This is poor from Scotland, they really don't deserve to get out of the pool, sadly
A shame for Finn Russell, one of the greatest players in the world
Not a vintage month for Russells.
I can see England getting to the final now, maybe England v Ireland final?
Absolutely, England will win the WC and Rishi will storm to victory in the election. The joy of the next year will more than make up for the misery since Covid appeared. A glorious period of history and a fine time to be alive. And then the UFOs arrive and they are all massive Anglophiles and we will be top nation again.
Not Rishi - "Sunatler"
We have to promote this lamest of memes
Sunatler sounds like some sort of derogatory name that someone in Benidorm with a pink face and lashing on the olive oil for a “tan” calls the sensible chap in a panama.
“Look at the sun’atler, what a twat, what’s the point of coming on holiday and not getting a nice bit of skin cancer on your head.”
The problem with creating a band on conversion therapy is a bit like the dangerous dog thing.
We know it, when we see it. But creating a legal definition that holds water and protects legitimate medical professionals is another issue.
Consider - a friend’s daughter thought she might be trans. He didn’t judge - but got her to see a high end shrink. Who said she probably wasn’t trans but probably had other issues. So he paid a fortune over a couple of years in shrinks. She’s worked out her problems and is much happier now. How do you define that at not-conversion-therapy?
That can easily be solved by omitting gender identity from the bill. A bill on sexual orientation would have gone thru both houses. As I have commented before, politics is about priorities. To Sunak, bans on nonexistent meat bans and smoking have a higher priority than a ban on gay conversion therapy. And there y'go.
Except. Replace trans with gay in the example above and it isn't so easy.
Then again, some people who thought they were gay latter came to the conclusion they were actually trans....
Would a trick cyclist who gave that as opinion be a bigot?
Then again, some people who thought they were trans la[t]ter came to the conclusion they were actually gay....
Would a trick cyclist who gave that as opinion be a bigot?
I should thought the distinction between diagnosis and therapy would be fairly straightforward to draw.
Therapists can't make diagnoses. They don't have to have any qualifications. The vast majority of conversion therapy is not performed by doctors.
Therapy is not a protected term in this country. If you call yourself a doctor*, or a dentist, or a psychiatrist when you're not one then you're committing fraud but anyone can call themselves a therapist.
* This isn't helped by people with a PhD in something like literature then calling themselves Doctor and giving dodgy medical advice.
On a point of order - those with PhDs *are* doctors.
Those who practice medicine are usually BMs *calling themselves* ‘doctor’ as a courtesy title.
Senior surgeons of course use ‘Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms.’
Only if they have passed their FRCS, and not in Scotland where Surgeons are Doctors.
In terms of regulation, we need a proper regulatory body for Physician and Anaesthetic Assistants, as current regulation is minimal, yet they are being rolled out all over.
Keir to be PM in 2024. Then he will hand over to Wes in 2028 (Keir will be around 66 then) for Wes to win GE 2028/9.
Then maybe CON back 2032/3 led by someone we have virtually no knowledge of currently.
He’ll have been health minister. No-one advances from that.
Is it fair to say he is getting a hospital pass?
There is so much trouble stacking up that taking over will be a massive task, and I am unconvinced by his witterings. This winter is going to be very grim.
I've really enjoyed watching the Scots so far. Just great rugby. I think the best Scottish rugby I've ever seen. I'm not sure they're quite up to big victories, but I hope they are. I think of the Italians in much the same mould.
I can't get enthusiastic about the English, Irish, or Welsh teams. Of course their professionalism and quality get them through, but I'm not cheering their progress.
Four games left in Pool B and everyone agrees that it all comes down to one of them. Because the result of two of them is already known and the result of the other one decides 4th and 5th place.
Three games with basically no interest and the other one where three teams will learn their fates.
Roll on the QFs when this tournament will actually, you know, start.
If Labour can't win the next general election they really are a joke. The Tories seem to be going all out to give their opponents ammunition.
Personally I’m against the ban on “conversion therapy”. It’s another piece of illiberal, virtue signalling dressed up as government legislation.
I also don’t like this idea of slowly abolishing cigarettes.
I'm not thinking about the issue being right or wrong, but politically it's inept to say you will do something and then abandon it and in the process paint yourself as homophobic.
Upsets everyone, sooner or later.
"Conversion therapy" should be banned , not only on the moral grounds of its outright offensiveness, but because it has zero basis in science. It is therefore quack science and should be banned on that basis if no other.
The problem comes when everything except aggressive “gender affirming care”, becomes labelled pejoratively as “conversion therapy” - when much of the time, it’s simply the medical practice of psycology and psychiatry.
Again, that can easily be solved by omitting gender identity from the bill. I realise that PB has a hobbyhorse when it comes to trans, but the bill's omission means that gay people are unprotected.
That was proposed which saw a backlash though.
I don't know a good solution but @Nigel_Foremain was on the right track by saying that therapy should be based on science rather than fanatics calling themselves "therapists" which is the problem.
How can you address that through the law though? I honestly don't know.
Fairly easily. You make sure that anyone who claims to be able to "make the gay go away" are prosecuted for being the charlatans that they are. Most medical procedures require regulatory oversight (and I think it also includes psychological "talking therapy". If they claim this is "therapy" they need to be prosecuted as quacks. Additionally people need to sue them.
I agree with that completely, but I'm not sure how you write a law that does that without catching entirely genuine therapy which Malmesbury described as 4:34pm.
It probably can be done, but it needs to be done sensibly so that legitimate therapy isn't caught in the crossfires.
Don't you just ban any therapy intended to change someone's sexual preference, and let a jury decide the verdict in the usual way?
"M'lud, X thought she was A when she began the therapy. Now she thinks she is B. This is clear evidence that Dr Gregory House is practising conversion therapy."
That's why I suggested a criterion that wouldn't allow such a daft argument to be put.
Intended does a lot of heavy lifting in your definition. And we then move on to proving intent…..
The plan to abolish inheritance tax reminds me of Corbyn’s pledge to abolish tuition fees. With that and the dicking about with net zero, he’s recognisably as reckless and irresponsible as Corbyn. He deserves the same fate.
If they did get rid of inheritance tax it would make its replacement fair game. Time to move it on to the recipient, I suggest something like a lifetime allowance of £100k tax free, next £200k @ 15%, anything more @ 40%.
And the in principle point remains: these are assets accumulated from taxed income. Why should it be taxed a second time just because it has been transferred with no economic activity?
Yes, but double taxation is perfectly normal. I paid beer tax, petrol tax and VAT in the last week, all from after tax income.
Unless you think the only tax should be income tax?
Those are all taxes on economic activity
Inheritance tax is not.
Right, and we should favour taxes on lack of economic activity over taxes on economic activity, because that encourages people to spend money and keep the economy moving, rather than just sitting on it. So that makes inheritance tax the worst one to consider scrapping IMO. Plus taxing large inheritances rather than peoples' everyday spending is more progressive taxation.
No it’s a fundamental question of how you view the world.
I believe that people own their assets. When they increase value to themselves (through income, capital gains or purchase of goods that add value) then they should pay tax on that increase (let’s call it “sharing the proceeds of growth”)
The state doesn’t just have the right to confiscate assets because it wants them.
If you need more then you should replace the principal residence relief with a rollover relief.
Your beliefs don't have any more magical permanent truth than others. If inheritance tax is removed I suspect it is odds on that it will be replaced by something you like even less within a decade.
It’s called a discussion. Im staying my opinion. I guess your response means that you don’t have any good philosophical answers.
(For what it’s worth I don’t favour eliminating inheritance tax - it exists and that’s life. Or not as the case may be. And I suspect it would be replaced by something even more philosophically unsound.)
FPT @StillWaters sorry to dredge up a comment from earlier today but I love a decent philosophical position clearly put and respect yours.
Some questions (none loaded, all genuine): 1. Do you believe that to be true for all assets, however they have been accrued? To take an extreme example - do kleptocrats in Russia own their shares of gas companies? 2. If no to 1, what credence do you give to the idea that many of the assets that any of us own in the UK are dependent on historically unequal accrual of capital and the means of production (in layman’s terms, why is it that i can afford to spend £4.40 on an almond croissant in a Bristol cafe whilst others globally who work just as hard as me can’t afford to spend £4.40 on a day’s food for their kids)? 3. If you give any credence to the ideas in (2), on what basis do you think it is morally defensible for those who are vastly more wealthy than the global median to retain their assets in the face of redistributive taxation?
I’m not trying to defend IHT per se here, I just find the philosophical position that rich people own their assets morally indefensible in the face of the historical reasons why such assets are distributed so unequally.
I've really enjoyed watching the Scots so far. Just great rugby. I think the best Scottish rugby I've ever seen. I'm not sure they're quite up to big victories, but I hope they are. I think of the Italians in much the same mould.
I can't get enthusiastic about the English, Irish, or Welsh teams. Of course their professionalism and quality get them through, but I'm not cheering their progress.
England were amazing against Chile. Yes, they were playing the worst team in the tournament but they showed tremendous brio, and Smith and Arundell are two world class backs - they just need to be unleashed
Can England do that against better teams? Dunno, but if they can, it's game on, and they could (should?) go all the way to the final, their draw is so easy
Scotland have looked undercooked, after an excellent build-up, I severely doubt they will break out of the pool
With Dupont injured and, it seems, out of the tournament, it has to be Ireland or SA for the Cup, overall
I pointed out that England were VALUE at the beginning of the tournament as 18/1 outsiders. Sure, England have been rubbish, and Borthwick is as dull as Doncaster, but i's still England, one of the trad powerhouses, and they have lots of talent, and a record of outperforming at World Cups - 4 finals, 1 win - so 18/1 was decidedly generous
Ouch. That's not even laying Sir Keir as next PM, so you can't even win from Sunak being replaced.
Ouch, ouch, ouch.
Well I laid it when Boris was PM, and if he still was I would be in better shape
Not that I think, want or wish that Boris was PM now, but I'm far from sure that if he was things would be worse.
I've spent much of the weekend speaking to many old and wise friends - much in contrast to my old and daft self. Nobody has a clue what's going on!
In an alternate timeline, if he had struggled through the Pincher revelations and faced down the cabinet mutiny, he'd probably have sunk to an even lower poll rating. But he might well have bounced back.
And there would almost certainly have been other scandals, more revolts, and a series of ever-lower lows - followed by bounce after bounce after bounce.
He might have run out of people prepared to sit in his cabinet, no matter how much they were bribed. Or the general election might have coincided with a 'low' phase, rather than a bounce. The risks were too great; I understand why he had to go.
The problem with Sunak, though, is that there's no hope of anything like a Boris Bounce happening. So I wouldn't blame the Tories for feeling a bit of anemoiac nostalgia for what might have been.
I pointed out that England were VALUE at the beginning of the tournament as 18/1 outsiders. Sure, England have been rubbish, and Borthwick is as dull as Doncaster, but i's still England, one of the trad powerhouses, and they have lots of talent, and a record of outperforming at World Cups - 4 finals, 1 win - so 18/1 was decidedly generous
I bet they will bury the idea and hand the poisoned chalice to Labour
Interesting. Delay until the GE campaign or drop forever?
What are they going to come up with instead to try to move the polls?
It’s hardly a vote winner. “Cancel a massive railway project showing that we fucked it all up over the last 13 years and now we’ve wasted £40 billion and also destroyed 3 trillion trees for no reason”
I've really enjoyed watching the Scots so far. Just great rugby. I think the best Scottish rugby I've ever seen. I'm not sure they're quite up to big victories, but I hope they are. I think of the Italians in much the same mould.
I can't get enthusiastic about the English, Irish, or Welsh teams. Of course their professionalism and quality get them through, but I'm not cheering their progress.
England were amazing against Chile. Yes, they were playing the worst team in the tournament but they showed tremendous brio, and Smith and Arundell are two world class backs - they just need to be unleashed
Can England do that against better teams? Dunno, but if they can, it's game on, and they could (should?) go all the way to the final, their draw is so easy
Scotland have looked undercooked, after an excellent build-up, I severely doubt they will break out of the pool
With Dupont injured and, it seems, out of the tournament, it has to be Ireland or SA for the Cup, overall
I genuinely think Scotland can beat anyone, but like you it's not really my expectation that they actually will feature. They've not quite fired yet, as you say.
I guess I still think France are the most likely winners, followed by the Kiwis, but I'm sure I'm biased in that I want the teams to play the Rugby that I like to win.
I've really enjoyed watching the Scots so far. Just great rugby. I think the best Scottish rugby I've ever seen. I'm not sure they're quite up to big victories, but I hope they are. I think of the Italians in much the same mould.
I can't get enthusiastic about the English, Irish, or Welsh teams. Of course their professionalism and quality get them through, but I'm not cheering their progress.
England were amazing against Chile. Yes, they were playing the worst team in the tournament but they showed tremendous brio, and Smith and Arundell are two world class backs - they just need to be unleashed
Can England do that against better teams? Dunno, but if they can, it's game on, and they could (should?) go all the way to the final, their draw is so easy
Scotland have looked undercooked, after an excellent build-up, I severely doubt they will break out of the pool
With Dupont injured and, it seems, out of the tournament, it has to be Ireland or SA for the Cup, overall
I genuinely think Scotland can beat anyone, but like you it's not really my expectation that they actually will feature. They've not quite fired yet, as you say.
I guess I still think France are the most likely winners, followed by the Kiwis, but I'm sure I'm biased in that I want the teams to play the Rugby that I like to win.
England played that rugby yesterday. Yes it was against Chile but they played maybe the most entertaining running rugby of the tournament bar Fiji
But it’s very different playing a proper side. Of course. Personally I think Borthwick should go for it. Always play like that. We will probably lose but we will probably lose anyway. Better to go out in style and we might just unsettle the better teams
I pointed out that England were VALUE at the beginning of the tournament as 18/1 outsiders. Sure, England have been rubbish, and Borthwick is as dull as Doncaster, but i's still England, one of the trad powerhouses, and they have lots of talent, and a record of outperforming at World Cups - 4 finals, 1 win - so 18/1 was decidedly generous
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
I thought Sunak was initially pursuing some kind of core vote strategy, but after reading about his plan to ban cigarettes it seems like he just wants to pursue some personal peeves before he's booted out of office. For all this talk of him being optimistic, I actually think he's given up.
“Members and MPs will gather on Monday for their infamous Glee Club event, which will close out the final evening of the gathering in Bournemouth with political parodies of popular songs.
“The 32nd edition of the Liberator Song Book, priced at £5, includes Gold Stars (On My Flag) written to the tune of Three Lions.”
On therapy, Sigmund's grandson Clement told how a conference was once convened in the mid-west by "Therapists of Indiana" with an unfortunately misplaced gap in the first word after the first syllable
I've really enjoyed watching the Scots so far. Just great rugby. I think the best Scottish rugby I've ever seen. I'm not sure they're quite up to big victories, but I hope they are. I think of the Italians in much the same mould.
I can't get enthusiastic about the English, Irish, or Welsh teams. Of course their professionalism and quality get them through, but I'm not cheering their progress.
England were amazing against Chile. Yes, they were playing the worst team in the tournament but they showed tremendous brio, and Smith and Arundell are two world class backs - they just need to be unleashed
Can England do that against better teams? Dunno, but if they can, it's game on, and they could (should?) go all the way to the final, their draw is so easy
Scotland have looked undercooked, after an excellent build-up, I severely doubt they will break out of the pool
With Dupont injured and, it seems, out of the tournament, it has to be Ireland or SA for the Cup, overall
I genuinely think Scotland can beat anyone, but like you it's not really my expectation that they actually will feature. They've not quite fired yet, as you say.
I guess I still think France are the most likely winners, followed by the Kiwis, but I'm sure I'm biased in that I want the teams to play the Rugby that I like to win.
England played that rugby yesterday. Yes it was against Chile but they played maybe the most entertaining running rugby of the tournament bar Fiji
But it’s very different playing a proper side. Of course. Personally I think Borthwick should go for it. Always play like that. We will probably lose but we will probably lose anyway. Better to go out in style and we might just unsettle the better teams
Smith is sensational when he gets the chance
Didn't see ydays match as I was busy bending my social ear. Chile are no chumps (those days are over). To beat them so well shows something about the England team.
I'll watch the footage tomorrow, and yes I agree Smith is a great star - is he great enough to shape a team in part around him? Not sure.
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
Probably yes. It's expensive and goes through nice bits of the Chilterns. Better to spend the money on something else, like tax cuts.
One of the problems with having such a partisan media these days is that it's much easier to avoid hearing the other side's arguments. Bad for the public, but also bad for politicians; it makes them lazier and hence stupider.
The days when ten million people watched News at Ten have gone, and aren't coming back. But shows like that were probably a good thing.
Who in their right mind would say “let’s float we’re thinking of axing HS2 a week before our conference in Manchester, leave it hanging so it sits over everything like a wet blanket, and do it while spinning Rishi’s taking hard choices and levelling with the voters”.
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
I honestly think the Tories might was well as give Sunak the boot now. Banning cigarettes, having a half-finished railway ending at Old Oak Common... he's every bit as useless and incompetent as Truss was, isn't he?
I pointed out that England were VALUE at the beginning of the tournament as 18/1 outsiders. Sure, England have been rubbish, and Borthwick is as dull as Doncaster, but i's still England, one of the trad powerhouses, and they have lots of talent, and a record of outperforming at World Cups - 4 finals, 1 win - so 18/1 was decidedly generous
EXC: Scottish Conservative MSP @mgoldenmsp has attacked Rishi Sunak’s watering down of plans to tackle climate change and accused the prime minister of “dragging net zero into the territory of culture wars”
No10 were prob hoping voters close to North Sea oil industry would be sympathetic to the net zero U-turn & might be concerned to see a Tory MSP being critical
Banning “conversion therapy” , like phasing out smoking, is a solution without a problem.
I don’t really understand the idea that phasing out smoking is a bad idea. I’m saying this as a smoker and a liberal but smoking is something where there really is no upside. It kills and damages so many people for absolutely no benefit.
It’s not just the danger but the anti social side to it - if I’m outside a bar or restaurant I won’t smoke whilst neighbouring tables are eating but a lot of smokers don’t give a shit so others have to put up with toxic smoke and the resulting smell and of course the passive smoking element.
It’s not like booze where, whilst some people overindulge with damaging effects, alcohol does have a benefit to society in its relaxation, social bonding, joy of different tastes and flavours but smoking is grim - you smell of smoke, taste of smoke, cough, die.
It’s like making seatbelts compulsory in that it’s something that in hindsight is a no-brainier for the lives it saves for how little it damages society through the law.
In fifty years time people will look back and wonder why society allowed people to buy a product that massively increases their chances of death from a dangerous chemical that’s just not good in any way. I think the future lives saved, the reduction in smoking related cancers and even fag butts on the street are well worth the state stepping in.
Phasing out smoking is a good idea.
Prohibition is a bad idea.
Square that circle. Phase out smoking through education, not prohibition.
Smoking is in decline anyway and has been since the seventies. But you’re a free market adherent, if people know the risks and want to smoke why shouldn’t they ? We all do stuff that is dangerous, or has some risk. I cycle to work every day. I know the risk, I manage it and I have a go pro.
Cycling is a lot less risky for those around you than smoking is. Passive smoking, even in the age of bans on smoking in indoor public places, still causes large numbers of cancers, heart disease, asthma, and much more.
Cycling causes a handful of deaths to e.g. pedestrians each year. Much lower numbers of fatalities and my best guess would be correspondingly lower numbers of non-fatal injuries than smoking causes.
Who in their right mind would say “let’s float we’re thinking of axing HS2 a week before our conference in Manchester, leave it hanging so it sits over everything like a wet blanket, and do it while spinning Rishi’s taking hard choices and levelling with the voters”.
Wow. If Rishi's woes weren't piling up enough, he can now include being the first Tory leader to have lost Dan Hodges.
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
Probably yes. It's expensive and goes through nice bits of the Chilterns. Better to spend the money on something else, like tax cuts.
One of the problems with having such a partisan media these days is that it's much easier to avoid hearing the other side's arguments. Bad for the public, but also bad for politicians; it makes them lazier and hence stupider.
The days when ten million people watched News at Ten have gone, and aren't coming back. But shows like that were probably a good thing.
HS2 is literally going 'through' the nice part of the Chilterns, and the tunnel is about 80% bored now so that's not getting cancelled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiltern_tunnel
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
On current trends, that won't be happening.
Some faint shadows of 1997.
Not really.
In 1997 New Labour inherited low inflation, relatively low interest rates (even despite Black Wednesday 4 years earlier) and few strikes and a relatively balanced national budget.
Today the economy looks more like that of the late 1960s or 1970s during which there were frequent changes of government than 1997. Plus Starmer is no Blair either in appeal to Middle England
Banning “conversion therapy” , like phasing out smoking, is a solution without a problem.
I don’t really understand the idea that phasing out smoking is a bad idea. I’m saying this as a smoker and a liberal but smoking is something where there really is no upside. It kills and damages so many people for absolutely no benefit.
It’s not just the danger but the anti social side to it - if I’m outside a bar or restaurant I won’t smoke whilst neighbouring tables are eating but a lot of smokers don’t give a shit so others have to put up with toxic smoke and the resulting smell and of course the passive smoking element.
It’s not like booze where, whilst some people overindulge with damaging effects, alcohol does have a benefit to society in its relaxation, social bonding, joy of different tastes and flavours but smoking is grim - you smell of smoke, taste of smoke, cough, die.
It’s like making seatbelts compulsory in that it’s something that in hindsight is a no-brainier for the lives it saves for how little it damages society through the law.
In fifty years time people will look back and wonder why society allowed people to buy a product that massively increases their chances of death from a dangerous chemical that’s just not good in any way. I think the future lives saved, the reduction in smoking related cancers and even fag butts on the street are well worth the state stepping in.
Phasing out smoking is a good idea.
Prohibition is a bad idea.
Square that circle. Phase out smoking through education, not prohibition.
Smoking is in decline anyway and has been since the seventies. But you’re a free market adherent, if people know the risks and want to smoke why shouldn’t they ? We all do stuff that is dangerous, or has some risk. I cycle to work every day. I know the risk, I manage it and I have a go pro.
Cycling is a lot less risky for those around you than smoking is. Passive smoking, even in the age of bans on smoking in indoor public places, still causes large numbers of cancers, heart disease, asthma, and much more.
Cycling causes a handful of deaths to e.g. pedestrians each year. Much lower numbers of fatalities and my best guess would be correspondingly lower numbers of non-fatal injuries than smoking causes.
Being around the lycra lobby can seriously damage your well-being. Their claims to moral superiority are intolerable.
EXC: Scottish Conservative MSP @mgoldenmsp has attacked Rishi Sunak’s watering down of plans to tackle climate change and accused the prime minister of “dragging net zero into the territory of culture wars”
No10 were prob hoping voters close to North Sea oil industry would be sympathetic to the net zero U-turn & might be concerned to see a Tory MSP being critical
But a thriving North Sea oil and gas industry improves the argument for Scottish independence.
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
On current trends, that won't be happening.
Some faint shadows of 1997.
Not really.
In 1997 New Labour inherited low inflation, relatively low interest rates (even despite Black Wednesday 4 years earlier) and few strikes and a relatively balanced national budget.
Today the economy looks more like that of the late 1960s or 1970s during which there were frequent changes of government than 1997. Plus Starmer is no Blair either in appeal to Middle England
Inflation is heading down, unemployment is still low (could perhaps usefully be higher to give a growth buffer) and we are told that interest rates have peaked.
I'd say the question is whether this is in time to rescue Rishi, and I'd say not. He'll be up against the time buffers a la Major.
There will be a lot to sort out around the deficit and debt etc, however Rishi seems to me to be hoping that no one will notice that - whilst waffling on about tax cuts in X years time, and tripping over his political feet every week.
If Labour can't win the next general election they really are a joke. The Tories seem to be going all out to give their opponents ammunition.
Personally I’m against the ban on “conversion therapy”. It’s another piece of illiberal, virtue signalling dressed up as government legislation.
I also don’t like this idea of slowly abolishing cigarettes.
I'm not thinking about the issue being right or wrong, but politically it's inept to say you will do something and then abandon it and in the process paint yourself as homophobic.
Upsets everyone, sooner or later.
"Conversion therapy" should be banned , not only on the moral grounds of its outright offensiveness, but because it has zero basis in science. It is therefore quack science and should be banned on that basis if no other.
The problem comes when everything except aggressive “gender affirming care”, becomes labelled pejoratively as “conversion therapy” - when much of the time, it’s simply the medical practice of psycology and psychiatry.
Again, that can easily be solved by omitting gender identity from the bill. I realise that PB has a hobbyhorse when it comes to trans, but the bill's omission means that gay people are unprotected.
It's pretty obvious that anti-trans prejudice is a lot more acceptable than anti-gay prejudice. In much the same way that anti-Muslim prejudice is more acceptable than racial prejudice.
Anti-women prejudice is even more acceptable and widespread from all sorts of people - from reactionary gammons to so-called liberals and "progressives". Indeed, it seems to be the comfortable default of very many men - when challenged about the consequences of male behaviour.
Men are apparently fit to rule the world but seemingly unable to rule themselves and modify their behaviour seems to be the unspoken assumption of far too many - as recent cases have shown.
@MeetThePress · 3h NEW: Almost 60% of Democratic primary voters say they want options other than President Biden in 2024 in the latest NBC News national poll.
@SteveKornacki : “This is not a normal number for an incumbent. ... That’s a very high number.”
Odd really that there isn't a similar number in the Republican Party. Trump is only 3 years younger and appears much more intellectually challenged than Biden.
Biden looks frail, Trump doesn't. (The fact that he is a psychopathic narcissist is apparently fine though.)
I wonder if the Tories are so deluded they thought half-cancelling HS2 was going to be popular
Probably yes. It's expensive and goes through nice bits of the Chilterns. Better to spend the money on something else, like tax cuts.
One of the problems with having such a partisan media these days is that it's much easier to avoid hearing the other side's arguments. Bad for the public, but also bad for politicians; it makes them lazier and hence stupider.
The days when ten million people watched News at Ten have gone, and aren't coming back. But shows like that were probably a good thing.
HS2 is literally going 'through' the nice part of the Chilterns, and the tunnel is about 80% bored now so that's not getting cancelled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiltern_tunnel
It will make a lovely cycle path after HS2 is cancelled to pay for a reverse windfall tax to hedge funds.
Banning “conversion therapy” , like phasing out smoking, is a solution without a problem.
I don’t really understand the idea that phasing out smoking is a bad idea. I’m saying this as a smoker and a liberal but smoking is something where there really is no upside. It kills and damages so many people for absolutely no benefit.
It’s not just the danger but the anti social side to it - if I’m outside a bar or restaurant I won’t smoke whilst neighbouring tables are eating but a lot of smokers don’t give a shit so others have to put up with toxic smoke and the resulting smell and of course the passive smoking element.
It’s not like booze where, whilst some people overindulge with damaging effects, alcohol does have a benefit to society in its relaxation, social bonding, joy of different tastes and flavours but smoking is grim - you smell of smoke, taste of smoke, cough, die.
It’s like making seatbelts compulsory in that it’s something that in hindsight is a no-brainier for the lives it saves for how little it damages society through the law.
In fifty years time people will look back and wonder why society allowed people to buy a product that massively increases their chances of death from a dangerous chemical that’s just not good in any way. I think the future lives saved, the reduction in smoking related cancers and even fag butts on the street are well worth the state stepping in.
Phasing out smoking is a good idea.
Prohibition is a bad idea.
Square that circle. Phase out smoking through education, not prohibition.
Smoking is in decline anyway and has been since the seventies. But you’re a free market adherent, if people know the risks and want to smoke why shouldn’t they ? We all do stuff that is dangerous, or has some risk. I cycle to work every day. I know the risk, I manage it and I have a go pro.
Cycling is a lot less risky for those around you than smoking is. Passive smoking, even in the age of bans on smoking in indoor public places, still causes large numbers of cancers, heart disease, asthma, and much more.
Cycling causes a handful of deaths to e.g. pedestrians each year. Much lower numbers of fatalities and my best guess would be correspondingly lower numbers of non-fatal injuries than smoking causes.
Being around the lycra lobby can seriously damage your well-being. Their claims to moral superiority are intolerable.
EXC: Scottish Conservative MSP @mgoldenmsp has attacked Rishi Sunak’s watering down of plans to tackle climate change and accused the prime minister of “dragging net zero into the territory of culture wars”
No10 were prob hoping voters close to North Sea oil industry would be sympathetic to the net zero U-turn & might be concerned to see a Tory MSP being critical
But a thriving North Sea oil and gas industry improves the argument for Scottish independence.
LOL. The SNP are pledged to close it down. Pay attention.
Banning “conversion therapy” , like phasing out smoking, is a solution without a problem.
I don’t really understand the idea that phasing out smoking is a bad idea. I’m saying this as a smoker and a liberal but smoking is something where there really is no upside. It kills and damages so many people for absolutely no benefit.
It’s not just the danger but the anti social side to it - if I’m outside a bar or restaurant I won’t smoke whilst neighbouring tables are eating but a lot of smokers don’t give a shit so others have to put up with toxic smoke and the resulting smell and of course the passive smoking element.
It’s not like booze where, whilst some people overindulge with damaging effects, alcohol does have a benefit to society in its relaxation, social bonding, joy of different tastes and flavours but smoking is grim - you smell of smoke, taste of smoke, cough, die.
It’s like making seatbelts compulsory in that it’s something that in hindsight is a no-brainier for the lives it saves for how little it damages society through the law.
In fifty years time people will look back and wonder why society allowed people to buy a product that massively increases their chances of death from a dangerous chemical that’s just not good in any way. I think the future lives saved, the reduction in smoking related cancers and even fag butts on the street are well worth the state stepping in.
Phasing out smoking is a good idea.
Prohibition is a bad idea.
Square that circle. Phase out smoking through education, not prohibition.
Smoking is in decline anyway and has been since the seventies. But you’re a free market adherent, if people know the risks and want to smoke why shouldn’t they ? We all do stuff that is dangerous, or has some risk. I cycle to work every day. I know the risk, I manage it and I have a go pro.
Cycling is a lot less risky for those around you than smoking is. Passive smoking, even in the age of bans on smoking in indoor public places, still causes large numbers of cancers, heart disease, asthma, and much more.
Cycling causes a handful of deaths to e.g. pedestrians each year. Much lower numbers of fatalities and my best guess would be correspondingly lower numbers of non-fatal injuries than smoking causes.
Being around the lycra lobby can seriously damage your well-being. Their claims to moral superiority are intolerable.
You sound fragile
Try living in Oxford where the cycling lobby dominates the public sphere. It has created division and a lot of bad feeling.
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
On current trends, that won't be happening.
Some faint shadows of 1997.
Not really.
In 1997 New Labour inherited low inflation, relatively low interest rates (even despite Black Wednesday 4 years earlier) and few strikes and a relatively balanced national budget.
Today the economy looks more like that of the late 1960s or 1970s during which there were frequent changes of government than 1997. Plus Starmer is no Blair either in appeal to Middle England
Inflation is heading down, unemployment is still low (could perhaps usefully be higher to give a growth buffer) and we are told that interest rates have peaked.
I'd say the question is whether this is in time to rescue Rishi, and I'd say not. He'll be up against the time buffers a la Major.
There will be a lot to sort out around the deficit and debt etc, however Rishi seems to me to be hoping that no one will notice that - whilst waffling on about tax cuts in X years time, and tripping over his political feet every week.
Inflation at over 6% is still double the 3% it was in 1997.
Labour would also come under pressure from its base in government to increase spending, adding to inflationary pressures and also then to raise taxes to fund it
I see that Challenger Tanks are exempt from the ULEZ, along with other MOD vehicles.
TBF a lot of MOD vehicles are probably pre-1983 and would be exempt anyway.
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) and Transport for London (TfL) operate a selected partner scheme whereby notified MOD owned or leased vehicles are exempt from the London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) and Greater London Low Emission Zone (LEZ) charges; exemptions prevent the disruption of operational activity. https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/question/199537/armed-forces-vehicles
EXC: Scottish Conservative MSP @mgoldenmsp has attacked Rishi Sunak’s watering down of plans to tackle climate change and accused the prime minister of “dragging net zero into the territory of culture wars”
No10 were prob hoping voters close to North Sea oil industry would be sympathetic to the net zero U-turn & might be concerned to see a Tory MSP being critical
But a thriving North Sea oil and gas industry improves the argument for Scottish independence.
It doesn't when the SNP wants to stop extracting oil and gas
Banning “conversion therapy” , like phasing out smoking, is a solution without a problem.
I don’t really understand the idea that phasing out smoking is a bad idea. I’m saying this as a smoker and a liberal but smoking is something where there really is no upside. It kills and damages so many people for absolutely no benefit.
It’s not just the danger but the anti social side to it - if I’m outside a bar or restaurant I won’t smoke whilst neighbouring tables are eating but a lot of smokers don’t give a shit so others have to put up with toxic smoke and the resulting smell and of course the passive smoking element.
It’s not like booze where, whilst some people overindulge with damaging effects, alcohol does have a benefit to society in its relaxation, social bonding, joy of different tastes and flavours but smoking is grim - you smell of smoke, taste of smoke, cough, die.
It’s like making seatbelts compulsory in that it’s something that in hindsight is a no-brainier for the lives it saves for how little it damages society through the law.
In fifty years time people will look back and wonder why society allowed people to buy a product that massively increases their chances of death from a dangerous chemical that’s just not good in any way. I think the future lives saved, the reduction in smoking related cancers and even fag butts on the street are well worth the state stepping in.
Phasing out smoking is a good idea.
Prohibition is a bad idea.
Square that circle. Phase out smoking through education, not prohibition.
Smoking is in decline anyway and has been since the seventies. But you’re a free market adherent, if people know the risks and want to smoke why shouldn’t they ? We all do stuff that is dangerous, or has some risk. I cycle to work every day. I know the risk, I manage it and I have a go pro.
Cycling is a lot less risky for those around you than smoking is. Passive smoking, even in the age of bans on smoking in indoor public places, still causes large numbers of cancers, heart disease, asthma, and much more.
Cycling causes a handful of deaths to e.g. pedestrians each year. Much lower numbers of fatalities and my best guess would be correspondingly lower numbers of non-fatal injuries than smoking causes.
Being around the lycra lobby can seriously damage your well-being. Their claims to moral superiority are intolerable.
You sound fragile
Try living in Oxford where the cycling lobby dominates the public sphere. It has created division and a lot of bad feeling.
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
On current trends, that won't be happening.
Some faint shadows of 1997.
Not really.
In 1997 New Labour inherited low inflation, relatively low interest rates (even despite Black Wednesday 4 years earlier) and few strikes and a relatively balanced national budget.
Today the economy looks more like that of the late 1960s or 1970s during which there were frequent changes of government than 1997. Plus Starmer is no Blair either in appeal to Middle England
Inflation is heading down, unemployment is still low (could perhaps usefully be higher to give a growth buffer) and we are told that interest rates have peaked.
I'd say the question is whether this is in time to rescue Rishi, and I'd say not. He'll be up against the time buffers a la Major.
There will be a lot to sort out around the deficit and debt etc, however Rishi seems to me to be hoping that no one will notice that - whilst waffling on about tax cuts in X years time, and tripping over his political feet every week.
Inflation at over 6% is still double the 3% it was in 1997.
Labour will also come under pressure from its base to increase spending, adding to inflationary pressures and also then to raise taxes to fund it
Is Starmer has the courage to merge NI with income tax so it applies to the same income that Income Tax applies to then that would fully fund any increased spending he might want to make while fixing a major inequity in the tax code.
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
On current trends, that won't be happening.
Some faint shadows of 1997.
Not really.
In 1997 New Labour inherited low inflation, relatively low interest rates (even despite Black Wednesday 4 years earlier) and few strikes and a relatively balanced national budget.
Today the economy looks more like that of the late 1960s or 1970s during which there were frequent changes of government than 1997. Plus Starmer is no Blair either in appeal to Middle England
Inflation is heading down, unemployment is still low (could perhaps usefully be higher to give a growth buffer) and we are told that interest rates have peaked.
I'd say the question is whether this is in time to rescue Rishi, and I'd say not. He'll be up against the time buffers a la Major.
There will be a lot to sort out around the deficit and debt etc, however Rishi seems to me to be hoping that no one will notice that - whilst waffling on about tax cuts in X years time, and tripping over his political feet every week.
Inflation at over 6% is still double the 3% it was in 1997.
Labour would also come under pressure from its base in government to increase spending, adding to inflationary pressures and also then to raise taxes to fund it
Yes and public services will improve, NHS waiting lists will fall, people will begin to believe things can actually work again in this country, closer cooperation with Europe and easier trade rules will boost the economy.
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
On current trends, that won't be happening.
Some faint shadows of 1997.
Not really.
In 1997 New Labour inherited low inflation, relatively low interest rates (even despite Black Wednesday 4 years earlier) and few strikes and a relatively balanced national budget.
Today the economy looks more like that of the late 1960s or 1970s during which there were frequent changes of government than 1997. Plus Starmer is no Blair either in appeal to Middle England
Inflation is heading down, unemployment is still low (could perhaps usefully be higher to give a growth buffer) and we are told that interest rates have peaked.
I'd say the question is whether this is in time to rescue Rishi, and I'd say not. He'll be up against the time buffers a la Major.
There will be a lot to sort out around the deficit and debt etc, however Rishi seems to me to be hoping that no one will notice that - whilst waffling on about tax cuts in X years time, and tripping over his political feet every week.
Inflation at over 6% is still double the 3% it was in 1997.
Labour would also come under pressure from its base in government to increase spending, adding to inflationary pressures and also then to raise taxes to fund it
Convenient timing - mainly before the GE but not showing in the National Accounts until afterwards.
I agree that there will be pressure for raised spending - not least on dealing with national debt, but there's a bonus in reduced interest payments. I have no idea what that will be but they have recently increased to well over £110bn per annum, and inflation falling from 10% to 2-3% will have a significant impact on that number.
And - Rishi having thrown most serious decisions into the future because he doesn't want to have to deal with them - Keir Starmer will have opportunities for reform if a) He wins the GE, and b) He has the political will.
@MeetThePress · 3h NEW: Almost 60% of Democratic primary voters say they want options other than President Biden in 2024 in the latest NBC News national poll.
@SteveKornacki : “This is not a normal number for an incumbent. ... That’s a very high number.”
Odd really that there isn't a similar number in the Republican Party. Trump is only 3 years younger and appears much more intellectually challenged than Biden.
Biden looks frail, Trump doesn't. (The fact that he is a psychopathic narcissist is apparently fine though.)
Dem primary voters actually care that they get a president who is mentally alert whereas GOP types don't as long as he building walls, mouths semi-fascist nonsense and keeping USA insular?
From here, he needs an event that somehow transforms the national perception of him.
And the sort of crisis that makes us rally to his flag is not the sort of crisis I want to live through.
(Though if Russia invaded East Anglia, he'd quite possibly consider selling them Norfolk and Suffolk to fund tax cuts.)
It’s just about imaginable that if the economy gets much better, maybe Putin goes away and Zelenskyy is full of praise for the British Conservative governments who supported him, there’s some big feel-good events in summer 2024 (a new COVID variant threatens but British scientists save the day, Britain wins lots of Gold medals in Paris and Macron says something crass that makes Brexit seem worth it, and England wins the Euros while Scotland win the third place playoff)… maybe that would create enough positive atmosphere to push Sunak over the line?
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
On current trends, that won't be happening.
Some faint shadows of 1997.
Not really.
In 1997 New Labour inherited low inflation, relatively low interest rates (even despite Black Wednesday 4 years earlier) and few strikes and a relatively balanced national budget.
Today the economy looks more like that of the late 1960s or 1970s during which there were frequent changes of government than 1997. Plus Starmer is no Blair either in appeal to Middle England
Inflation is heading down, unemployment is still low (could perhaps usefully be higher to give a growth buffer) and we are told that interest rates have peaked.
I'd say the question is whether this is in time to rescue Rishi, and I'd say not. He'll be up against the time buffers a la Major.
There will be a lot to sort out around the deficit and debt etc, however Rishi seems to me to be hoping that no one will notice that - whilst waffling on about tax cuts in X years time, and tripping over his political feet every week.
Inflation at over 6% is still double the 3% it was in 1997.
Labour would also come under pressure from its base in government to increase spending, adding to inflationary pressures and also then to raise taxes to fund it
I agree that there will be pressure for raised spending - not least on dealing with national debt, but there's a bonus in reduced interest payments. I have no idea what that will be but they have recently increased to well over £110bn per annum, and inflation falling from 10% to 2-3% will have a significant impact on that number.
And - Rishi having thrown most serious decision into the future because he doesn't want to have to deal with them - Keir Starmer will have opportunities for reform if a) He wins the GE, and b) He has the political will.
Inflation probably around 3% to 4% at GE time. Above target but not a major election issue at that level.
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
On current trends, that won't be happening.
Some faint shadows of 1997.
Not really.
In 1997 New Labour inherited low inflation, relatively low interest rates (even despite Black Wednesday 4 years earlier) and few strikes and a relatively balanced national budget.
Today the economy looks more like that of the late 1960s or 1970s during which there were frequent changes of government than 1997. Plus Starmer is no Blair either in appeal to Middle England
Inflation is heading down, unemployment is still low (could perhaps usefully be higher to give a growth buffer) and we are told that interest rates have peaked.
I'd say the question is whether this is in time to rescue Rishi, and I'd say not. He'll be up against the time buffers a la Major.
There will be a lot to sort out around the deficit and debt etc, however Rishi seems to me to be hoping that no one will notice that - whilst waffling on about tax cuts in X years time, and tripping over his political feet every week.
Inflation at over 6% is still double the 3% it was in 1997.
Labour will also come under pressure from its base to increase spending, adding to inflationary pressures and also then to raise taxes to fund it
Is Starmer has the courage to merge NI with income tax so it applies to the same income that Income Tax applies to then that would fully fund any increased spending he might want to make while fixing a major inequity in the tax code.
If Sunak does it, he could afford major tax cuts.
It’s one of the no brainers of tax policy to do this. That and removing the mad marginal rates that our various tapers give us.
So, Sunday:
In the least glamorous location in Jutland after a two hour drive from Hamburg on surely the fastest autobahn in Germany. I’ve driven on many German motorways and although there are some nice fast banked stretches around the Pfalz, the flat wide section North of Hamburg into Schleswig-Holstein was quite something. Cruising along at a leisurely 150kph in my hire car and vehicles were regularly zooming past me in the outside lane.
The plan to abolish inheritance tax reminds me of Corbyn’s pledge to abolish tuition fees. With that and the dicking about with net zero, he’s recognisably as reckless and irresponsible as Corbyn. He deserves the same fate.
If they did get rid of inheritance tax it would make its replacement fair game. Time to move it on to the recipient, I suggest something like a lifetime allowance of £100k tax free, next £200k @ 15%, anything more @ 40%.
And the in principle point remains: these are assets accumulated from taxed income. Why should it be taxed a second time just because it has been transferred with no economic activity?
Yes, but double taxation is perfectly normal. I paid beer tax, petrol tax and VAT in the last week, all from after tax income.
Unless you think the only tax should be income tax?
Those are all taxes on economic activity
Inheritance tax is not.
Right, and we should favour taxes on lack of economic activity over taxes on economic activity, because that encourages people to spend money and keep the economy moving, rather than just sitting on it. So that makes inheritance tax the worst one to consider scrapping IMO. Plus taxing large inheritances rather than peoples' everyday spending is more progressive taxation.
No it’s a fundamental question of how you view the world.
I believe that people own their assets. When they increase value to themselves (through income, capital gains or purchase of goods that add value) then they should pay tax on that increase (let’s call it “sharing the proceeds of growth”)
The state doesn’t just have the right to confiscate assets because it wants them.
If you need more then you should replace the principal residence relief with a rollover relief.
Your beliefs don't have any more magical permanent truth than others. If inheritance tax is removed I suspect it is odds on that it will be replaced by something you like even less within a decade.
It’s called a discussion. Im staying my opinion. I guess your response means that you don’t have any good philosophical answers.
(For what it’s worth I don’t favour eliminating inheritance tax - it exists and that’s life. Or not as the case may be. And I suspect it would be replaced by something even more philosophically unsound.)
FPT @StillWaters sorry to dredge up a comment from earlier today but I love a decent philosophical position clearly put and respect yours.
Some questions (none loaded, all genuine): 1. Do you believe that to be true for all assets, however they have been accrued? To take an extreme example - do kleptocrats in Russia own their shares of gas companies? 2. If no to 1, what credence do you give to the idea that many of the assets that any of us own in the UK are dependent on historically unequal accrual of capital and the means of production (in layman’s terms, why is it that i can afford to spend £4.40 on an almond croissant in a Bristol cafe whilst others globally who work just as hard as me can’t afford to spend £4.40 on a day’s food for their kids)? 3. If you give any credence to the ideas in (2), on what basis do you think it is morally defensible for those who are vastly more wealthy than the global median to retain their assets in the face of redistributive taxation?
I’m not trying to defend IHT per se here, I just find the philosophical position that rich people own their assets morally indefensible in the face of the historical reasons why such assets are distributed so unequally.
I paid IHT on my mum’s estate. My mum worked hard all her life, she was a doctor, changed many people’s lives. For some periods of her career, she was earning well. But I think the main reason her estate crossed the IHT threshold was that she was lucky to buy property in the early 1980s in London, just before prices really started to shoot up.
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
On current trends, that won't be happening.
Some faint shadows of 1997.
Not really.
In 1997 New Labour inherited low inflation, relatively low interest rates (even despite Black Wednesday 4 years earlier) and few strikes and a relatively balanced national budget.
Today the economy looks more like that of the late 1960s or 1970s during which there were frequent changes of government than 1997. Plus Starmer is no Blair either in appeal to Middle England
Inflation is heading down, unemployment is still low (could perhaps usefully be higher to give a growth buffer) and we are told that interest rates have peaked.
I'd say the question is whether this is in time to rescue Rishi, and I'd say not. He'll be up against the time buffers a la Major.
There will be a lot to sort out around the deficit and debt etc, however Rishi seems to me to be hoping that no one will notice that - whilst waffling on about tax cuts in X years time, and tripping over his political feet every week.
Inflation at over 6% is still double the 3% it was in 1997.
Labour would also come under pressure from its base in government to increase spending, adding to inflationary pressures and also then to raise taxes to fund it
I agree that there will be pressure for raised spending - not least on dealing with national debt, but there's a bonus in reduced interest payments. I have no idea what that will be but they have recently increased to well over £110bn per annum, and inflation falling from 10% to 2-3% will have a significant impact on that number.
And - Rishi having thrown most serious decision into the future because he doesn't want to have to deal with them - Keir Starmer will have opportunities for reform if a) He wins the GE, and b) He has the political will.
Inflation probably around 3% to 4% at GE time. Above target but not a major election issue at that level.
Do you have a rough number for how much delta that delivers in interest spending?
It won't be all the deficit, but it will be a good chunk of it.
Though TBF most of that will already be in the OBR numbers, though I think they have underestimated peak interest spending.
I see that Challenger Tanks are exempt from the ULEZ, along with other MOD vehicles.
TBF a lot of MOD vehicles are probably pre-1983 and would be exempt anyway.
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) and Transport for London (TfL) operate a selected partner scheme whereby notified MOD owned or leased vehicles are exempt from the London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) and Greater London Low Emission Zone (LEZ) charges; exemptions prevent the disruption of operational activity. https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/question/199537/armed-forces-vehicles
But if Russia invaded, would their tanks have to pay under ULEZ? (Just the post-1982 ones, that is.)
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
On current trends, that won't be happening.
Some faint shadows of 1997.
Not really.
In 1997 New Labour inherited low inflation, relatively low interest rates (even despite Black Wednesday 4 years earlier) and few strikes and a relatively balanced national budget.
Today the economy looks more like that of the late 1960s or 1970s during which there were frequent changes of government than 1997. Plus Starmer is no Blair either in appeal to Middle England
Inflation is heading down, unemployment is still low (could perhaps usefully be higher to give a growth buffer) and we are told that interest rates have peaked.
I'd say the question is whether this is in time to rescue Rishi, and I'd say not. He'll be up against the time buffers a la Major.
There will be a lot to sort out around the deficit and debt etc, however Rishi seems to me to be hoping that no one will notice that - whilst waffling on about tax cuts in X years time, and tripping over his political feet every week.
Inflation at over 6% is still double the 3% it was in 1997.
Labour would also come under pressure from its base in government to increase spending, adding to inflationary pressures and also then to raise taxes to fund it
I agree that there will be pressure for raised spending - not least on dealing with national debt, but there's a bonus in reduced interest payments. I have no idea what that will be but they have recently increased to well over £110bn per annum, and inflation falling from 10% to 2-3% will have a significant impact on that number.
And - Rishi having thrown most serious decision into the future because he doesn't want to have to deal with them - Keir Starmer will have opportunities for reform if a) He wins the GE, and b) He has the political will.
Inflation probably around 3% to 4% at GE time. Above target but not a major election issue at that level.
Do you have a rough number for how much delta that delivers in interest spending?
It won't be all the deficit, but it will be a good chunk of it.
Sorry - absolutely no idea! I'm not that close to the figures
When Netflix began mailing DVDs in 1998 — the first movie shipped was “Beetlejuice” — no one in Hollywood expected the company to eventually upend the entire entertainment industry. It started as a brainstorm between Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph, successful businessmen looking to reinvent the DVD rental business. No due dates, no late fees, no monthly rental limits.
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
On current trends, that won't be happening.
Some faint shadows of 1997.
Not really.
In 1997 New Labour inherited low inflation, relatively low interest rates (even despite Black Wednesday 4 years earlier) and few strikes and a relatively balanced national budget.
Today the economy looks more like that of the late 1960s or 1970s during which there were frequent changes of government than 1997. Plus Starmer is no Blair either in appeal to Middle England
Inflation is heading down, unemployment is still low (could perhaps usefully be higher to give a growth buffer) and we are told that interest rates have peaked.
I'd say the question is whether this is in time to rescue Rishi, and I'd say not. He'll be up against the time buffers a la Major.
There will be a lot to sort out around the deficit and debt etc, however Rishi seems to me to be hoping that no one will notice that - whilst waffling on about tax cuts in X years time, and tripping over his political feet every week.
Inflation at over 6% is still double the 3% it was in 1997.
Labour would also come under pressure from its base in government to increase spending, adding to inflationary pressures and also then to raise taxes to fund it
Yes and public services will improve, NHS waiting lists will fall, people will begin to believe things can actually work again in this country, closer cooperation with Europe and easier trade rules will boost the economy.
What's not to like?
You hope, that also likely leads to higher taxes, higher inflation and restored free movement
I knew he was never going to stop the boats, but maybe it should now say STOP HS2
“The DAILY MAIL can reveal that new Government figures show more asylum seekers arrive by train from Manchester than come over on boats. Suella Braverman has launched a plan to Stop the Trains, while Rishi Sunak has promised to withdraw from HS2.”
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
On current trends, that won't be happening.
Some faint shadows of 1997.
Not really.
In 1997 New Labour inherited low inflation, relatively low interest rates (even despite Black Wednesday 4 years earlier) and few strikes and a relatively balanced national budget.
Today the economy looks more like that of the late 1960s or 1970s during which there were frequent changes of government than 1997. Plus Starmer is no Blair either in appeal to Middle England
Inflation is heading down, unemployment is still low (could perhaps usefully be higher to give a growth buffer) and we are told that interest rates have peaked.
I'd say the question is whether this is in time to rescue Rishi, and I'd say not. He'll be up against the time buffers a la Major.
There will be a lot to sort out around the deficit and debt etc, however Rishi seems to me to be hoping that no one will notice that - whilst waffling on about tax cuts in X years time, and tripping over his political feet every week.
Inflation at over 6% is still double the 3% it was in 1997.
Labour will also come under pressure from its base to increase spending, adding to inflationary pressures and also then to raise taxes to fund it
Is Starmer has the courage to merge NI with income tax so it applies to the same income that Income Tax applies to then that would fully fund any increased spending he might want to make while fixing a major inequity in the tax code.
If Sunak does it, he could afford major tax cuts.
Which would still be a tax rise, especially on pensioners.
It would also not afford tax cuts if it is just to cover rising spending.
NI should be hypothecated to fund state pensions and contributory JSA and ideally in time some social care
It's why they are in for a gubbing in NE Scotland next year. The sector employs tens of thousands, and they are well-paid jobs. And there aren't many alternative employment options.
Yousaf and his Green allies were electorally dubious propositions in socially conservative areas in Scotland like Aberdeenshire anyway, and the impression is that they have little interest anywhere outside the Central Belt. Which is why the SNP coalition is under such strain with dissent being aired by the likes of Fergus Ewing, Angus MacNeil and Kate Forbes all of whom represent rural seats in the north.
The plan to abolish inheritance tax reminds me of Corbyn’s pledge to abolish tuition fees. With that and the dicking about with net zero, he’s recognisably as reckless and irresponsible as Corbyn. He deserves the same fate.
If they did get rid of inheritance tax it would make its replacement fair game. Time to move it on to the recipient, I suggest something like a lifetime allowance of £100k tax free, next £200k @ 15%, anything more @ 40%.
And the in principle point remains: these are assets accumulated from taxed income. Why should it be taxed a second time just because it has been transferred with no economic activity?
Yes, but double taxation is perfectly normal. I paid beer tax, petrol tax and VAT in the last week, all from after tax income.
Unless you think the only tax should be income tax?
Those are all taxes on economic activity
Inheritance tax is not.
Right, and we should favour taxes on lack of economic activity over taxes on economic activity, because that encourages people to spend money and keep the economy moving, rather than just sitting on it. So that makes inheritance tax the worst one to consider scrapping IMO. Plus taxing large inheritances rather than peoples' everyday spending is more progressive taxation.
No it’s a fundamental question of how you view the world.
I believe that people own their assets. When they increase value to themselves (through income, capital gains or purchase of goods that add value) then they should pay tax on that increase (let’s call it “sharing the proceeds of growth”)
The state doesn’t just have the right to confiscate assets because it wants them.
If you need more then you should replace the principal residence relief with a rollover relief.
Your beliefs don't have any more magical permanent truth than others. If inheritance tax is removed I suspect it is odds on that it will be replaced by something you like even less within a decade.
It’s called a discussion. Im staying my opinion. I guess your response means that you don’t have any good philosophical answers.
(For what it’s worth I don’t favour eliminating inheritance tax - it exists and that’s life. Or not as the case may be. And I suspect it would be replaced by something even more philosophically unsound.)
FPT @StillWaters sorry to dredge up a comment from earlier today but I love a decent philosophical position clearly put and respect yours.
Some questions (none loaded, all genuine): 1. Do you believe that to be true for all assets, however they have been accrued? To take an extreme example - do kleptocrats in Russia own their shares of gas companies? 2. If no to 1, what credence do you give to the idea that many of the assets that any of us own in the UK are dependent on historically unequal accrual of capital and the means of production (in layman’s terms, why is it that i can afford to spend £4.40 on an almond croissant in a Bristol cafe whilst others globally who work just as hard as me can’t afford to spend £4.40 on a day’s food for their kids)? 3. If you give any credence to the ideas in (2), on what basis do you think it is morally defensible for those who are vastly more wealthy than the global median to retain their assets in the face of redistributive taxation?
I’m not trying to defend IHT per se here, I just find the philosophical position that rich people own their assets morally indefensible in the face of the historical reasons why such assets are distributed so unequally.
I paid IHT on my mum’s estate. My mum worked hard all her life, she was a doctor, changed many people’s lives. For some periods of her career, she was earning well. But I think the main reason her estate crossed the IHT threshold was that she was lucky to buy property in the early 1980s in London, just before prices really started to shoot up.
We have recently paid a large chunk of IHT on my mum's Estate. Various reasons why it was sufficiently large, but I have no objection to having to pay it as it is a nice position to be in to be able to do so. And I am quite happy supporting the wider society.
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
On current trends, that won't be happening.
Some faint shadows of 1997.
Not really.
In 1997 New Labour inherited low inflation, relatively low interest rates (even despite Black Wednesday 4 years earlier) and few strikes and a relatively balanced national budget.
Today the economy looks more like that of the late 1960s or 1970s during which there were frequent changes of government than 1997. Plus Starmer is no Blair either in appeal to Middle England
Inflation is heading down, unemployment is still low (could perhaps usefully be higher to give a growth buffer) and we are told that interest rates have peaked.
I'd say the question is whether this is in time to rescue Rishi, and I'd say not. He'll be up against the time buffers a la Major.
There will be a lot to sort out around the deficit and debt etc, however Rishi seems to me to be hoping that no one will notice that - whilst waffling on about tax cuts in X years time, and tripping over his political feet every week.
Inflation at over 6% is still double the 3% it was in 1997.
Labour would also come under pressure from its base in government to increase spending, adding to inflationary pressures and also then to raise taxes to fund it
Convenient timing - mainly before the GE but not showing in the National Accounts until afterwards.
I agree that there will be pressure for raised spending - not least on dealing with national debt, but there's a bonus in reduced interest payments. I have no idea what that will be but they have recently increased to well over £110bn per annum, and inflation falling from 10% to 2-3% will have a significant impact on that number.
And - Rishi having thrown most serious decisions into the future because he doesn't want to have to deal with them - Keir Starmer will have opportunities for reform if a) He wins the GE, and b) He has the political will.
Time will tell !
This is where the importance of real numbers comes into account though, which is sadly neglected and not communicated.
What matters is debt to GDP and the real deficit over time.
Deficit of £100bn when inflation is 0 and deficit of £100bn when inflation is 10% are two completely different things.
Yes interest payments may be £110bn per annum, but the UK's debt is £2,537bn so 10% inflation deflates that by £253.7bn even if we have over £100bn in interest, in real terms we are actually better off not worse off.
Debt to GDP as per the ONS if falling, not rising currently. That's because of inflation deflating our debt, its not because we don't have a deficit.
If inflation gets eliminated and our interest payments fall, but we maintain a major deficit, then we will in real terms be worse off, not better off.
he's every bit as useless and incompetent as Truss was, isn't he?
I am not sure it's a linear scale.
Richi seems to be useless and incompetent in ways that Truss could only dream about...
Hard to compare. The awfulnesses of Johnson, Truss and Sunak are roughly orthogonal to each other. Hard to compare.
BoZo was bad in 1 dimension.
Truss was bad in 2
Richi is bad in all 3
I'm reminded of when I started working for my current employer. Wandering into an office where two physics professors were having a heated argument. One finally shouting...
"WELL! You will insist on only thinking in five dimensions!"
It's why they are in for a gubbing in NE Scotland next year. The sector employs tens of thousands, and they are well-paid jobs. And there aren't many alternative employment options.
Yousaf and his Green allies were electorally dubious propositions in socially conservative areas in Scotland like Aberdeenshire anyway, and the impression is that they have little interest anywhere outside the Central Belt. Which is why the SNP coalition is under such strain with dissent being aired by the likes of Fergus Ewing, Angus MacNeil and Kate Forbes all of whom represent rural seats in the north.
I read that article just before posting my question, and I posted my question anyway.
Let's just say that I'm still not clear on the issue.
I live in Aberdeenshire. I've had one person say to me that he's thinking of switching from the SNP over oil and gas policy, so anecdotally it tracks, but I still don't know exactly what the policy is.
EXC: Scottish Conservative MSP @mgoldenmsp has attacked Rishi Sunak’s watering down of plans to tackle climate change and accused the prime minister of “dragging net zero into the territory of culture wars”
No10 were prob hoping voters close to North Sea oil industry would be sympathetic to the net zero U-turn & might be concerned to see a Tory MSP being critical
But a thriving North Sea oil and gas industry improves the argument for Scottish independence.
So does an even more thriving renewables industry - including tidal: given the scope in Scotland for the latter alone.
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
On current trends, that won't be happening.
Some faint shadows of 1997.
Not really.
In 1997 New Labour inherited low inflation, relatively low interest rates (even despite Black Wednesday 4 years earlier) and few strikes and a relatively balanced national budget.
Today the economy looks more like that of the late 1960s or 1970s during which there were frequent changes of government than 1997. Plus Starmer is no Blair either in appeal to Middle England
Inflation is heading down, unemployment is still low (could perhaps usefully be higher to give a growth buffer) and we are told that interest rates have peaked.
I'd say the question is whether this is in time to rescue Rishi, and I'd say not. He'll be up against the time buffers a la Major.
There will be a lot to sort out around the deficit and debt etc, however Rishi seems to me to be hoping that no one will notice that - whilst waffling on about tax cuts in X years time, and tripping over his political feet every week.
Inflation at over 6% is still double the 3% it was in 1997.
Labour will also come under pressure from its base to increase spending, adding to inflationary pressures and also then to raise taxes to fund it
Is Starmer has the courage to merge NI with income tax so it applies to the same income that Income Tax applies to then that would fully fund any increased spending he might want to make while fixing a major inequity in the tax code.
If Sunak does it, he could afford major tax cuts.
Which would still be a tax rise, especially on pensioners.
It would also not afford tax cuts if it is just to cover rising spending.
NI should be hypothecated to fund state pensions and contributory JSA and ideally in time some social care
You know perfectly well that NI has never been the Goldilocks tax - always too much or too little to be hypothecaited.
Not least because the fluctuations in employment make that impossible: low employment, much more demand, less income.
My best guess is that real wages will grow fairly strongly between now and the next election. That will enable the Conservatives to close the gap on economic issues, with Labour.
But, Labour will remain well ahead, on public services, which, combined with the general exasperation with the government, still gives them a pretty big lead on polling day.
Labour's own poor ratings probably point to quite a drop off in support, after winning the next election.
For the Conservatives to actually win a majority, or near-majority, would require the blackest of black swans.
Yes, I think Starmer will get a pretty good majority, but then his polling will go into steep decline very quickly (after a few months of thank-God-the-Tories-are-gone honeymoon) when it is revealed that he has zero new ideas for dealing with migration, the debt, public services, and no money to throw at problems. Moreover a lot of his stuff will be seriously unpopular in itself - Woke issues, trans stuff, all that- his activists and MPs will ensure he ends up at the wrong end of debates. And he is fervently Remoaner and this will become a thorny issue
I can see Labour plunging to great depths of polling negativity within 1-2 years of their election, and the Tories might easily be back in power by 2029, so their despair is rather overdone
Obviously one should never be complacent about a Tory recovery happening sooner rather than later ('never' would be nice given the damage they have done to Britain) given past history but there's a lot running against them that makes one thing they could be out for a while. Firstly, Starmer will be able to do what Cameron and Osborne did and arrive in office and say "Oh God it's so much worse than we thought" and blame the previous government for everything. Allied to that, being a 'Remoaner' isn't the problem it once was, given Brexit is now seen as a terrible error by a majority - and demographics mean even if no one changed their mind that would get stronger. Working age people, currently, aren't becoming more Conservative as they age as previous generations did for a variety of reasons. And among that generation the anger at events of 2010-2023 isn't going away but calcifying into why you never, ever vote for or trust the Tories. That group is growing, and the older boomer voters who are the Tories sole reliable base now may have passed their peak of electoral effectiveness. Furthermore, a major problem for Labour has been trust that they're up to the job of government. Once you are the government and are setting the baselines of where debates are conducted, that dissipates. Furthermore, the easiest path to electability for an opposition - ditching the stuff key target voters didn't like and brushing up your image, isn't really open to the Tory Party as it now treats Brexit and associated hardline policies like a religion that can't be rowed back on at all, even when have become very unpopular or are unpopular with key groups. One can always be proved wrong, but so far Tories give little indication they understand the hole they are in let alone showing signs they know how to get out of it.
The bigger issue is that after defeat the Tories will probably go and do some really dumb, unelectable things.
You only have to read HY’s stream to see that coming.
They may well of course, one certainly wouldn't bet against it. But I think their problem is deeper than the usual one of losing/defeated parties going a bit bonkers. Eventually they get sick of losing and come to their senses. The Tories have an issue that could really hamper them in the longer term as they're a bit trapped with policies that have effectively got the status of the tenets of religion within the party, being incredibly unpopular with those who will become increasingly electorally important and are showing no signs of becoming more conservative as they age - as their parents might have done. To pick the obvious, if Brexit is seen as a terrible idea by a huge majority of those under 60, as it is. Then the party responsible that never gets sick of advertising that fact, will struggle. It's a tougher rebranding job than, say, Cameron, pulled off by throwing in a bit of social liberalism, going big on climate change, and softening some of its rhetoric. For a generation now coming towards middle-age they will always be the party that badly broke Britain and screwed up their future a bit. Difficult to see how you overcome that without major rethinks that would be seen as heresy by members and an increasingly narrow and elderly base.
Depends on the economy, an incoming Labour government facing high inflation, rising interest rates, rising unemployment and low growth would soon become unpopular whatever the Tory opposition does.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
On current trends, that won't be happening.
Some faint shadows of 1997.
Not really.
In 1997 New Labour inherited low inflation, relatively low interest rates (even despite Black Wednesday 4 years earlier) and few strikes and a relatively balanced national budget.
Today the economy looks more like that of the late 1960s or 1970s during which there were frequent changes of government than 1997. Plus Starmer is no Blair either in appeal to Middle England
Inflation is heading down, unemployment is still low (could perhaps usefully be higher to give a growth buffer) and we are told that interest rates have peaked.
I'd say the question is whether this is in time to rescue Rishi, and I'd say not. He'll be up against the time buffers a la Major.
There will be a lot to sort out around the deficit and debt etc, however Rishi seems to me to be hoping that no one will notice that - whilst waffling on about tax cuts in X years time, and tripping over his political feet every week.
Inflation at over 6% is still double the 3% it was in 1997.
Labour will also come under pressure from its base to increase spending, adding to inflationary pressures and also then to raise taxes to fund it
Is Starmer has the courage to merge NI with income tax so it applies to the same income that Income Tax applies to then that would fully fund any increased spending he might want to make while fixing a major inequity in the tax code.
If Sunak does it, he could afford major tax cuts.
Which would still be a tax rise, especially on pensioners.
It would also not afford tax cuts if it is just to cover rising spending.
NI should be hypothecated to fund state pensions and contributory JSA and ideally in time some social care
I have no objection to hypothecation.
I have an objection to some paying it and others not.
Apply it to all income no matter how its earned, just the same as income tax, and you can hypothecate it as you please.
It's why they are in for a gubbing in NE Scotland next year. The sector employs tens of thousands, and they are well-paid jobs. And there aren't many alternative employment options.
Yousaf and his Green allies were electorally dubious propositions in socially conservative areas in Scotland like Aberdeenshire anyway, and the impression is that they have little interest anywhere outside the Central Belt. Which is why the SNP coalition is under such strain with dissent being aired by the likes of Fergus Ewing, Angus MacNeil and Kate Forbes all of whom represent rural seats in the north.
A few/several CON gains in Scotland distinctly possible.
It's why they are in for a gubbing in NE Scotland next year. The sector employs tens of thousands, and they are well-paid jobs. And there aren't many alternative employment options.
Yousaf and his Green allies were electorally dubious propositions in socially conservative areas in Scotland like Aberdeenshire anyway, and the impression is that they have little interest anywhere outside the Central Belt. Which is why the SNP coalition is under such strain with dissent being aired by the likes of Fergus Ewing, Angus MacNeil and Kate Forbes all of whom represent rural seats in the north.
I read that article just before posting my question, and I posted my question anyway.
Let's just say that I'm still not clear on the issue.
I live in Aberdeenshire. I've had one person say to me that he's thinking of switching from the SNP over oil and gas policy, so anecdotally it tracks, but I still don't know exactly what the policy is.
Its great. The SNP are knobbers on energy. The Tories are knobbers on farming and fishing. Removing the lickspittle David Duguid from office would be good for my area, but the SNP wouldn't be any better. Sadly.
Comments
Ireland will trash them, on this reckoning
Earlier there were reports of a HS2 announcement this week.
Now that’s a lot less clear and I’m told any announcement will almost certainly be just in the context of the Autumn Statement in November
And I’m told not to expect even guidance on IHT at Tory conference …
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1705983632815382789?t=zsxJSo3uaF0tP4I5Tf3_HA
Sounds like the grandees have barged in with a bottle of whisky for a friendly chat.
https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1705998105160581129
I bet they will bury the idea and hand the poisoned chalice to Labour
“Look at the sun’atler, what a twat, what’s the point of coming on holiday and not getting a nice bit of skin cancer on your head.”
In terms of regulation, we need a proper regulatory body for Physician and Anaesthetic Assistants, as current regulation is minimal, yet they are being rolled out all over.
There is so much trouble stacking up that taking over will be a massive task, and I am unconvinced by his witterings. This winter is going to be very grim.
I can't get enthusiastic about the English, Irish, or Welsh teams. Of course their professionalism and quality get them through, but I'm not cheering their progress.
Three games with basically no interest and the other one where three teams will learn their fates.
Roll on the QFs when this tournament will actually, you know, start.
If you're not trying to squeeze the state as a matter of principle, the cost (even as it swells) isn't that absurd over a few decades.
But it doesn't reflect well on Weeny, Weedy, Weaky Rishi.
Some questions (none loaded, all genuine):
1. Do you believe that to be true for all assets, however they have been accrued? To take an extreme example - do kleptocrats in Russia own their
shares of gas companies?
2. If no to 1, what credence do you give to the idea that many of the assets that any of us own in the UK are dependent on historically unequal accrual of capital and the means of production (in layman’s terms, why is it that i can afford to spend £4.40 on an almond croissant in a Bristol cafe whilst others globally who work just as hard as me can’t afford to spend £4.40 on a day’s food for their
kids)?
3. If you give any credence to the ideas in (2), on what basis do you think it is morally defensible for those who are vastly more wealthy than the global median to retain their assets in the face of redistributive taxation?
I’m not trying to defend IHT per se here, I just find the philosophical position that rich people own their assets morally indefensible in the face of the historical reasons why such assets are distributed so unequally.
Can England do that against better teams? Dunno, but if they can, it's game on, and they could (should?) go all the way to the final, their draw is so easy
Scotland have looked undercooked, after an excellent build-up, I severely doubt they will break out of the pool
With Dupont injured and, it seems, out of the tournament, it has to be Ireland or SA for the Cup, overall
What are they going to come up with instead to try to move the polls?
I pointed out that England were VALUE at the beginning of the tournament as 18/1 outsiders. Sure, England have been rubbish, and Borthwick is as dull as Doncaster, but i's still England, one of the trad powerhouses, and they have lots of talent, and a record of outperforming at World Cups - 4 finals, 1 win - so 18/1 was decidedly generous
They WERE 18/1 - now they are 10/1
https://www.oddschecker.com/rugby-union/rugby-world-cup/winner
And there would almost certainly have been other scandals, more revolts, and a series of ever-lower lows - followed by bounce after bounce after bounce.
He might have run out of people prepared to sit in his cabinet, no matter how much they were bribed. Or the general election might have coincided with a 'low' phase, rather than a bounce. The risks were too great; I understand why he had to go.
The problem with Sunak, though, is that there's no hope of anything like a Boris Bounce happening. So I wouldn't blame the Tories for feeling a bit of anemoiac nostalgia for what might have been.
"An outline plan to tackle the problem of funding social care for the elderly has also been quietly shelved" - Mail
Anyone know what this refers to - no further details in the Mail?
Did they expect APPLAUSE?!
I guess I still think France are the most likely winners, followed by the Kiwis, but I'm sure I'm biased in that I want the teams to play the Rugby that I like to win.
Fiji
But it’s very different playing a proper side. Of course. Personally I think Borthwick should go for it. Always play like that. We will probably lose but we will probably lose anyway. Better to go out in style and we might just unsettle the better teams
Smith is sensational when he gets the chance
For all this talk of him being optimistic, I actually think he's given up.
“Members and MPs will gather on Monday for their infamous Glee Club event, which will close out the final evening of the gathering in Bournemouth with political parodies of popular songs.
“The 32nd edition of the Liberator Song Book, priced at £5, includes Gold Stars (On My Flag) written to the tune of Three Lions.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/24/liberal-democrats-three-lions-rewrite-song-rejoining-eu/
I'll watch the footage tomorrow, and yes I agree Smith is a great star - is he great enough to shape a team in part around him? Not sure.
One of the problems with having such a partisan media these days is that it's much easier to avoid hearing the other side's arguments. Bad for the public, but also bad for politicians; it makes them lazier and hence stupider.
The days when ten million people watched News at Ten have gone, and aren't coming back. But shows like that were probably a good thing.
Who in their right mind would say “let’s float we’re thinking of axing HS2 a week before our conference in Manchester, leave it hanging so it sits over everything like a wet blanket, and do it while spinning Rishi’s taking hard choices and levelling with the voters”.
At the end of the day it wasn't the Tories electing Hague as leader or IDS/Howard as leader that re elected Blair and New Labour, it was the relatively strong economy in those years. Ken Clarke would still have lost had he been Conservative leader, just a bit more narrowly.
Cameron saw a small bounce when elected leader which soon faded, it was the economic crash of 2008 which gave the Tories a clear poll lead ahead of the 2010 election.
Just as it was the winter of discontent, strikes and high inflation in 1979 which elected the seemingly 'unelectable' Thatcher and enabled her to beat PM Callaghan. So now too it is the post Covid relatively high inflation and high interest rates still that is hitting Sunak. Remember in 2021 Starmer was doing little better than Corbyn had been doing in 2019
Richi seems to be useless and incompetent in ways that Truss could only dream about...
EXC: Scottish Conservative MSP @mgoldenmsp has attacked Rishi Sunak’s watering down of plans to tackle climate change and accused the prime minister of “dragging net zero into the territory of culture wars”
@REWearmouth
No10 were prob hoping voters close to North Sea oil industry would be sympathetic to the net zero U-turn & might be concerned to see a Tory MSP being critical
But Manchester is different. All these middle aged guys and gals in the media who remember Brit pop, the hacienda, etc etc. well, it’s a travesty.
I knew he was never going to stop the boats, but maybe it should now say STOP HS2
Truss was bad in 2
Richi is bad in all 3
Some faint shadows of 1997.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/24/liberal-democrats-three-lions-rewrite-song-rejoining-eu/
He looks like a Rudi Giuliani mugshot. And Giuliani is about 79.
In 1997 New Labour inherited low inflation, relatively low interest rates (even despite Black Wednesday 4 years earlier) and few strikes and a relatively balanced national budget.
Today the economy looks more like that of the late 1960s or 1970s during which there were frequent changes of government than 1997. Plus Starmer is no Blair either in appeal to Middle England
I am beginning to feel for Casino, HYUFD and the other Tory die-hards. They don't deserve this.
I'd say the question is whether this is in time to rescue Rishi, and I'd say not. He'll be up against the time buffers a la Major.
There will be a lot to sort out around the deficit and debt etc, however Rishi seems to me to be hoping that no one will notice that - whilst waffling on about tax cuts in X years time, and tripping over his political feet every week.
Truss failed on implementation.
Sunak fails on all three.
Men are apparently fit to rule the world but seemingly unable to rule themselves and modify their behaviour seems to be the unspoken assumption of far too many - as recent cases have shown.
Labour would also come under pressure from its base in government to increase spending, adding to inflationary pressures and also then to raise taxes to fund it
TBF a lot of MOD vehicles are probably pre-1983 and would be exempt anyway.
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) and Transport for London (TfL) operate a selected partner scheme whereby notified MOD owned or leased vehicles are exempt from the London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) and Greater London Low Emission Zone (LEZ) charges; exemptions prevent the disruption of operational activity.
https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/question/199537/armed-forces-vehicles
If Sunak does it, he could afford major tax cuts.
What's not to like?
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/will-inflation-in-the-uk-keep-rising
Convenient timing - mainly before the GE but not showing in the National Accounts until afterwards.
I agree that there will be pressure for raised spending - not least on dealing with national debt, but there's a bonus in reduced interest payments. I have no idea what that will be but they have recently increased to well over £110bn per annum, and inflation falling from 10% to 2-3% will have a significant impact on that number.
And - Rishi having thrown most serious decisions into the future because he doesn't want to have to deal with them - Keir Starmer will have opportunities for reform if a) He wins the GE, and b) He has the political will.
Time will tell !
So, Sunday:
In the least glamorous location in Jutland after a two hour drive from Hamburg on surely the fastest autobahn in Germany. I’ve driven on many German motorways and although there are some nice fast banked stretches around the Pfalz, the flat wide section North of Hamburg into Schleswig-Holstein was quite something. Cruising along at a leisurely 150kph in my hire car and vehicles were regularly zooming past me in the outside lane.
https://www.alamy.com/laurence-olivier-as-archie-rice-in-the-original-stage-production-of-the-entertainer-by-john-osborne-in-1957-at-the-royal-court-theatre-in-london-director-tony-richardson-music-john-addison-settings-alan-tagg-costumes-clare-jeffery-the-english-stage-company-limited-in-association-with-lop-limited-image443593590.html
It won't be all the deficit, but it will be a good chunk of it.
Though TBF most of that will already be in the OBR numbers, though I think they have underestimated peak interest spending.
When Netflix began mailing DVDs in 1998 — the first movie shipped was “Beetlejuice” — no one in Hollywood expected the company to eventually upend the entire entertainment industry. It started as a brainstorm between Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph, successful businessmen looking to reinvent the DVD rental business. No due dates, no late fees, no monthly rental limits.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/23/business/media/netflix-dvds.html
Might just work…
It would also not afford tax cuts if it is just to cover rising spending.
NI should be hypothecated to fund state pensions and contributory JSA and ideally in time some social care
It's why they are in for a gubbing in NE Scotland next year. The sector employs tens of thousands, and they are well-paid jobs. And there aren't many alternative employment options.
Yousaf and his Green allies were electorally dubious propositions in socially conservative areas in Scotland like Aberdeenshire anyway, and the impression is that they have little interest anywhere outside the Central Belt. Which is why the SNP coalition is under such strain with dissent being aired by the likes of Fergus Ewing, Angus MacNeil and Kate Forbes all of whom represent rural seats in the north.
What matters is debt to GDP and the real deficit over time.
Deficit of £100bn when inflation is 0 and deficit of £100bn when inflation is 10% are two completely different things.
Yes interest payments may be £110bn per annum, but the UK's debt is £2,537bn so 10% inflation deflates that by £253.7bn even if we have over £100bn in interest, in real terms we are actually better off not worse off.
Debt to GDP as per the ONS if falling, not rising currently. That's because of inflation deflating our debt, its not because we don't have a deficit.
If inflation gets eliminated and our interest payments fall, but we maintain a major deficit, then we will in real terms be worse off, not better off.
"WELL! You will insist on only thinking in five dimensions!"
And flouncing out of the room.
Let's just say that I'm still not clear on the issue.
I live in Aberdeenshire. I've had one person say to me that he's thinking of switching from the SNP over oil and gas policy, so anecdotally it tracks, but I still don't know exactly what the policy is.
Not least because the fluctuations in employment make that impossible: low employment, much more demand, less income.
I have an objection to some paying it and others not.
Apply it to all income no matter how its earned, just the same as income tax, and you can hypothecate it as you please.