Categories
Options
Can Hunt turn Tory fortunes around? – politicalbetting.com
Can Hunt turn Tory fortunes around? – politicalbetting.com
This is almost certainly the last budget before the general election and Hunt needs to get some good headlines on the way his proposals will impact on voters.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But in politics, you seldom get your just desserts.
As for the Autumn Statement, if you have fiscal headroom, there are worse things to do with it than cut NI, but there isn't really any such thing, is there? And the pre announced changes still add up to a hefty rise.
Would it be good for the Tories if they won another term in office? (I'msaying that knowing it would certainly be suboptimal for the country.)
They have no new ideas. They have no money to spend. They have no credibility. They are deeply unpopular. They are increasingly corrupt.
Losing now they should have a chance to rebuild.
Losing seven years from now and we'd be looking at the kind of hammering Roosevelt gave Alf Landon in 1936.
The optimal result for the Tories is surely a Labour majority of around 25 - small enough that they are in the game still, not so small that Starmer has to do deals with the Lib Dems that would lead to voting reform and bulldoze the foundation of their success for the last 140 years.
So you don’t think Rishi will be a jammy tart?
In other words, when he has some profiter roles.
There's no point laying landmines in ground you expect to continue to use yourself.
In order to win, cynical and unaffordable populism will be promoted. Will it work. Maybe, maybe not.
The COVID inquiry has demonstrated the utter contempt that this iteration of the Conservative Party have for their voters. I thought when Johnson was defenestrated, Sunak was the answer. I believed, even though he doesn't share my politics, he shares my demand for civic duty. It turns out he was just a sharp suited version of the self aggrandising Johnson.
Anyway, by 2029 something might come along to keep the wheels on the track.
No.
Labour leads by 24% in the Red Wall, their largest lead in these seats since August.
Red Wall VI (19 Nov):
Labour 50% (+2)
Conservative 26% (-6)
Reform UK 11% (+5)
Green 6% (+2)
Liberal Democrat 5% (-2)
Other 2% (-1)
Changes +/- 22 Oct
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-red-wal…
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1727008980226969913?t=z8hfATDpqGH7bPqdu84Law&s=19
Peronism, English style.
After all, we've spotted several dicks in his cabinet.
They'd need a total change of perception, which they cannot get with the same people, but they've also alienated the public by switching a lot.
Trapped.
True that they are admirers of US conservatism, which since Reagan has been based on borrowing to finance current spending. With tax breaks for the wealthiest.
Government spending is simultaneously too low (approximately nothing the government is responsible for works, and in most cases it's obvious that the problems are going to need money to solve) and too high (it exceeds our willingness to pay more taxes).
The only ways out are to either raise taxes in a meaningful way or find a significant bit of government activity that shouldn't happen any more. And if Sunak and Hunt can't find politically acceptable examples of those, I rather doubt that they exist.
So we continue with the dismal spectacle of a government, a Conservative government, cutting actual investment to fund annual maintenance out of the supposed windfall.
https://news.sky.com/story/israel-government-votes-to-back-hostage-deal-with-hamas-after-six-weeks-of-fighting-13012666
So perhaps all those protests had some effect...
Iowa official’s wife found guilty on all 52 counts of voter fraud charges
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4322071-iowa-officials-wife-found-guilty-voter-fraud/
The remains few Tories deny this is the case - and that only drives harder the determination to not just vote them out but to smash them brutally.
Any government is going to find it hard now that there is no money left and because the door wasn’t fixed when the sun was shining.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
I'm not sure this is the winning policy platform the Tories hope it is.
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1727040287816769938
I suspect it's not quite as simple as that; as a nation we're probably in the place where people accept that taxes ought to go up in general, but are going to moan about any specific increases we have to pay.
But in general, yes, There Is No Alternative. And "we're clearing up the Tory Mess" is going to be heard a lot.
Add in the collapse in public sector productivity and we have serious problems. We are undoubtedly going to try a change of government to see if things get better but they probably won’t.
If the Tories came out and said “we believe in a small state, and that means closing the libraries and not providing support to new parents and you having to work 2 jobs to have enough money to be broke” I would respect it more. Would be more honest.
It will either take so long it won't make a blind bit of difference or it will be merely dismissed as a political stunt.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgwmak/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ridiculously-chaotic-coup-implosion-and-counter-revolution-at-openai
Perhaps the whole thing is a cunning plan to convince the public that humans are incapable of running a bunfight in a bakery and that we'd be better off with machines in charge.
Truss was right about the problem, lack of growth, but totally holed that below the waterline with her flawed execution of the strategy.
Raise taxes and you choke off growth at the time you need it.
I was pretty sure they would not do this as it was too expensive this time round.
In fact the Tories were also pretty sure they wouldn’t do this only a week ago. Because they described Rachel Reeves as economically illiterate for suggesting it.
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
The largest debt reduction achieved in the last 15 years was of course the burst of inflation which reduced the real value of that debt by something like 15%. And inflation is what the government is boasting about reducing (not that it had much to do with them). Further reductions are going to be seriously challenging.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=363682
..."I applaud Jennie, Jisoo, Lisa and Rose, better known collectively as BLACKPINK, for their role in bringing the message of environmental sustainability to a global audience as ambassadors for the U.K.'s presidency of COP26, and later as advocates for the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals," the King said..
There's a reasonable chance that they might be more realistic about our finances than the Tories. Though that's not the highest of bars.
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
Perhaps the difference between revenues and expenditure is, as @RochdalePioneers suggests, due to government supporters stealing from the public purse, but colour me sceptical.
I do not think people are wary of Labour when it comes to our finances now. Not like they would have been a few years back.
Anyway all irrelevant what we do in the UK. This is locally decided with a hint of US influence.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
This suggestion that the books would somehow add up if "Tory graft" was eliminated takes this element of fantasy even further.
This is not to suggest that they should not or will not get their turn, they will and they deserve to do so. The Tories are completely out of ideas and business as usual is not an answer to our current plight.
What we really need to do is to get a much better return on current spending whether that is building a trainline, fixing an RAAC affected school or simply facilitating business by providing a vaguely competent service. Is it possible that a Labour government might want to challenge our public services this way? We can only hope so as a nation and wish them well.
Calling for a unilateral ceasefire by Israel and only Israel was wrong. A bilateral ceasefire is great.
Fiscal drag + minimum wage could become a greater issue.
Startling figures for the yummy middle class:
2024/5 on current plans. Two people couple, two children, both working FT 40 hours a week on minimum wage: Earn £47.5 K plus child benefit.
Same couple, mum stays at home to look after children, dad £51K. Child benefit is clawed back, and he is on marginal higher rate.
I support a proper minimum wage, but the effects on class/occupation differentials is beginning to show.
I'm sceptical about their prospects too - but I'm a very long way past being sceptical about the Tories.
Incorrect. I can't be bothered to google the number of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel before during and no doubt after this episode.
You have perfectly captured the one-eyed view of people such as yourself on this matter.
No, you can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you'll find
You get what you need
It’s corruption. Had they inserted a basic boiler plate performance clause in these contracts that would have been better. Instead they just hand billions of our money over to themselves for nothing.
Had Labour done it, you lot would still be screeching about it.
In the longer term, it surely makes little difference to the tax take if I claim back the costs of an asset in the year of purchase, or if I claim back the costs over a five, ten or twenty year depreciation curve? Either way, the full costs get claimed back against Corp tax, it's just that the timing the other way around isn't as well lined up with the investment, and therefore is more likely to trash the business's cash flow.
But they don't tend to vote Labour or work in the public sector.
Basically the Clinton third way - fund government spending with debt. Works in a low interest rate environment.
(Not that I particularly blame them for the the higher cost of debt - that’s good and healthy. I do blame them for extending and pretending and not establishing a sustainable model before the end of the low rate era)
Or is the option of being a stay at home Mum an expected privilege once Dad earns north of 50k ?
The problem is that unless personal allowances change, many people will not benefit from an NI cut (and working pensioners will not benefit at all - world's smallest violin for us, I know). The main issue for me, though, is that public services are still being starved, and a two-year waiting list is far more urgent to address than a penny off NI.
There’s a heck of a lot more than just the door which needs fixing…
(I don’t think Starmer or Labour has the answers though)
There is lots of unnecessary spending - subsidising low wages, unnecessary bureaucracy and paper chasing, pet projects that take on a life of their own. Someone needs to go through government spending on a zero budget basis.
But I’m not sure that feasible in a democracy (at least with our weak willed politicians and social media the way it is). Far easier to push the problem onto the next guy
I realise this was yesterday's post topic but I'd say very possibly earlier next year than we thought.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-war-grinds-on-israel-sees-sharp-drop-in-rocket-attacks-from-gaza/#:~:text=During the first hours of,killed soldiers by the hundreds.
Must Finish Header.
I’m sure he’ll be okay though, and I’m very sure that whichever large company has him in line for a directorship is quite happy that he didn’t really try to achieve it.
But if they have really destroyed Hamas’s infrastructure in Northern Gaza, demonstrated the consequences of the sort of action Hamas undertook and get the hostages back may be they take that as a win.
Benny Gantz is the person to watch. If he threatened to walk away then Netenyahu wouldn’t have many alternatives
There's some incompetence and corruption as well but its trivial compared to what the government spends:
Social protection £341bn
Health £245bn
Education £131bn
Debt interest £116bn
Defence £68bn
Transport £62bn
Industry, agriculture, employment £50bn
Public order & safety £47bn
Personal social services £43bn
Housing & Environment £38bn
Other £48bn
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45814459
Anyone who thinks spending a few billion more is going to materially improve public services or end poverty has no idea on how much is already being spent.
My complaint this morning is that if you are saying this is why today will be another disappointment in terms of meeting the needs of our public services you are deluding yourself. It simply doesn't even scratch the surface.
https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/binance-ceo-changpeng-zhao-step-down-plead-guilty-01f72a40
He was supposed to be next in line for the Sam Bankman-Fried treatment, but it seems the Feds prefer to keep one massive crypto exchange that they control.
A (near) majority between -5 and 5 would be a disaster as they would have to govern, but Sunak would have no credibilty as PM and the government would need every single Tory MP's vote including JRM's and Braverman's.
The problem for the Tories if they have nder 200 MPs is that they will have many many fewer new MPs. A rump of the current MPs will still be there still stabbing each other in the back.
As you suggest a small Labour or Labour-Coalition majority would be good for the tories. It gives them something to pull together for to be en effective oppostion, with some new parliamentary blood but still the clear message that the Tories at all levels need to get their act together.
Once in power Labour ought to squeeze the wealthy 'til the pips squeak. The wealthy (and, relatively, I'm one of them) have been stashing up assets off borrowed government money for years.
Time for the rich to face the music: You want to live in a first world country? Well don't expected it to be paid for by borrowed money and other people's taxes.
I'd suggest a more rational approach than the wibble about cutting taxes would be rebalancing taxes as we all know is required. And if he believes his claims that inflation is tamed and on the way out, perhaps he needs to have an early look at interest rates, and rely on the tax side to keep the economy tight.
They won't though, because they are sub-Thatcherites without Mrs Thatcher's greater subtlety.
One of the hand grenades he has put down his own trousers is that Short-Term Rishi has shot NHS Waiting List Reduction and probably National Debt Falling in the back of the head, which is going to leave him arguing marginal, technical meeting of those goals like a drunk, finger-jabbing MP in a Palace of Westminster subsidised tanking hole.