Pyrenee you have to trade off vs how much highland
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of imdeedNew Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
It's not that we're due another 10-15 of Labour, just noting that has been the trend recently. Its not guaranteed. The alternative 'they will do unpopular things and quickly become hated' is no less a narrative since until they actually do win it too is based on assumption.
Indeed from 1964 we had Labour in government from 1964 to 1970, the Tories in government from 1970 to 1974, Labour in government from 1974 to 1979 and the Tories in government again from 1979.
That was when inflation was last as high as it is now
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.
If Lab fight this, that looks likely, they take a huge risk. If they win fine, but if the Tories hold on they will be heavily criticised. If they lose to the LDs after putting the effort in they will be humiliated, although it would bode well for the LDs in the blue wall in focusing on who the real challengers are. Constituency polls before the campaign, when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading. As I mentioned before, in your neck of the woods, a private poll in S W Surrey in 1997 before the election had Lab in 2nd place even though it was a LD target. In the election the LDs missed it by under 1000. Having said that LDs made a huge effort and Lab did nothing as you would expect, so not analogous to Mid Beds, but worth noting. Blue wall constituency polls showing Lab will win in a non target seat when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading when it comes to the actual campaign.
That early poll suggests that so few people will vote Tory that there's not much chance of the opposition vote being split and the Tories sneaking through.
I'm inclined to be dubious that the Tories will do that badly. Even if they do they are (rightly) keen on a LD/Lab battle in a hope of holding on.
The difference in publicity for a Tory win vs a loss here would be huge.
Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
If he's making loan repayments then he's likely earning over £27,925. That's approximately the median UK salary. The most militant groups in the public sector seem to be the highest paid - I'm neutral on UBI, but I don't see how you make it work - particularly if it's to be a net benefit on people earning over 30k without raising taxes on the higher paid and they're the ones who might f*** off to Australia to earn twice what they are here doing hip ops or whatever. I also fear it could be inflationary tbh.
Yes, earning the median salary and on a 9% higher rate of Income Tax, in the form of a Graduate Tax, its absurd isn't it?
The way to make it work is to ensure everyone on the same income pays the same rate of tax.
If you're earning £30k from non-salaried means then your marginal tax rate is 20% on that income.
If you're earning £30k from salaried employment with a student loan then your marginal tax rate is 41% on that income.
Why should someone earning a salary pay more than double the tax of someone else who isn't but earns the same amount?
Its even worse if someone earning a salary is on Universal Credit while having a Student Loan. Then the real marginal tax rate is 78.4%
Why the hell should someone on a marginal income be on a real Marginal Tax Rate of 78.4%?
Not to forget of course that tax thresholds are frozen, so inflation alone means if someone gets an inflationary pay-rise they're really losing 78.4% of that to tax so are substantially worse off. Someone needs a pay rise of 5x the rate of inflation nearly just to stand still!
The problems are house prices and inflation.
One funny one was discussing with some people the re-wilding of parts of Chicago. Houses being knocked down and the land cleared. It was getting through to people that in some parts of the world a house could be really, actually, surplus. A waste of space.
We have a similar population to France. 8 million fewer properties.
That's a killer stat.
That's 200 000 a year for 40 years.
Which is a measure both of how long this has been a problem and how long it will take to fix.
Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there
Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.
If Lab fight this, that looks likely, they take a huge risk. If they win fine, but if the Tories hold on they will be heavily criticised. If they lose to the LDs after putting the effort in they will be humiliated, although it would bode well for the LDs in the blue wall in focusing on who the real challengers are. Constituency polls before the campaign, when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading. As I mentioned before, in your neck of the woods, a private poll in S W Surrey in 1997 before the election had Lab in 2nd place even though it was a LD target. In the election the LDs missed it by under 1000. Having said that LDs made a huge effort and Lab did nothing as you would expect, so not analogous to Mid Beds, but worth noting. Blue wall constituency polls showing Lab will win in a non target seat when Lab are doing well nationally are very misleading when it comes to the actual campaign.
That early poll suggests that so few people will vote Tory that there's not much chance of the opposition vote being split and the Tories sneaking through.
The Tories were on 24% in the poll. They'd need four rival candidates very neatly splitting the vote (19%ish each) to win with 24%.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Sunak is Kim Hughes ?
That's Corbyn. Out of his depth, getting brutally beaten, and finally breaking away to lead a rebel side in a bid to undermine his successor.
Sunak would be more David Gower.
Thats a very weird one, yet to see any glorious cover drives from Rishi. I suppose the silly waft that brings slip into play perhaps....
Early Rishi, maybe... Furlough and half price meals.
In both cases, there's something there, some genuine talent, but something critical missing that makes them fail.
This is fun... Boris as Pietersen? Huge individual talent and ego, no team leadership skills whatsoever?
Johnson as Botham. All the way.
A remarkable talent in many fields, but totally unsuited to being a leader and far too lazy to do the hard work to get the most out of his talent.
With the result he was brutally found out as captain and his career as a top athlete was actually quite short despite his unwillingness to give up when past his best.
Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
If he's making loan repayments then he's likely earning over £27,925. That's approximately the median UK salary. The most militant groups in the public sector seem to be the highest paid - I'm neutral on UBI, but I don't see how you make it work - particularly if it's to be a net benefit on people earning over 30k without raising taxes on the higher paid and they're the ones who might f*** off to Australia to earn twice what they are here doing hip ops or whatever. I also fear it could be inflationary tbh.
Yes, earning the median salary and on a 9% higher rate of Income Tax, in the form of a Graduate Tax, its absurd isn't it?
The way to make it work is to ensure everyone on the same income pays the same rate of tax.
If you're earning £30k from non-salaried means then your marginal tax rate is 20% on that income.
If you're earning £30k from salaried employment with a student loan then your marginal tax rate is 41% on that income.
Why should someone earning a salary pay more than double the tax of someone else who isn't but earns the same amount?
Its even worse if someone earning a salary is on Universal Credit while having a Student Loan. Then the real marginal tax rate is 78.4%
Why the hell should someone on a marginal income be on a real Marginal Tax Rate of 78.4%?
Not to forget of course that tax thresholds are frozen, so inflation alone means if someone gets an inflationary pay-rise they're really losing 78.4% of that to tax so are substantially worse off. Someone needs a pay rise of 5x the rate of inflation nearly just to stand still!
The problems are house prices and inflation.
One funny one was discussing with some people the re-wilding of parts of Chicago. Houses being knocked down and the land cleared. It was getting through to people that in some parts of the world a house could be really, actually, surplus. A waste of space.
We have a similar population to France. 8 million fewer properties.
That's a killer stat.
That's 200 000 a year for 40 years.
Which is a measure both of how long this has been a problem and how long it will take to fix.
Not coincidentally, 40 years takes you back to early Thatcher, and Right to Buy.
Especially for @Leon : boost for flint-knapping, inter alia.
It means the future of 34 flint castles and abbeys in the east of England will be safeguarded.
It gets better. Shortage of flintknappers.
Masonry flintknapper Duncan Berry of Berry Stonework in Chichester, West Sussex, welcomed the funding news, saying there is a “big shortage” of flintknappers, although he would want to train more if he had the space: “We’re inundated with people wanting to learn.”
He added that there was huge demand for flint work, both for historic and contemporary buildings: “Flint has been used from the earliest structures. Even Roman buildings used flint. So it’s been used as a building material ever since they worked out that you could stick things together with lime mortars. It’s an amazing building material because it’s actually carbon neutral as well. You just pick it off the fields and stack it up.”
Of course there is a shortage of flintknappers. What do you expect when their trade magazine each month has a travelogue extolling opportunities to work on East European castles?
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Harsh because much as I love Sir Geoffrey there were only 2 versions of him - dour and very dour. He'd play his way in and carry on like this until he was out. Yes I know there was sometimes a late cut off the back foot just behind square, but still.
SKS is risk averse (extremely so) but it's not general it's specific and it's focused. The risk he's averse to is throwing away an otherwise surefire election win by doing or saying anything too sparky. Keeping the excellent (and genuinely helpful) cricket theme he's playing his way in. So of course SKS looks like SGB right now. And this is good since nobody played his way in better than that great man.
Once he has done that (ie won the election) that's when we'll find out what Keir Starmer all about as a politician and a PM and (most importantly) as a batsman. I could be wrong (I'm only 75% convinced and could be doing a spot of pep talk to self) but I see him relaxing into some crowd-pleasing strokes and scoring a big hundred.
On whether Queen can stop a @BorisJohnson snap election: Wragg [chairman const affairs committee]: “You would be uncomfortable with a PM capriciously requesting of Her Majesty a dissolution?”
Case: “It would be quite wrong for the Prime Minister to put the Sovereign in a difficult position constitutionally.” 4:06 PM · Jun 28, 2022
NB Johnson then resigns 7 July
At that stage, it would have created the mother of all crises, but that was after 7 months of shit and with 2 and a half years of parliament to run. Sunak, May 2024, moving quickly in response to [merely] rumours of confidence letters, absolutely not a chance.
Anyone expecting different should lay the arse off Starmer next PM at 1.2
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
Vivek is a bit young (38th birthday yesterday) and it's the law that every American presidential election must have a tech squillionaire candidate who soars majestically before crashing into the sea.
On the 1983 election, those of us old enough remember the toxic effect of a) Michael Foot, and b) Labour's manifesto being the "longest suicide note in history". Although Foot was a great chap, his capacity to win a GE was comparable to Corbyn's. I think a) and b) were more significant than the Falklands or the SDP (and, of course, they gave rise to the SDP in the first place).
The Labour Party went Full Tonto - the SDP was a side effect of going ultra hard left.
You mean they wanted NATO to, in the fullness of time, perhaps consider a non-nuclear strategy? I put it that way because the 1983 manifesto didn't even promise to leave NATO. On the contrary it promised to stay in NATO. "Ultra hard left", my a*sehole! How on Earth can you be ultra hard left (not an expression I'd ever heard before BTW) and pro NATO membership?
Where was say the commitment to land nationalisation and to sorting out the private schools that was displayed by the Labour party under Clement Attlee in 1945? That was a MORE left wing manifesto than in 1983 and they won a landslide with it.
The SDP was primarily, absolutely primarily, about "defence" - defence of the USA.
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Harsh because much as I love Sir Geoffrey there were only 2 versions of him - dour and very dour. He'd play his way in and carry on like this until he was out. Yes I know there was sometimes a late cut off the back foot just behind square, but still.
SKS is risk averse (extremely so) but it's not general it's specific and it's focused. The risk he's averse to is throwing away an otherwise surefire election win by doing or saying anything too sparky. Keeping the excellent (and genuinely helpful) cricket theme he's playing his way in. So of course SKS looks like SGB right now. And this is good since nobody played his way in better than that great man.
Once he has done that (ie won the election) that's when we'll find out what Keir Starmer all about as a politician and a PM and (most importantly) as a batsman. I could be wrong (I'm only 75% convinced and could be doing a spot of pep talk to self) but I see him relaxing into some crowd-pleasing strokes and scoring a big hundred.
Geoffrey Boycott is a man whose personality problems make him a hero among a*seholes as if he were a kind of micro-Donald Trump, a racist, and a convicted woman beater. All round, a f***ing disgrace to Yorkshire.
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
Bobby is still bizarrely the same price for the Prez as for the Nom though. Implication being either there's a big chance he'll run anyway (and maybe win) without the Nom if necessary, or that if he does get the Nom he becomes a stone cold cert in November.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
It's not that we're due another 10-15 of Labour, just noting that has been the trend recently. Its not guaranteed. The alternative 'they will do unpopular things and quickly become hated' is no less a narrative since until they actually do win it too is based on assumption.
Or since 1979, no one has become prime minister without the backing of the murdoch press, I know people will say they have a declining influence, but the Tories now have two tv channels, churning out their garbage, in a years time we will find out how much influence they still carry
Labour never go full gas in by-elections, not to the Lib Dem degree. The LDs are by-election specialists. Labour are general election specialists.
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
And SKS is Geoffrey Boycott.
Harsh because much as I love Sir Geoffrey there were only 2 versions of him - dour and very dour. He'd play his way in and carry on like this until he was out. Yes I know there was sometimes a late cut off the back foot just behind square, but still.
SKS is risk averse (extremely so) but it's not general it's specific and it's focused. The risk he's averse to is throwing away an otherwise surefire election win by doing or saying anything too sparky. Keeping the excellent (and genuinely helpful) cricket theme he's playing his way in. So of course SKS looks like SGB right now. And this is good since nobody played his way in better than that great man.
Once he has done that (ie won the election) that's when we'll find out what Keir Starmer all about as a politician and a PM and (most importantly) as a batsman. I could be wrong (I'm only 75% convinced and could be doing a spot of pep talk to self) but I see him relaxing into some crowd-pleasing strokes and scoring a big hundred.
Geoffrey Boycott is a man whose personality problems make him a hero among a*seholes as if he were a kind of micro-Donald Trump, a racist, and a convicted woman beater. All round, a f***ing disgrace to Yorkshire.
Convicted in a French court, so not valid, as France, as we know, is a failed state.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
The unsaid thing is just how whopping our debt servicing costs have gone up.
I think it's something like from £25bn per annum to well over £100bn per annum.
So that's over 75bn a year HMG need to raise in taxes/cuts from public services.
Looks like ol' Robert Kennedy is fading a bit on Betfair. Do his backers not believe hard enough ?
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
I sort of stopped laying him because I realised my return over a year would be lower than inflation.
Better to just back Biden.
Depends how the rest of your book is. I've got 14 candidates laid to about 900 liability, so laying Ramaswamy (Which I haven't done as perhaps his price will come in a bit yet) would be cash +ve. I have Biden at +825 in my Betfair book, mainly by backing him around 7-1 for a ton.
Another speedy pass through Aberdeen airport. Business is good, hard work pays £lots and I'm broadly content with my lot.
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
If he's making loan repayments then he's likely earning over £27,925. That's approximately the median UK salary. The most militant groups in the public sector seem to be the highest paid - I'm neutral on UBI, but I don't see how you make it work - particularly if it's to be a net benefit on people earning over 30k without raising taxes on the higher paid and they're the ones who might f*** off to Australia to earn twice what they are here doing hip ops or whatever. I also fear it could be inflationary tbh.
Yes, earning the median salary and on a 9% higher rate of Income Tax, in the form of a Graduate Tax, its absurd isn't it?
The way to make it work is to ensure everyone on the same income pays the same rate of tax.
If you're earning £30k from non-salaried means then your marginal tax rate is 20% on that income.
If you're earning £30k from salaried employment with a student loan then your marginal tax rate is 41% on that income.
Why should someone earning a salary pay more than double the tax of someone else who isn't but earns the same amount?
Its even worse if someone earning a salary is on Universal Credit while having a Student Loan. Then the real marginal tax rate is 78.4%
Why the hell should someone on a marginal income be on a real Marginal Tax Rate of 78.4%?
Not to forget of course that tax thresholds are frozen, so inflation alone means if someone gets an inflationary pay-rise they're really losing 78.4% of that to tax so are substantially worse off. Someone needs a pay rise of 5x the rate of inflation nearly just to stand still!
The problems are house prices and inflation.
One funny one was discussing with some people the re-wilding of parts of Chicago. Houses being knocked down and the land cleared. It was getting through to people that in some parts of the world a house could be really, actually, surplus. A waste of space.
We have a similar population to France. 8 million fewer properties.
That's a killer stat.
That's 200 000 a year for 40 years.
Which is a measure both of how long this has been a problem and how long it will take to fix.
Not coincidentally, 40 years takes you back to early Thatcher, and Right to Buy.
Public sector secure and affordable long term rental is too small a piece of our housing landscape. There's a need to reverse the decline that started then.
Comments
Have a guess if I remember or not.
Voters made their choice though, and that's democracy. They could have chosen the SDP, 2 years earlier it looked like they would, and had the SDP won a majority from the same voting system that would be democracy too, but they chose something else.
So you might explain the pattern by arguing that the electorate is generally quite conservative, and prefers to leave an incumbent government in place unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. This speaks to the credibility problem an opposition has where, because they're not in government, they appear less credible as a future government.
It speaks to the saying that opposition's don't win elections, government's lose them, which feeds into the sense that, with FPTP, voters often vote against a party, as much as for another.
You might look at the instances where it has happened and say that a party fresh in opposition after a long stint in government tends to have become more inward-looking, and so has often spent a period in opposition arguing with itself, rather than engaging with the voters, and that this means it fails to attract the new voters required to win back power.
None of these explanations would be sufficient for me to conclude that it was inevitable that the Tories will spend at least two terms out of office when they next lose an election, but I think they're a decent set of ideas with which to look at what happens and judge how likely the Tories will be to regain power (once they lose it).
I'm not suggesting one simply blindly applies a historical pattern to contemporary events. And the most important thing about the future is how it is different to the past, but to an extent that is guesswork.
Masonry flintknapper Duncan Berry of Berry Stonework in Chichester, West Sussex, welcomed the funding news, saying there is a “big shortage” of flintknappers, although he would want to train more if he had the space: “We’re inundated with people wanting to learn.”
He added that there was huge demand for flint work, both for historic and contemporary buildings: “Flint has been used from the earliest structures. Even Roman buildings used flint. So it’s been used as a building material ever since they worked out that you could stick things together with lime mortars. It’s an amazing building material because it’s actually carbon neutral as well. You just pick it off the fields and stack it up.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/10/pak-n-save-savey-meal-bot-ai-app-malfunction-recipes
'
A New Zealand supermarket experimenting with using AI to generate meal plans has seen its app produce some unusual dishes – recommending customers recipes for deadly chlorine gas, “poison bread sandwiches” and mosquito-repellent roast potatoes.
The app, created by supermarket chain Pak ‘n’ Save, was advertised as a way for customers to creatively use up leftovers during the cost of living crisis. It asks users to enter in various ingredients in their homes, and auto-generates a meal plan or recipe, along with cheery commentary. It initially drew attention on social media for some unappealing recipes, including an “oreo vegetable stir-fry”.
When customers began experimenting with entering a wider range of household shopping list items into the app, however, it began to make even less appealing recommendations. One recipe it dubbed “aromatic water mix” would create chlorine gas. The bot recommends the recipe as “the perfect nonalcoholic beverage to quench your thirst and refresh your senses”'
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
western nation are behind in
the polls at present due to
historically high inflation,
whether that government is of
the right here or the left like
New Zealand.
Only significant exceptions Meloni's right wing government in Italy and Albanese's Labor government in Australia which still lead polls but they were both only recently elected in 2022
One of my former team on our WhatsApp group. Her husband has a team member (a bloke) in tears because he's so broke that he can't afford a birthday present for his gf. Guy is working for a good company paying market competitive rates, but cost of living in Newcastle and student loan repayments means working hard = being so broke you cry.
There's something structurally wrong in our economy. We need UBI.
May I offer you advice? Best to stick with Sunak who will win with just a small majority than turf him out and win big with the fragrant Penny.
and LD tactical votes in
Scotland to beat the SNP, he won't be getting any Conservative tactical votes in England though
They’re two distinct formats of the game. Think of the yellows as dominating limited overs while Labour do better in test matches, though not usually as well as the Tories. General elections are the ashes and conservatives are Australia.
At that election, the Labour Party posed as the great hope for reversing it. This was when Corbyn was their leader, so there was never any chance of that. Nevertheless there were opinion polls centred on the question of who was best placd in each constituency to reverse Brexit. The basisfor their recommendations was nation-wide opinion polls. A lot of Lib Dems voted Labour then, because they were told Labour had the best chance in their constituency.
So the 2019 election result was a complete distortion, but some Labour supporters are even now clinging to the hope that Labour is well-placed to win a particular seat next time.
Absentee Oregon lawmakers face disqualification from running in 2024
The Senate minority leader, who was among those in a GOP-led walkout, plans to sue.
https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2023/08/09/secretary-of-state-will-disqualify-legislators-with-10-unexcused-absences-from-running-in-2024/
The Oregon secretary of state said Tuesday that Republican state senators who had at least 10 unexcused absences during this year’s session will not be eligible to run in 2024.
LaVonne Griffin-Valade, who was recently appointed secretary, said in a statement she has directed her office to implement an administrative rule making it clear to legislators that Measure 113 will prevent them from running for a subsequent term. The measure was passed by voters in 2022 intending to end the walkouts by minority parties that have dogged the Legislature for years.
“It is clear voters intended Measure 113 to disqualify legislators from running for reelection if they had 10 or more unexcused absences in a legislative session,” said Griffin-Valade. “My decision honors the voters’ intent by enforcing the measure the way it was commonly understood when Oregonians added it to our state constitution.”..
I watched Labour Party conferences as a kid. With delegates arguing for leaving NATO and the EEC. One lady advocated joining the Warsaw Pact and COMECON…
The Labour Party at that point was jumping over a shark jumping over another shark.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly.
Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening.
Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
"Opinion polling for the 1983 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1983_United_Kingdom_general_election
What did you think of my other post on the subject @NickPalmer ?
I think this is a big error by Lab when they can easily say it is not one of the seats we need to govern.
Consider the following:
a) Lab stand aside - Nailed on LD win
b) LD stand aside - Probable Tory hold, possible Lab win
c) LD and Lab fight - who knows. 3 way split
In case b) and c) the Tories are potential winners and there is no negative press for them and possibly a lot of positive press for the Tories and negative for Lab.
In case a) there is a lot of negative press for the Tories, neutral for Lab and positive for the LDs
Which do you prefer as a lab supporter? Why take the risk when you don't have to? You are well ahead in the polls.
Edit: Sorry I see you have responded to my other post - cheers.
Known as "Mr. Reliable" - and subsequently a failure as captain.
Sunak would be more David Gower.
The way to make it work is to ensure everyone on the same income pays the same rate of tax.
If you're earning £30k from non-salaried means then your marginal tax rate is 20% on that income.
If you're earning £30k from salaried employment with a student loan then your marginal tax rate is 41% on that income.
Why should someone earning a salary pay more than double the tax of someone else who isn't but earns the same amount?
Its even worse if someone earning a salary is on Universal Credit while having a Student Loan. Then the real marginal tax rate is 78.4%
Why the hell should someone on a marginal income be on a real Marginal Tax Rate of 78.4%?
Not to forget of course that tax thresholds are frozen, so inflation alone means if someone gets an inflationary pay-rise they're really losing 78.4% of that to tax so are substantially worse off. Someone needs a pay rise of 5x the rate of inflation nearly just to stand still!
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4146537-christie-if-trump-doesnt-debate-it-shows-lack-of-respect/
..“The different it makes is for the Republican voters, because it shows his complete lack of respect for Republican voters,” Christie said in an interview Wednesday with Fox News’ Brett Baier. “He thinks, because he won the nomination twice, that it’s his...
would prefer a narrow Tory
win with Labour second in
Mid Bedfordshire than a LD win.
Remember ten years ago the LDs were in government with the Tories pursuing austerity with LD leader Sir Ed Davey a member of Cameron's Cabinet
The Memo: DeSantis confronts moment of truth
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4146398-the-memo-desantis-confronts-moment-of-truth/
..“Bless his heart, but Governor DeSantis doesn’t have a campaign staff problem, he has a candidate problem,” Trump senior adviser Jason Miller told this column. “You can’t coach personality.”..
I do appreciate the point you have made several times that avoiding the issue arising would be the best result. Life eh?
PS Might be worth thinking what Tories want eg @hyufd and doing the reverse. He seems keen on Labour fighting it. I wonder why? @hyufd is canny.
He swings to the left, he swings to the right, that Boris Johnson, his politics is shite.
And I was working on the basis of General elections are the Ashes and Conservatives are Australia.
Lds and labour both have an interest in beating the Tories but they don't owe each anything and neither should get shirty at the other not backing down, they aren't allies even if interests align.
1. Very high levels of debt and debt interest.
2. Ongoing demographic transition is increasing costs assumed by the State (Pensions and healthcare) while shrinking the tax base to pay for them.
3. Critical problems in multiple public services due to a lack of investment or chronic underfunding - delays in the criminal justice system, relatively poor performance in Education, hospitals crumbling.
4. Long-term underperformance of economy due to skills shortages and low business investment.
5. Bottlenecks in the economy due to a lack of infrastructure investment in transport, housing, etc.
6. General sense that the British economy has been living beyond its means for some decades now, funded by selling off assets to foreign investors, that there's not much left to sell, and the foreign investors will still want the return on their investment.
So, how do you find the money to pay for increased debt interest, increased costs due to the demographic transition, to fix neglected public services and infrastructure and still leave enough spare money in the economy for business investment and to pay foreign investors, without a drastic cut in household consumption that will crash some domestic sectors of the economy and create an enraged cohort of the electorate that will eject the incumbent government at the next election.
My main problem with Starmer's policies like VAT on private school fees is that I think it is a policy in complete denial of the scale of the problems faced.
They would not have lost. Their voteshare was too high and Labour's too low.
In both cases, there's something there, some genuine talent, but something critical missing that makes them fail.
This is fun... Boris as Pietersen? Huge individual talent and ego, no team leadership skills whatsoever?
One funny one was discussing with some people the re-wilding of parts of Chicago. Houses being knocked down and the land cleared. It was getting through to people that in some parts of the world a house could be really, actually, surplus. A waste of space.
We have a similar population to France. 8 million fewer properties.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
And in any event, Pietersen was a great player, innovative ahead of his time, and just badly managed, I'd argue.
Another possibility for Rishi - Graham Yallop ?
Very much like making love to a beautiful... Sorry. Very much like being Prime Minister.
But that's a very crude number, don't know how much Alp and Pyrenee you have to trade off vs how much highland
That was when inflation was last as high as it is now
The difference in publicity for a Tory win vs a loss here would be huge.
Which is a measure both of how long this has been a problem and how long it will take to fix.
A remarkable talent in many fields, but totally unsuited to being a leader and far too lazy to do the hard work to get the most out of his talent.
With the result he was brutally found out as captain and his career as a top athlete was actually quite short despite his unwillingness to give up when past his best.
Vivek Ramaswamy looks like he's becoming the latest flavour of the month amongst the outsiders.
SKS is risk averse (extremely so) but it's not general it's specific and it's focused. The risk he's averse to is throwing away an otherwise surefire election win by doing or saying anything too sparky. Keeping the excellent (and genuinely helpful) cricket theme he's playing his way in. So of course SKS looks like SGB right now. And this is good since nobody played his way in better than that great man.
Once he has done that (ie won the election) that's when we'll find out what Keir Starmer all about as a politician and a PM and (most importantly) as a batsman. I could be wrong (I'm only 75% convinced and could be doing a spot of pep talk to self) but I see him relaxing into some crowd-pleasing strokes and scoring a big hundred.
On whether Queen can stop a
@BorisJohnson
snap election:
Wragg [chairman const affairs committee]: “You would be uncomfortable with a PM capriciously requesting of Her Majesty a dissolution?”
Case: “It would be quite wrong for the Prime Minister to put the Sovereign in a difficult position constitutionally.”
4:06 PM · Jun 28, 2022
NB Johnson then resigns 7 July
At that stage, it would have created the mother of all crises, but that was after 7 months of shit and with 2 and a half years of parliament to run. Sunak, May 2024, moving quickly in response to [merely] rumours of confidence letters, absolutely not a chance.
Anyone expecting different should lay the arse off Starmer next PM at 1.2
Where was say the commitment to land nationalisation and to sorting out the private schools that was displayed by the Labour party under Clement Attlee in 1945? That was a MORE left wing manifesto than in 1983 and they won a landslide with it.
The SDP was primarily, absolutely primarily, about "defence" - defence of the USA.
Better to just back Biden.
I think it's something like from £25bn per annum to well over £100bn per annum.
So that's over 75bn a year HMG need to raise in taxes/cuts from public services.
And we have an update from the 110th on the hole caused by the massive MT-LB explosion:
3 months later a Russian BTR-80 drove into it.
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1689560659703341056