Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Tory problem – this is how Rishi is perceived – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,215
edited October 2023 in General
imageThe Tory problem – this is how Rishi is perceived – politicalbetting.com

The word cloud above was featured widely on BBC news outlets last night and sets out the challenge for the Tories as they gather in Manchester for their party conference.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,012
    First?
  • Rishi Rich could end fiscal drag and help ensure people who aren't already wealthy could keep more of their own income they work for, instead of being made poorer in real terms.

    Just a suggestion. Others are available.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,915
    edited October 2023
    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,132
    At least 'useless' isn't a big feature in the cloud.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 22,375
    edited October 2023
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    "A nation of drivers", yet 90% of us want to see a bus stop within a 15-minute walk of their home.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1708455575581782108?t=_7wfjw8Wgu-S1bmfth9_aA&s=19

    Why are you so obsessive that you think those are remotely contradictory?

    I got a bus the other day. My car was in the garage for repairs, so I got a bus from my home to the garage to pick up my car.

    Does the fact I took a bus to get to the garage to pick my car up once it was repaired make me any less of a driver? Of course I want a bus within a convenient walk from my house, doesn't mean I am any less of a driver.
    reduce the problems that high car dependency and congestion
    can cause by making walking, cycling, and public transport more attractive


    Is this where your mistrust of local government comes from?

    https://www.warrington.gov.uk/LTP4
    No, my mistrust of local governance comes from local governments blocking housing developments. Thought I was pretty clear on that.

    Of course trying to dictate how people get about is every bit as petty Little Napoleon behaviour as trying to dictate how people develop their own land.

    I'm quite glad that I could walk the other day to a bus stop and get on board a bus when one went past within a few minutes. I'm not really bothered that I was the only person (other than the driver) on board the bus when I got on board.

    By the time we reached the garage in the town centre a second person had got on board you might be happy to know.

    Choice should be available for those who have problems with their own transport or who are too young or otherwise unable to drive. If people choose not to take that choice, it is entirely their free choice and I am pro-choice.

    Even if a bus carrying one passenger takes more road space than a car would have, no reason we shouldn't have buses.
    Most local councils have drawn up Local Plans setting up where new housing should go in their area with the required infrastructure for the next decade or 2. Even if a Nimby opposition group takes over at a later election they soon find they also need a Local Plan
    And once the land is zoned as appropriate for development with a Local Plan can anyone simply buy a plot of land and send in builders the next day to start development without putting in plans or a request first?

    Or do they need to inform the curtain twitching neighbours and beg for permission first?

    And if someone wants to bulldoze land they own and redevelop it in a way they think is more suitable can they simply send in the bulldozers without begging permission first? Or do they need to inform the curtain twitching neighbours and beg for permission first?
    There is a presumption in favour of development in sites allocated for housing in Local Plans
    Not remotely good enough.

    There shouldn't be a presumption of anything. If its allocated for housing it should be automatic, without even discussing with the Council or the neighbours. Simply if you own the land, and you follow the law, then it can be built without preconditions or interference. As in Japan.
    There are City Planning Areas given for development in Japan but outside those there are significant restrictions on development
    Yes, zoning. That's what we should have in this country.

    If its zoned for housing, then you don't need to ask permission as its already been granted via the zoning. Just send in the builders when you choose using plans you choose so long as they are within building codes. And if you want to tear it down and redevelop it to be better somehow, its again already zoned for housing so again no need to ask permission as you already have it.

    That doesn't mean concreting over the entire country, it just means that whatever is zoned accordingly can be developed or redeveloped at will with nobody standing in the way since the zoning has already happened.

    Let local councils determine the zones then stay out of the way after that and just get on with what should be their primary concern of actually running local amenities instead of arguing over developments.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.

    Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 22,375
    edited October 2023
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    And this is within the Chancellor's control somewhat, ending fiscal drag would see take home pay keep up better with price inflation.

    Doesn't help getting a 7% pay rise (if you can get one) if inflation is 6% and tax thresholds are frozen so much or most of your pay rise gets taken away in taxes.

    Fiscal drag in those circumstances means you're still worse off.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,132
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,132

    I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.

    Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.

    Plausible but, boy, there's a hell of a lot of water to flow before then.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,915

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    "A nation of drivers", yet 90% of us want to see a bus stop within a 15-minute walk of their home.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1708455575581782108?t=_7wfjw8Wgu-S1bmfth9_aA&s=19

    Why are you so obsessive that you think those are remotely contradictory?

    I got a bus the other day. My car was in the garage for repairs, so I got a bus from my home to the garage to pick up my car.

    Does the fact I took a bus to get to the garage to pick my car up once it was repaired make me any less of a driver? Of course I want a bus within a convenient walk from my house, doesn't mean I am any less of a driver.
    reduce the problems that high car dependency and congestion
    can cause by making walking, cycling, and public transport more attractive


    Is this where your mistrust of local government comes from?

    https://www.warrington.gov.uk/LTP4
    No, my mistrust of local governance comes from local governments blocking housing developments. Thought I was pretty clear on that.

    Of course trying to dictate how people get about is every bit as petty Little Napoleon behaviour as trying to dictate how people develop their own land.

    I'm quite glad that I could walk the other day to a bus stop and get on board a bus when one went past within a few minutes. I'm not really bothered that I was the only person (other than the driver) on board the bus when I got on board.

    By the time we reached the garage in the town centre a second person had got on board you might be happy to know.

    Choice should be available for those who have problems with their own transport or who are too young or otherwise unable to drive. If people choose not to take that choice, it is entirely their free choice and I am pro-choice.

    Even if a bus carrying one passenger takes more road space than a car would have, no reason we shouldn't have buses.
    Most local councils have drawn up Local Plans setting up where new housing should go in their area with the required infrastructure for the next decade or 2. Even if a Nimby opposition group takes over at a later election they soon find they also need a Local Plan
    And once the land is zoned as appropriate for development with a Local Plan can anyone simply buy a plot of land and send in builders the next day to start development without putting in plans or a request first?

    Or do they need to inform the curtain twitching neighbours and beg for permission first?

    And if someone wants to bulldoze land they own and redevelop it in a way they think is more suitable can they simply send in the bulldozers without begging permission first? Or do they need to inform the curtain twitching neighbours and beg for permission first?
    There is a presumption in favour of development in sites allocated for housing in Local Plans
    Not remotely good enough.

    There shouldn't be a presumption of anything. If its allocated for housing it should be automatic, without even discussing with the Council or the neighbours. Simply if you own the land, and you follow the law, then it can be built without preconditions or interference. As in Japan.
    There are City Planning Areas given for development in Japan but outside those there are significant restrictions on development
    Yes, zoning. That's what we should have in this country.

    If its zoned for housing, then you don't need to ask permission as its already been granted via the zoning. Just send in the builders when you choose using plans you choose so long as they are within building codes. And if you want to tear it down and redevelop it to be better somehow, its again already zoned for housing so again no need to ask permission as you already have it.

    That doesn't mean concreting over the entire country, it just means that whatever is zoned accordingly can be developed or redeveloped at will with nobody standing in the way since the zoning has already happened.

    Let local councils determine the zones then stay out of the way after that and just get on with what should be their primary concern of actually running local amenities instead of arguing over developments.
    Local Plans are a big step towards zones anyway
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,915
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    Yet falling
  • HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    Yet falling
    As are living standards thanks to fiscal drag. Which is entirely the Government's choice, not market conditions.

    You want credit for living standards falling less fast than they were, when if the Government made a different choice they wouldn't be falling at all? 🤔
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 22,375
    edited October 2023
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    "A nation of drivers", yet 90% of us want to see a bus stop within a 15-minute walk of their home.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1708455575581782108?t=_7wfjw8Wgu-S1bmfth9_aA&s=19

    Why are you so obsessive that you think those are remotely contradictory?

    I got a bus the other day. My car was in the garage for repairs, so I got a bus from my home to the garage to pick up my car.

    Does the fact I took a bus to get to the garage to pick my car up once it was repaired make me any less of a driver? Of course I want a bus within a convenient walk from my house, doesn't mean I am any less of a driver.
    reduce the problems that high car dependency and congestion
    can cause by making walking, cycling, and public transport more attractive


    Is this where your mistrust of local government comes from?

    https://www.warrington.gov.uk/LTP4
    No, my mistrust of local governance comes from local governments blocking housing developments. Thought I was pretty clear on that.

    Of course trying to dictate how people get about is every bit as petty Little Napoleon behaviour as trying to dictate how people develop their own land.

    I'm quite glad that I could walk the other day to a bus stop and get on board a bus when one went past within a few minutes. I'm not really bothered that I was the only person (other than the driver) on board the bus when I got on board.

    By the time we reached the garage in the town centre a second person had got on board you might be happy to know.

    Choice should be available for those who have problems with their own transport or who are too young or otherwise unable to drive. If people choose not to take that choice, it is entirely their free choice and I am pro-choice.

    Even if a bus carrying one passenger takes more road space than a car would have, no reason we shouldn't have buses.
    Most local councils have drawn up Local Plans setting up where new housing should go in their area with the required infrastructure for the next decade or 2. Even if a Nimby opposition group takes over at a later election they soon find they also need a Local Plan
    And once the land is zoned as appropriate for development with a Local Plan can anyone simply buy a plot of land and send in builders the next day to start development without putting in plans or a request first?

    Or do they need to inform the curtain twitching neighbours and beg for permission first?

    And if someone wants to bulldoze land they own and redevelop it in a way they think is more suitable can they simply send in the bulldozers without begging permission first? Or do they need to inform the curtain twitching neighbours and beg for permission first?
    There is a presumption in favour of development in sites allocated for housing in Local Plans
    Not remotely good enough.

    There shouldn't be a presumption of anything. If its allocated for housing it should be automatic, without even discussing with the Council or the neighbours. Simply if you own the land, and you follow the law, then it can be built without preconditions or interference. As in Japan.
    There are City Planning Areas given for development in Japan but outside those there are significant restrictions on development
    Yes, zoning. That's what we should have in this country.

    If its zoned for housing, then you don't need to ask permission as its already been granted via the zoning. Just send in the builders when you choose using plans you choose so long as they are within building codes. And if you want to tear it down and redevelop it to be better somehow, its again already zoned for housing so again no need to ask permission as you already have it.

    That doesn't mean concreting over the entire country, it just means that whatever is zoned accordingly can be developed or redeveloped at will with nobody standing in the way since the zoning has already happened.

    Let local councils determine the zones then stay out of the way after that and just get on with what should be their primary concern of actually running local amenities instead of arguing over developments.
    Local Plans are a big step towards zones anyway
    If you want to cross a road, or just get from A to B, then don't take one big step, you need to complete the journey.

    Lets take the rest of the steps needed and go all the way to a proper zonal system and abolish asking for permission altogether if in the right zones.

    Then we might actually be able to resolve the housing crisis.
  • Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    And this is within the Chancellor's control somewhat, ending fiscal drag would see take home pay keep up better with price inflation.

    Doesn't help getting a 7% pay rise (if you can get one) if inflation is 6% and tax thresholds are frozen so much or most of your pay rise gets taken away in taxes.

    Fiscal drag in those circumstances means you're still worse off.
    That's either honest tax rises elsewhere (which would get Sunak VONCd by his party faster than you can say "Graham Brady's mailbag"), honest spending cuts (good luck with that), or borrowing (Liz Truss says hello).

    Hence dishonest tax rises (fiscal drag) and spending cuts (local councils).

    Besides, fiscal drag is proportionally less painful if you're at the top of the scale.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,132
    Jimmy Carter was 99 today.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,955
    edited October 2023

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.
    And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 4,012

    I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.

    Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.

    Apart from that though - it was all quite positive?

  • Farooq said:

    Eabhal said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.
    And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.
    Yes. We're just off the back of 20 straight months of CPI inflation being above wage inflation. We've had one month with wages going up faster than CPI. So even if every month is the mirror of the months before, we'll still be worse off than we were in October 2021 by the time the election comes around.
    Especially thanks to fiscal drag.

    Real take-home wages are still falling currently, even with nominal wages growing faster than inflation.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    ohnotnow said:

    I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.

    Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.

    Apart from that though - it was all quite positive?

    Indeed. There are worse things than problems 5 years away...
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,403

    Jimmy Carter was 99 today.

    "...99 today, 99 today, he's got the key of the door, never been 99 before..."
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,915

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    And this is within the Chancellor's control somewhat, ending fiscal drag would see take home pay keep up better with price inflation.

    Doesn't help getting a 7% pay rise (if you can get one) if inflation is 6% and tax thresholds are frozen so much or most of your pay rise gets taken away in taxes.

    Fiscal drag in those circumstances means you're still worse off.
    That's either honest tax rises elsewhere (which would get Sunak VONCd by his party faster than you can say "Graham Brady's mailbag"), honest spending cuts (good luck with that), or borrowing (Liz Truss says hello).

    Hence dishonest tax rises (fiscal drag) and spending cuts (local councils).

    Besides, fiscal drag is proportionally less painful if you're at the top of the scale.
    I just filled in a survey from my County Council asking about Council Tax increases vs Service Cuts since they are facing a projected £30m shortfall from a couple of years hence.

    They are limited to Council Tax increases of much less than inflation unless they hold a referendum first, which is ludicrous - so the options offered were between no budget increases and 2-3% real terms cuts.

    I said that I would support a referendum and an increase of inflation + 5% to improve services / public realm.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,955
    edited October 2023

    Farooq said:

    Eabhal said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.
    And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.
    Yes. We're just off the back of 20 straight months of CPI inflation being above wage inflation. We've had one month with wages going up faster than CPI. So even if every month is the mirror of the months before, we'll still be worse off than we were in October 2021 by the time the election comes around.
    Especially thanks to fiscal drag.

    Real take-home wages are still falling currently, even with nominal wages growing faster than inflation.
    Fiscal drag, combined with benefits going up by CPI, is reducing income inequality across the UK. In terms of finding an equitable way to close the deficit during a cost-of-living crisis, passing on the costs of inflation to higher incomes is not, on the face of it, a particularly bad thing.

    However, it's introducing even more perverse incentives into the system. And I'd much prefer it if they simply increased tax rates for higher earners rather than doing it stealthily. Politically impossible though.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,132
    This is where tory party is headed. Three days after Lozza Fox etc etc...



    GB News
    @GBNEWS
    ·
    1h
    'The most successful, most dynamic, no nonsense news station, and the defenders of free speech'.

    Watch the moment @pritipatel passionately defended GB News to rapturous applause this evening at the Conservative Democratic Organisation gala dinner.

    https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1708586667429224543
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,132
    Farooq said:

    Jimmy Carter was 99 today.

    I hope he outlasts Trump
    Brilliant!!!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,132

    Matthew Stadlen
    @MatthewStadlen
    ·
    21m
    A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,915
    Is there any way that Sunak could change this in the remaining time before a general election has to be called?

    Mr & Mrs Sunak could make like St Francis, give all (or perhaps 99%) of their wealth away, and take a vow of poverty.

    It would shift the needle.
  • Eabhal said:

    Farooq said:

    Eabhal said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.
    And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.
    Yes. We're just off the back of 20 straight months of CPI inflation being above wage inflation. We've had one month with wages going up faster than CPI. So even if every month is the mirror of the months before, we'll still be worse off than we were in October 2021 by the time the election comes around.
    Especially thanks to fiscal drag.

    Real take-home wages are still falling currently, even with nominal wages growing faster than inflation.
    Fiscal drag, combined with benefits going up by CPI, is reducing income inequality across the UK. In terms of finding an equitable way to close the deficit during a cost-of-living crisis, it's not a particularly bad thing.

    However, it's introducing even more perverse incentives into the system. And I'd much prefer it if they simply increased tax rates for higher earners rather than doing it stealthily. Politically impossible though.
    Ummm no, you have that totally backwards.

    Fiscal drag hurts those working for lower incomes much, much, much more than it does those on higher incomes, as stuartinromford said.

    Tax free allowance is proportionately a much higher percentage of a lower wage earners income than it is a high earners income.

    7.8% wage growth versus 6.8% inflation with fiscal drag ...
    ... If you are on a median salary (£25,971) that's a real wage decline.
    ... If you are on minimum wage that's an even bigger real wage decline.
    ... If you are earning £150k that's a real wage increase.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,955

    This is where tory party is headed. Three days after Lozza Fox etc etc...



    GB News
    @GBNEWS
    ·
    1h
    'The most successful, most dynamic, no nonsense news station, and the defenders of free speech'.

    Watch the moment @pritipatel passionately defended GB News to rapturous applause this evening at the Conservative Democratic Organisation gala dinner.

    https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1708586667429224543

    When an organisation feels the need to put "Democratic" in their name...

    ⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,915
    edited October 2023

    Farooq said:

    Jimmy Carter was 99 today.

    I hope he outlasts Trump
    Brilliant!!!
    They could give Mr Trump a prison sentence that he comes out of on his 100th Birthday. That sounds about right given his crimes.

    He seems to have a very transactional marriage. I get arm candy - you get a secure future.

    Melania just renegotiated her pre-nup for the third time to get a big trust fund for her son it is reported, at the point of maximum leverage when he has been found liable for sexual assault and is about to be landed with $X million in the next compensation round after he defamed his victim.

    Good negotiators, these Trumps. Or at least some of them.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,317


    Matthew Stadlen
    @MatthewStadlen
    ·
    21m
    A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.

    A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,317

    This is where tory party is headed. Three days after Lozza Fox etc etc...



    GB News
    @GBNEWS
    ·
    1h
    'The most successful, most dynamic, no nonsense news station, and the defenders of free speech'.

    Watch the moment @pritipatel passionately defended GB News to rapturous applause this evening at the Conservative Democratic Organisation gala dinner.

    https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1708586667429224543

    The CDO sound like a putative organising cell for a coup d’etat.

  • Matthew Stadlen
    @MatthewStadlen
    ·
    21m
    A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.

    A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.
    Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning. :(
  • MattW said:

    Is there any way that Sunak could change this in the remaining time before a general election has to be called?

    Mr & Mrs Sunak could make like St Francis, give all (or perhaps 99%) of their wealth away, and take a vow of poverty.

    It would shift the needle.

    Though giving away 99 percent of their wealth would be more a vow of "doing extremely nicely, thank you."

    But yes- Rishi is what he is and there's no shame in that. And respect to him for taking time for public service.

    But his enormous pile of money makes him less effective as a politician. Partly it undercuts his message, but also there are bits of British life he simply doesn't seem to comprehend.

    Imagine if May had sent him to be a junior minister at Work and Pensions for a bit. Or some other spending department. Would that have filled in his worldview a bit?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,915

    MattW said:

    Is there any way that Sunak could change this in the remaining time before a general election has to be called?

    Mr & Mrs Sunak could make like St Francis, give all (or perhaps 99%) of their wealth away, and take a vow of poverty.

    It would shift the needle.

    Though giving away 99 percent of their wealth would be more a vow of "doing extremely nicely, thank you."

    But yes- Rishi is what he is and there's no shame in that. And respect to him for taking time for public service.

    But his enormous pile of money makes him less effective as a politician. Partly it undercuts his message, but also there are bits of British life he simply doesn't seem to comprehend.

    Imagine if May had sent him to be a junior minister at Work and Pensions for a bit. Or some other spending department. Would that have filled in his worldview a bit?
    Hmm. Fair point.

    If we take an estd 800 million combined, that makes them worth about a quarter of the Camerons at 1% left.

    Make it 99.8%, perhaps. Still comfortable.

  • Matthew Stadlen
    @MatthewStadlen
    ·
    21m
    A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.

    A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.
    Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning. :(
    Even if we discount Grant Shapps, which is fair enough, that's harsh on Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 22,375
    edited October 2023


    Matthew Stadlen
    @MatthewStadlen
    ·
    21m
    A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.

    A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.
    Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning. :(
    Even if we discount Grant Shapps, which is fair enough, that's harsh on Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid.
    That'll be the same Amber Rudd who had to resign over Windrush after lying about having deportation targets as part of the hostile environment policy? Even if it was mostly May's fault,

    Javid is perhaps a fair point.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,905


    Matthew Stadlen
    @MatthewStadlen
    ·
    21m
    A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.

    A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.
    Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning. :(
    Even if we discount Grant Shapps, which is fair enough, that's harsh on Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid.
    That'll be the same Amber Rudd who had to resign over Windrush after lying about having deportation targets as part of the hostile environment policy? Even if it was mostly May's fault,

    Javid is perhaps a fair point.
    Can I remind you that Ken Baker and David Waddington* predated 1993, so it goes with the territory. What about the Postman?

    * there is a special corner of Hell reserved for the late hanger and flogger Waddington. Prior to his political career he was Stefan Kizko's defence Barrister. A defence so appallingly bad that an innocent autistic man was barely defended
  • This is where tory party is headed. Three days after Lozza Fox etc etc...



    GB News
    @GBNEWS
    ·
    1h
    'The most successful, most dynamic, no nonsense news station, and the defenders of free speech'.

    Watch the moment @pritipatel passionately defended GB News to rapturous applause this evening at the Conservative Democratic Organisation gala dinner.

    https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1708586667429224543

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nhcWUTHNyI
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,952
    Why is being successful a negative?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,296
    Trump mocks Biden for getting disoriented on stage:

    https://x.com/alx/status/1707869806043582758
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,403
    Andy_JS said:

    Why is being successful a negative?

    It makes him less convincing[1] in depicting empathy, it makes his priorities not necessarily those of the public, and makes statements such as "we're all in this together" or "we'll get thru this together" risible.

    [1] Which in fairness to him is not the same as actually being empathetic. It's entirely possible that he just finds it difficult to show it.

  • Matthew Stadlen
    @MatthewStadlen
    ·
    21m
    A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.

    A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.
    Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning. :(
    Even if we discount Grant Shapps, which is fair enough, that's harsh on Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid.
    That'll be the same Amber Rudd who had to resign over Windrush after lying about having deportation targets as part of the hostile environment policy? Even if it was mostly May's fault,

    Javid is perhaps a fair point.
    Can I remind you that Ken Baker and David Waddington* predated 1993, so it goes with the territory. What about the Postman?

    * there is a special corner of Hell reserved for the late hanger and flogger Waddington. Prior to his political career he was Stefan Kizko's defence Barrister. A defence so appallingly bad that an innocent autistic man was barely defended
    Surely Waddington was our worst ever Home Secretary.
  • Jimmy Carter was 99 today.

    A candle for every year on his cake might be a fire hazard so instead I hope he was given a red balloon for every year today.
    99 Luftballons is a lot of single-use plastic.
  • MattW said:

    Farooq said:

    Jimmy Carter was 99 today.

    I hope he outlasts Trump
    Brilliant!!!
    They could give Mr Trump a prison sentence that he comes out of on his 100th Birthday. That sounds about right given his crimes.

    He seems to have a very transactional marriage. I get arm candy - you get a secure future.

    Melania just renegotiated her pre-nup for the third time to get a big trust fund for her son it is reported, at the point of maximum leverage when he has been found liable for sexual assault and is about to be landed with $X million in the next compensation round after he defamed his victim.

    Good negotiators, these Trumps. Or at least some of them.
    The Donald negotiates a good deal
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouG9cVhjPds

  • Matthew Stadlen
    @MatthewStadlen
    ·
    21m
    A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.

    A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.
    Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning. :(
    Even if we discount Grant Shapps, which is fair enough, that's harsh on Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid.
    That'll be the same Amber Rudd who had to resign over Windrush after lying about having deportation targets as part of the hostile environment policy? Even if it was mostly May's fault,

    Javid is perhaps a fair point.
    The inexplicable thing is Theresa May can sound quite pro-immigration which is hard to square with the hostile environment.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,403

    Jimmy Carter was 99 today.

    A candle for every year on his cake might be a fire hazard so instead I hope he was given a red balloon for every year today.
    99 Luftballons is a lot of single-use plastic.
    It's OK. We'll set them free at the break of dawn. And one by one, they'll be gone.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,317


    Matthew Stadlen
    @MatthewStadlen
    ·
    21m
    A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.

    A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.
    Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning. :(
    Even if we discount Grant Shapps, which is fair enough, that's harsh on Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid.
    That'll be the same Amber Rudd who had to resign over Windrush after lying about having deportation targets as part of the hostile environment policy? Even if it was mostly May's fault,

    Javid is perhaps a fair point.
    The inexplicable thing is Theresa May can sound quite pro-immigration which is hard to square with the hostile environment.
    All governments are essentially vulnerable to right wing press, and no government has had what the ordinary person would call “control” on immigration since the early 90s.
  • The mysterious Panorama tonight.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,422
    edited October 2023
    Hunt to unveil crackdown on benefits claimants who refuse to look for work
    Chancellor to argue that it is unfair for those on benefits not trying to get a job to get the same financial support as those who do

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/10/01/jeremy-hunt-crackdown-benefits-claimants-look-for-work/ (£££)

    The nasty party? The policy looks aimed at the membership with an eye to the leadership election, rather than being pro-business or pro-unemployed.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,952

    The mysterious Panorama tonight.

    No-one knows what it's going to be about?
  • Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 718
    Andy_JS said:

    The mysterious Panorama tonight.

    No-one knows what it's going to be about?
    If is another Russel Brandt story I doubt if anyone will care
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,212
    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    So ?

    And Mike isn't telling anyone to get rid of Sunak. He's just noting how poor a PM he has proved, and wondering if it might happen.

    This is, after all, a betting site.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,212
    Penddu2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The mysterious Panorama tonight.

    No-one knows what it's going to be about?
    If is another Russel Brandt story I doubt if anyone will care
    Willi or won't he ?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,706

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    And this is within the Chancellor's control somewhat, ending fiscal drag would see take home pay keep up better with price inflation.

    Doesn't help getting a 7% pay rise (if you can get one) if inflation is 6% and tax thresholds are frozen so much or most of your pay rise gets taken away in taxes.

    Fiscal drag in those circumstances means you're still worse off.
    My pay rise (private sector) was just 3% so with fiscal drag on tax bands, and high mortgage rates kicking in, it's a heck of a squeeze.

    Fundamentally, people are much worse off and the government is simply going to run out of time.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,706


    Matthew Stadlen
    @MatthewStadlen
    ·
    21m
    A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.

    A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.
    Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning. :(
    Even if we discount Grant Shapps, which is fair enough, that's harsh on Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid.
    That'll be the same Amber Rudd who had to resign over Windrush after lying about having deportation targets as part of the hostile environment policy? Even if it was mostly May's fault,

    Javid is perhaps a fair point.
    The inexplicable thing is Theresa May can sound quite pro-immigration which is hard to square with the hostile environment.
    All governments are essentially vulnerable to right wing press, and no government has had what the ordinary person would call “control” on immigration since the early 90s.
    There's a lot of mythologising about the right wing press: it's just a few businesses who sell papers, most of which the retired buy.

    Older people tend to be more concerned about immigration and so that's what their stories focus on. Because it sells more papers.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,208
    Andy_JS said:

    Why is being successful a negative?

    He's seen as "rich". Not the same.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,471


    Matthew Stadlen
    @MatthewStadlen
    ·
    21m
    A former Home Secretary saying the words “the Tory-hating, Brexit-bashing, free speech deniers at the BBC” is sinister. The BBC strives to be impartial and is attacked from all sides. It shouldn’t be impugned like this by a senior politician.

    A reminder that Braverman is merely the latest illiberal right-wing nut job in a long line.
    Its 30 years since the last Home Secretary who wasn't an illiberal nutjob by my reckoning. :(
    Even if we discount Grant Shapps, which is fair enough, that's harsh on Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid.
    That'll be the same Amber Rudd who had to resign over Windrush after lying about having deportation targets as part of the hostile environment policy? Even if it was mostly May's fault,

    Javid is perhaps a fair point.
    The inexplicable thing is Theresa May can sound quite pro-immigration which is hard to square with the hostile environment.
    All governments are essentially vulnerable to right wing press, and no government has had what the ordinary person would call “control” on immigration since the early 90s.
    All governments are essentially vulnerable to left wing press, and no government has had what the ordinary person would call “control” on immigration since 1997.

    (Or, more accurately, after Blair lifted visa restrictions in 2001.)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,706
    MattW said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    And this is within the Chancellor's control somewhat, ending fiscal drag would see take home pay keep up better with price inflation.

    Doesn't help getting a 7% pay rise (if you can get one) if inflation is 6% and tax thresholds are frozen so much or most of your pay rise gets taken away in taxes.

    Fiscal drag in those circumstances means you're still worse off.
    That's either honest tax rises elsewhere (which would get Sunak VONCd by his party faster than you can say "Graham Brady's mailbag"), honest spending cuts (good luck with that), or borrowing (Liz Truss says hello).

    Hence dishonest tax rises (fiscal drag) and spending cuts (local councils).

    Besides, fiscal drag is proportionally less painful if you're at the top of the scale.
    I just filled in a survey from my County Council asking about Council Tax increases vs Service Cuts since they are facing a projected £30m shortfall from a couple of years hence.

    They are limited to Council Tax increases of much less than inflation unless they hold a referendum first, which is ludicrous - so the options offered were between no budget increases and 2-3% real terms cuts.

    I said that I would support a referendum and an increase of inflation + 5% to improve services / public realm.
    This one is easy.

    Thanks to Osborne they get round it by splitting out social care. Then charge a big uplift overall.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,706

    Jimmy Carter was 99 today.

    I hope he had red balloons.
  • The mysterious Panorama tonight.

    Finland this time, surely?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    MattW said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    And this is within the Chancellor's control somewhat, ending fiscal drag would see take home pay keep up better with price inflation.

    Doesn't help getting a 7% pay rise (if you can get one) if inflation is 6% and tax thresholds are frozen so much or most of your pay rise gets taken away in taxes.

    Fiscal drag in those circumstances means you're still worse off.
    That's either honest tax rises elsewhere (which would get Sunak VONCd by his party faster than you can say "Graham Brady's mailbag"), honest spending cuts (good luck with that), or borrowing (Liz Truss says hello).

    Hence dishonest tax rises (fiscal drag) and spending cuts (local councils).

    Besides, fiscal drag is proportionally less painful if you're at the top of the scale.
    I just filled in a survey from my County Council asking about Council Tax increases vs Service Cuts since they are facing a projected £30m shortfall from a couple of years hence.

    They are limited to Council Tax increases of much less than inflation unless they hold a referendum first, which is ludicrous - so the options offered were between no budget increases and 2-3% real terms cuts.

    I said that I would support a referendum and an increase of inflation + 5% to improve services / public realm.
    Aren't you Nottinghamshire ?
    You're aware that the council tax here is the highest for any county (ex Rutland I believe) and all surrounding counties and unitaries are
    cheaper with like for like properties (Rotherham and Donny both cheaper than Bassetlaw e.g.)
    I checked and it's the county element which is way out of line, not the districts.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,044
    Hunt to announce a crackdown on benefits claimants. Just as well, it’s been so effective the previous dozen or so times they proposed it 🤔
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    Hunt also announcing another significant increase in the NMW: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66978109

    The target is for it to be 2/3 of the median wage by next October. In a government that overall aspires to disappointing this is a real success story in terms of making work pay and reducing income inequality.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,898
    His problem is that he's so rich at a time when most people are getting poorer. Plus, the British have always hated new money. There's probably a bit of other, less savoury, stuff going on too at the margins, where saying you don't like him because he's rich provides some cover. Still, hard to see that replacing him would help. I don't see anyone obviously better, and if there were it's not obvious the party would choose them. Oh well never mind.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.
    ...

    You are right that it doesn't matter that the PM is rich. It is though a big problem for the Conservatives if this is the overriding perception of him. Think what word cloud you would *like* to see at the top of this page, the descriptions that the british public think of when they think about the PM. I bet it would contain words like "strong", "good with the economy", "leader", "government", "responsibile", "action". Can't you see the difference here? Do you not know the concept of 'dammned by faint praise'?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,212
    kamski said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Why is being successful a negative?

    He's seen as "rich". Not the same.
    It's charming that Andy thinks Rishi has been a successful PM.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065

    I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.

    Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.

    This has been the story of the LibDems since their formation at the end of the 80s.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,479
    Andy_JS said:

    Why is being successful a negative?

    Most of the Sunaks’ wealth comes from Rishi’s father-in-law, not from his own or his wife’s actions.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,212
    Newsom picks Laphonza Butler as Feinstein replacement
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/01/newsom-senate-pick-butler-00119360
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,471

    Andy_JS said:

    Why is being successful a negative?

    Most of the Sunaks’ wealth comes from Rishi’s father-in-law, not from his own or his wife’s actions.
    Why is that a negative?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,212
    Faith in the Supreme Court is down. Voters now say they want changes.
    A new survey shows three-in-four voters want the justices bound to an ethics code.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/30/supreme-court-ethics-poll-00119236
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,212
    Well placed for the nomination if the criminal in chief goes down.

    Haley draws Trump’s fury after strong debate showing
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4230940-haley-draws-trumps-fury-after-strong-debate-showing/

    And possibly the Republican's best chance of actually winning.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,240

    I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.

    Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.

    Arguably the opportunity there is to do a Charles Kennedy and position the LibDems over the next few years as more progressive than Labour - socially liberal, economically moderate.

    The challenge is pulling that off without alienating Blue Wall voters.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,466

    Farooq said:

    Eabhal said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.
    And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.
    Yes. We're just off the back of 20 straight months of CPI inflation being above wage inflation. We've had one month with wages going up faster than CPI. So even if every month is the mirror of the months before, we'll still be worse off than we were in October 2021 by the time the election comes around.
    Especially thanks to fiscal drag.

    Real take-home wages are still falling currently, even with nominal wages growing faster than inflation.
    You’re in danger of post hoc data mining

    Wages aren’t growing!

    Oops.

    Real wages aren’t growing! 😁

    Fuck!

    Shit! Umm! Fiscal drag, thats’s it. Fiscal drag!

    Real take-home wages aren’t growing! 😁
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,479

    Andy_JS said:

    Why is being successful a negative?

    Most of the Sunaks’ wealth comes from Rishi’s father-in-law, not from his own or his wife’s actions.
    Why is that a negative?
    Andy was equating Sunak’s wealth with success. Success implies the wealth was earned. Getting rich because your father-in-law gave you lots of money is not what people generally mean by success in this context.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,137

    I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.

    Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.

    Arguably the opportunity there is to do a Charles Kennedy and position the LibDems over the next few years as more progressive than Labour - socially liberal, economically moderate.

    The challenge is pulling that off without alienating Blue Wall voters.
    There are very few seats where Labour and LDs are in competition. In the vast majority the opposition are Tories.

    So what @NickPalmer says is no longer true (if it ever was) LD and Lab seats tend to go the same way at elections. Up together and down together.

    LDs sitting on the opposition benches doesn't make them pro Tory.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,137

    Andy_JS said:

    Why is being successful a negative?

    Most of the Sunaks’ wealth comes from Rishi’s father-in-law, not from his own or his wife’s actions.
    Why is that a negative?
    Andy was equating Sunak’s wealth with success. Success implies the wealth was earned. Getting rich because your father-in-law gave you lots of money is not what people generally mean by success in this context.
    Marrying well has long been a strategy for success!
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,479

    Farooq said:

    Eabhal said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.
    And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.
    Yes. We're just off the back of 20 straight months of CPI inflation being above wage inflation. We've had one month with wages going up faster than CPI. So even if every month is the mirror of the months before, we'll still be worse off than we were in October 2021 by the time the election comes around.
    Especially thanks to fiscal drag.

    Real take-home wages are still falling currently, even with nominal wages growing faster than inflation.
    You’re in danger of post hoc data mining

    Wages aren’t growing!

    Oops.

    Real wages aren’t growing! 😁

    Fuck!

    Shit! Umm! Fiscal drag, thats’s it. Fiscal drag!

    Real take-home wages aren’t growing! 😁
    You’re in danger of wrapping yourself in a comfortable blanket of argument while, I suspect, Bart’s position better reflects the experience of the electorate.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,154

    I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.

    Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.

    Going back very many decades, the Liberals and now LibDems do better when a Conservative government is unpopular than when a Labour government is unpopular. The principal reason for this is that there are many unhappy Tories who nevertheless baulk at switching to Labour, whereas unhappy Labour voters are much more willing to switch directly to the Conservatives - as we saw in the so-called red wall seats. Yet, conversely, determined Tory voters are the more difficult to persuade to vote tactically.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,212

    I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.

    Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.

    Arguably the opportunity there is to do a Charles Kennedy and position the LibDems over the next few years as more progressive than Labour - socially liberal, economically moderate.

    The challenge is pulling that off without alienating Blue Wall voters.
    They've always been socially more liberal, so that ought not to be a massive challenge.

    And a period in government will seriously test Labour's reputation for economic competence.
    While they ought to get a bit of leeway for the mess they've been handed, memories are short.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,479
    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Why is being successful a negative?

    Most of the Sunaks’ wealth comes from Rishi’s father-in-law, not from his own or his wife’s actions.
    Why is that a negative?
    Andy was equating Sunak’s wealth with success. Success implies the wealth was earned. Getting rich because your father-in-law gave you lots of money is not what people generally mean by success in this context.
    Marrying well has long been a strategy for success!
    If Sunak’s big conference speech had a few jokes along those lines, the electorate might warm to him.
  • Farooq said:

    Eabhal said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.
    And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.
    Yes. We're just off the back of 20 straight months of CPI inflation being above wage inflation. We've had one month with wages going up faster than CPI. So even if every month is the mirror of the months before, we'll still be worse off than we were in October 2021 by the time the election comes around.
    Especially thanks to fiscal drag.

    Real take-home wages are still falling currently, even with nominal wages growing faster than inflation.
    You’re in danger of post hoc data mining

    Wages aren’t growing!

    Oops.

    Real wages aren’t growing! 😁

    Fuck!

    Shit! Umm! Fiscal drag, thats’s it. Fiscal drag!

    Real take-home wages aren’t growing! 😁
    He is right though- and that's before we consider that point one isn't true for a lot of people, and that if your mortgage has gone up that blows everything else out of the water.

    A lot of people don't feel better off, even if average wage growth exceeds CPI. Rishi's problem (going back to the header) is twofold;

    1 As a high flying financial spreadsheet nerd, he's liable to look at the numbers and get overexcited. (For example, energy costs may be falling, but the universal bit of energy support is going too. Right thing to do, but it leaves people a bit worse off.)

    2 Because he's famous for being a squillionaire, the public don't trust him on personal finances. Doesn't matter if that's fair or not, they don't.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,212

    Farooq said:

    Eabhal said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.
    And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.
    Yes. We're just off the back of 20 straight months of CPI inflation being above wage inflation. We've had one month with wages going up faster than CPI. So even if every month is the mirror of the months before, we'll still be worse off than we were in October 2021 by the time the election comes around.
    Especially thanks to fiscal drag.

    Real take-home wages are still falling currently, even with nominal wages growing faster than inflation.
    You’re in danger of post hoc data mining

    Wages aren’t growing!

    Oops.

    Real wages aren’t growing! 😁

    Fuck!

    Shit! Umm! Fiscal drag, thats’s it. Fiscal drag!

    Real take-home wages aren’t growing! 😁
    Those struggling with the cost of living are unlikely to ascribe a fall in what they actually get paid as 'post hoc data mining'.

    Oops.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    On topic of course his wealth is a problem. For several reasons it diminishes and dilutes all he says on the economy which in turn makes people less inclined to vote for him.

    There is a perception that he is adding PM to his list of achievements for no particular driving reason. Both Boris and Dave were rich but at least people understood why they wanted to be PM (solipsism and noblesse oblige respectively).
  • DavidL said:

    Hunt also announcing another significant increase in the NMW: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66978109

    The target is for it to be 2/3 of the median wage by next October. In a government that overall aspires to disappointing this is a real success story in terms of making work pay and reducing income inequality.

    In normal years I'd agree with you.

    But even now this is something the Government is running backwards on now though.

    £10.42 to £11.00 - an uplift of 5.56% is less than inflation.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Nigelb said:

    Newsom picks Laphonza Butler as Feinstein replacement
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/01/newsom-senate-pick-butler-00119360

    That cant be right, she looks under 80 years of age.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,706
    TOPPING said:



    There is a perception that he is adding PM to his list of achievements for no particular driving reason. Both Boris and Dave were rich but at least people understood why they wanted to be PM (solipsism and noblesse oblige respectively).

    Yes, there's probably something in that.

    It's something he could addresed by painting his long term vision and plan for this country, where he wants to lead us.

    But he doesn't. So that reinforces that.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,712
    Nigelb said:

    I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.

    Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.

    Arguably the opportunity there is to do a Charles Kennedy and position the LibDems over the next few years as more progressive than Labour - socially liberal, economically moderate.

    The challenge is pulling that off without alienating Blue Wall voters.
    They've always been socially more liberal, so that ought not to be a massive challenge.

    And a period in government will seriously test Labour's reputation for economic competence.
    While they ought to get a bit of leeway for the mess they've been handed, memories are short.
    I don’t see where the next Charles Kennedy is coming from, though. I had hopes around Layla Moran, but she seems to have been quiet lately.
    Of course, being the fourth party in parliament hasn’t helped the LibDems, or their potential stars.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    edited October 2023
    I’m getting sick and tired of this anti-wealth agenda, picking on people who have luxurious or successful lives like it is some kind of crime

    And yes, it is time to crack down on spongers who never even LOOK for a proper job

    Good morning




  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,212

    Nigelb said:

    Newsom picks Laphonza Butler as Feinstein replacement
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/01/newsom-senate-pick-butler-00119360

    That cant be right, she looks under 80 years of age.
    Ho Ho.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,240
    Foxy said:

    I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.

    Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.

    Arguably the opportunity there is to do a Charles Kennedy and position the LibDems over the next few years as more progressive than Labour - socially liberal, economically moderate.

    The challenge is pulling that off without alienating Blue Wall voters.
    There are very few seats where Labour and LDs are in competition. In the vast majority the opposition are Tories.

    So what @NickPalmer says is no longer true (if it ever was) LD and Lab seats tend to go the same way at elections. Up together and down together.

    LDs sitting on the opposition benches doesn't make them pro Tory.
    That’s a fair observation, but I think @NickPalmer’s LibDem friend’s point was possibly more about lending votes under FPTP.

    Labour and the LibDems aren’t in competition in any of the Oxfordshire seats, but nonetheless in four of the five county seats, the LibDems need votes from Labour supporters to get them over the line. (In the fifth the reverse is true.) A LibDem party continually attacking Labour makes that less likely.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,212

    Nigelb said:

    I was chatting to a LibDem friend (also a stand-holder at the Tory conference) about tactical voting, and we looked at the plausible situation that Labour wins some sort of overall majority while the LIbDems gain say 20 more seats from tactical voting. Labour then has 4-5 years in power amid unpromising economic conditions and could become quite unpopular. The LibDems will then want to attack the Government, as all Opposition parties do, and will try to get Tory tactical votes on the basis that "only the LibDems can beat Labour". The problem will then be that "loaned" Labour votes this time (who may poll as Labour but vote LibDem in 2024) will then recoil.

    Polling the cross-currents will then become *remarkably* difficult.

    Arguably the opportunity there is to do a Charles Kennedy and position the LibDems over the next few years as more progressive than Labour - socially liberal, economically moderate.

    The challenge is pulling that off without alienating Blue Wall voters.
    They've always been socially more liberal, so that ought not to be a massive challenge.

    And a period in government will seriously test Labour's reputation for economic competence.
    While they ought to get a bit of leeway for the mess they've been handed, memories are short.
    I don’t see where the next Charles Kennedy is coming from, though. I had hopes around Layla Moran, but she seems to have been quiet lately.
    Of course, being the fourth party in parliament hasn’t helped the LibDems, or their potential stars.
    Increased representation in Parliament after the election ought to throw up the odd possibility.

    Hopefully not too odd.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,466
    MattW said:

    Is there any way that Sunak could change this in the remaining time before a general election has to be called?

    Mr & Mrs Sunak could make like St Francis, give all (or perhaps 99%) of their wealth away, and take a vow of poverty.

    It would shift the needle.

    Nah. Assuming he has £500m people would complain it’s unfair he’d kept £5m for himself
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,212
    edited October 2023
    Leon said:

    I’m getting sick and tired of this anti-wealth agenda, picking on people who have luxurious or successful lives like it is some kind of crime

    And yes, it is time to crack down on spongers who never even LOOK for a proper job

    Good morning




    Did you get it yet ?
    Gave you several clues.

    (Btw the sight of half empty beer glasses in the morning is quite unpleasant.
    It's like being forced to breakfast at Wetherspoons.)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    I’m getting sick and tired of this anti-wealth agenda, picking on people who have luxurious or successful lives like it is some kind of crime

    And yes, it is time to crack down on spongers who never even LOOK for a proper job

    Good morning




    Did you get it yet ?
    Gave you several clues.

    Sorry no I’ve been scooter diving with about 50 sharks

    Seriously. Absolutely sensational experience. Like riding an underwater Harley Davidson into a herd of tigers
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500
    Eabhal said:

    Farooq said:

    Eabhal said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    The PM is rich? So what. He is leader of the Conservative Party not a Corbynite Marxist sect.

    What voters want to see is their own economic circumstances improve which he and Hunt are doing by cutting inflation and growing the economy and hopefully in due course cutting tax as well.

    As for getting rid of Rishi, barely more than a year ago OGH was telling Tories to get rid of Boris in favour of Rishi!

    Cutting inflation is not a sufficient condition for people to "see their own economic circumstances improve". What matters to most people is the difference between their income inflation and price inflation. Inflation is still high.
    We're not going destitute as fast as we were, darling. I think i'll vote conservative now.
    And don't forget the cumulative effect - it will be quite some time before real wages are back where they were before Sunak got in.
    Yes. We're just off the back of 20 straight months of CPI inflation being above wage inflation. We've had one month with wages going up faster than CPI. So even if every month is the mirror of the months before, we'll still be worse off than we were in October 2021 by the time the election comes around.
    Especially thanks to fiscal drag.

    Real take-home wages are still falling currently, even with nominal wages growing faster than inflation.
    Fiscal drag, combined with benefits going up by CPI, is reducing income inequality across the UK. In terms of finding an equitable way to close the deficit during a cost-of-living crisis, passing on the costs of inflation to higher incomes is not, on the face of it, a particularly bad thing.

    However, it's introducing even more perverse incentives into the system. And I'd much prefer it if they simply increased tax rates for higher earners rather than doing it stealthily. Politically impossible though.
    Obviously not a high tax payer then. More like they ought to get a grip on waste and make their employees and themselves do some real work. Big pay rises and numbers cut to cover the cost and make them have to do a day's work.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,133
    edited October 2023
    TOPPING said:

    On topic of course his wealth is a problem. For several reasons it diminishes and dilutes all he says on the economy which in turn makes people less inclined to vote for him.

    There is a perception that he is adding PM to his list of achievements for no particular driving reason. Both Boris and Dave were rich but at least people understood why they wanted to be PM (solipsism and noblesse oblige respectively).

    I think that's right. Few except those on the extreme left give a damn about his wealth in itself, and they wouldn't vote for him anyway. What matters is that he hasn't set out a positive vision for making this country richer or better generally.

    What may save Sunak is that Starmer seems incapable of doing it as well.
  • TOPPING said:



    There is a perception that he is adding PM to his list of achievements for no particular driving reason. Both Boris and Dave were rich but at least people understood why they wanted to be PM (solipsism and noblesse oblige respectively).

    Yes, there's probably something in that.

    It's something he could addresed by painting his long term vision and plan for this country, where he wants to lead us.

    But he doesn't. So that reinforces that.
    Sunak clearly has a vision- see his Mais lecture from last year. Low tax, low regulation so that enterprise can thrive. The main difference with Trussism is that he wants to do it responsibly. (Which is a good thing.)

    Rishi's problem is partly that isn't the mandate he inherited from the 2019 majority. The other is that it's not where the British people are and Sunak can't persuade for toffee.
This discussion has been closed.