Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Can Hunt turn Tory fortunes around? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,014
edited November 2023 in General
imageCan 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.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    Be a nice surprise if he could.....
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,119
    In a word, no.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    They don't deserve him to, that's for sure.

    But in politics, you seldom get your just desserts.
  • Options
    I would think that the Tories will unveil some popular tax cuts in the Autumn Statement today, which will give them a modest boost. They do still have the Budget in March next year where they can deliver more and I'd think they'd want to keep some powder dry for that - although there's a risk that they might have less fiscal space to work with then. I doubt they can fundamentally change their position - I suspect the die is cast - but I do expect today to give them a small boost.
  • Options
    Taz said:

    In a word, no.

    Seconded. The Conservatives crashed through the Trust Thermocline ages ago, so the public's first instinct is to look for holes in anything they say. (See the outpouring of gratitude for having halved inflation... or rather don't because there isn't one.)

    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.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,011
    ydoethur said:

    They don't deserve him to, that's for sure.

    But in politics, you seldom get your just desserts.

    That’s sweet of you.

    So you don’t think Rishi will be a jammy tart?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    How long before the BBC goes back to ‘accidentally’ mispronouncing his name?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,576

    ydoethur said:

    They don't deserve him to, that's for sure.

    But in politics, you seldom get your just desserts.

    That’s sweet of you.

    So you don’t think Rishi will be a jammy tart?
    The upper crust might like it, but I suspect everyone wants an extra slice.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    edited November 2023

    ydoethur said:

    They don't deserve him to, that's for sure.

    But in politics, you seldom get your just desserts.

    That’s sweet of you.

    So you don’t think Rishi will be a jammy tart?
    Don't be silly. He's a cowardy custard.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    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.

    Also, Conservative politics has reached a fiscal dead end; there is simply no way they can make the numbers add up over the next five years without reneging on their current beliefs. And they've done enough of that anyway.

    There's no point laying landmines in ground you expect to continue to use yourself.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,123
    edited November 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    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.

    A win is win. The gravy train rolls on.

    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.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,011
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    They don't deserve him to, that's for sure.

    But in politics, you seldom get your just desserts.

    That’s sweet of you.

    So you don’t think Rishi will be a jammy tart?
    Don't be silly. He's a cowardy custard.
    Got to say that both @Foxy ans @Stuartinromford outdid you.

  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,952
    On topic.
    No.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,576
    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    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.

    The "Red Wall" poll yesterday of 40 seats that the Tories gained in 2019 plus the Hartlepool byelection looks grim. That's the Tory majority gone there alone.

    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
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,011

    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    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.

    Also, Conservative politics has reached a fiscal dead end; there is simply no way they can make the numbers add up over the next five years without reneging on their current beliefs. And they've done enough of that anyway.

    There's no point laying landmines in ground you expect to continue to use yourself.
    It’s not really reached a dead end. The problem is they have been implementing a combination of low taxes and high spending. No wonder it hasn’t worked.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,576

    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    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.

    Also, Conservative politics has reached a fiscal dead end; there is simply no way they can make the numbers add up over the next five years without reneging on their current beliefs. And they've done enough of that anyway.

    There's no point laying landmines in ground you expect to continue to use yourself.
    It’s not really reached a dead end. The problem is they have been implementing a combination of low taxes and high spending. No wonder it hasn’t worked.
    Not low taxes so much as high debt, and increasingly expensive debt at that.

    Peronism, English style.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,468

    ydoethur said:

    They don't deserve him to, that's for sure.

    But in politics, you seldom get your just desserts.

    That’s sweet of you.

    So you don’t think Rishi will be a jammy tart?
    More of a plum duff.

    After all, we've spotted several dicks in his cabinet.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,717
    No he cannot, because they are in the kind of period where even if they do something which people welcome they won't get rewarded.

    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.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,468

    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    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.

    Also, Conservative politics has reached a fiscal dead end; there is simply no way they can make the numbers add up over the next five years without reneging on their current beliefs. And they've done enough of that anyway.

    There's no point laying landmines in ground you expect to continue to use yourself.
    It’s not really reached a dead end. The problem is they have been implementing a combination of low taxes and high spending. No wonder it hasn’t worked.
    We have the highest tax burden in half a century, so whatever they've been implementing, it's not what you say.

    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.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    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.

    Also, Conservative politics has reached a fiscal dead end; there is simply no way they can make the numbers add up over the next five years without reneging on their current beliefs. And they've done enough of that anyway.

    There's no point laying landmines in ground you expect to continue to use yourself.
    It’s not really reached a dead end. The problem is they have been implementing a combination of low taxes and high spending. No wonder it hasn’t worked.
    Not low taxes so much as high debt, and increasingly expensive debt at that.

    Peronism, English style.
    And that is the dead end we've been skipping into for a while.

    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.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,576
    Looks like the ceasefire and hostage exchanges are on:

    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...
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,468
    One guess which party.

    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/
  • Options
    It doesn’t matter what Hunt does today. Or in the budget next March. The country is broken, with an economy which only works for an increasing few with infrastructure and services crumbling around our ears.

    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.
  • Options
    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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…
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    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.

    Also, Conservative politics has reached a fiscal dead end; there is simply no way they can make the numbers add up over the next five years without reneging on their current beliefs. And they've done enough of that anyway.

    There's no point laying landmines in ground you expect to continue to use yourself.
    It’s not really reached a dead end. The problem is they have been implementing a combination of low taxes and high spending. No wonder it hasn’t worked.
    Not low taxes so much as high debt, and increasingly expensive debt at that.

    Peronism, English style.
    And that is the dead end we've been skipping into for a while.

    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.
    I don’t think government spending “exceeds our willingness to pay more taxes”. It exceeds the willingness of an average Tory voter, but how many of them are there? I think most people are OK with paying more tax, if done in a fair way and spent wisely, and that’s why they’re not intending to vote Conservative.
  • Options
    RattersRatters Posts: 776
    Crumbling public services, abandoned long-term infrastructure projects, record debt issuance... and tax cuts.

    I'm not sure this is the winning policy platform the Tories hope it is.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,468
    Last night was the ten year anniversary of the Ukrainian revolution.
    https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1727040287816769938
  • Options

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    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.

    Also, Conservative politics has reached a fiscal dead end; there is simply no way they can make the numbers add up over the next five years without reneging on their current beliefs. And they've done enough of that anyway.

    There's no point laying landmines in ground you expect to continue to use yourself.
    It’s not really reached a dead end. The problem is they have been implementing a combination of low taxes and high spending. No wonder it hasn’t worked.
    Not low taxes so much as high debt, and increasingly expensive debt at that.

    Peronism, English style.
    And that is the dead end we've been skipping into for a while.

    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.
    I don’t think government spending “exceeds our willingness to pay more taxes”. It exceeds the willingness of an average Tory voter, but how many of them are there? I think most people are OK with paying more tax, if done in a fair way and spent wisely, and that’s why they’re not intending to vote Conservative.
    Fair point.

    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.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,189

    It doesn’t matter what Hunt does today. Or in the budget next March. The country is broken, with an economy which only works for an increasing few with infrastructure and services crumbling around our ears.

    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.

    The sun hasn’t shone since 2008 and any moderate weather has been offset by the intense winter storms of Covid and Ukraine. The simple fact is that without the tax from excess financial services profits we can’t afford to pay for the services and fiscal support we think we are entitled to.

    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.
  • Options
    Ratters said:

    Crumbling public services, abandoned long-term infrastructure projects, record debt issuance... and tax cuts.

    I'm not sure this is the winning policy platform the Tories hope it is.

    Tories deny that public services are crumbling - which enrages people in the real world. Or tries to blame councils whose funding from government has been cut to £zero just as their requirement to spend increases. Or just blames the Last Labour Government.

    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.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937
    Foxy said:

    Looks like the ceasefire and hostage exchanges are on:

    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...

    Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,119

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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 cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.

    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.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,117
    There's an interesting article at VICE telling the story (so far) of the chaos at OpenAI:
    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.
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 4,772
    Instead of investing in public services the Tories are going to give tax cuts which will make little difference and are pure electioneering. They’re also going to make life much harder for the disabled and genuinely long term sick . Helping people into work is fine , but not terrifying those genuinely unable to work into trying to for fear of falling into destitution.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,119

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    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.

    Also, Conservative politics has reached a fiscal dead end; there is simply no way they can make the numbers add up over the next five years without reneging on their current beliefs. And they've done enough of that anyway.

    There's no point laying landmines in ground you expect to continue to use yourself.
    It’s not really reached a dead end. The problem is they have been implementing a combination of low taxes and high spending. No wonder it hasn’t worked.
    Not low taxes so much as high debt, and increasingly expensive debt at that.

    Peronism, English style.
    And that is the dead end we've been skipping into for a while.

    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.
    Or grow the economy sufficiently to fund it.

    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.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,554
    So now the Telegraph is leaking that he will after all make full expensing permanent.

    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.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,576
    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    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.

    Also, Conservative politics has reached a fiscal dead end; there is simply no way they can make the numbers add up over the next five years without reneging on their current beliefs. And they've done enough of that anyway.

    There's no point laying landmines in ground you expect to continue to use yourself.
    It’s not really reached a dead end. The problem is they have been implementing a combination of low taxes and high spending. No wonder it hasn’t worked.
    Not low taxes so much as high debt, and increasingly expensive debt at that.

    Peronism, English style.
    And that is the dead end we've been skipping into for a while.

    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.
    Or grow the economy sufficiently to fund it.

    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.
    The best growth strategy is getting government debt down.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,554
    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    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.

    Also, Conservative politics has reached a fiscal dead end; there is simply no way they can make the numbers add up over the next five years without reneging on their current beliefs. And they've done enough of that anyway.

    There's no point laying landmines in ground you expect to continue to use yourself.
    It’s not really reached a dead end. The problem is they have been implementing a combination of low taxes and high spending. No wonder it hasn’t worked.
    Not low taxes so much as high debt, and increasingly expensive debt at that.

    Peronism, English style.
    And that is the dead end we've been skipping into for a while.

    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.
    Or grow the economy sufficiently to fund it.

    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.
    Though in the short term the thing that really chokes off growth is rising interest rates, and higher taxes on some areas of the economy could have kept a cap on inflation and meant rates didn’t need to rise so far.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,119

    Foxy said:

    Looks like the ceasefire and hostage exchanges are on:

    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...

    Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
    No. The posturing of international political heavyweights like Anas Sarwar and Stephen Flynn would have really made Bibi sit up and take notice and reflect on his nations actions.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,576

    Foxy said:

    Looks like the ceasefire and hostage exchanges are on:

    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...

    Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
    I was rather tongue in cheek!

    But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
  • Options
    TimS said:

    So now the Telegraph is leaking that he will after all make full expensing permanent.

    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.

    And yet, their main attack line on Starmer is that he is a flip flopper.....to be fair perhaps the Tories have abandoned flip flopping in exchange for a lucky dip policy for the month draw. The only consistencies are HYUFD will support every set of policies and BigG every other set of policies.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,679
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Looks like the ceasefire and hostage exchanges are on:

    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...

    Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
    I was rather tongue in cheek!

    But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
    What did people want out of a ceasefire / believe people wanted? To me a ceasefire is a cessation of violence, giving the opportunity for a release of hostages and the movement of civilians out of harms way, as well as the potential for long term peace negotiations. If it only holds back the tide of death for four days, that is four more days then people had previously.
  • Options
    Regression and the mid term effect suggest a Tory boost is very possible if not odds on regardless of the budget. I suspect they will get a boost from the budget but then do something silly in the not too distant future to lose it again.
  • Options
    Taz said:

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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 cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.

    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.
    I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Looks like the ceasefire and hostage exchanges are on:

    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...

    Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
    I was rather tongue in cheek!

    But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
    Who said that?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Looks like the ceasefire and hostage exchanges are on:

    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...

    Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
    I was rather tongue in cheek!

    But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
    Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
  • Options
    ClippPClippP Posts: 1,684

    I would think that the Tories will unveil some popular tax cuts in the Autumn Statement today, which will give them a modest boost. They do still have the Budget in March next year where they can deliver more and I'd think they'd want to keep some powder dry for that - although there's a risk that they might have less fiscal space to work with then. I doubt they can fundamentally change their position - I suspect the die is cast - but I do expect today to give them a small boost.

    Given the state of the country's economy and its financial situation, I think any kind of tax cuts will be looked on as recklessly irresponsible. So no poll boost for the Tories today, I think, Mr Boy.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,189
    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    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.

    Also, Conservative politics has reached a fiscal dead end; there is simply no way they can make the numbers add up over the next five years without reneging on their current beliefs. And they've done enough of that anyway.

    There's no point laying landmines in ground you expect to continue to use yourself.
    It’s not really reached a dead end. The problem is they have been implementing a combination of low taxes and high spending. No wonder it hasn’t worked.
    Not low taxes so much as high debt, and increasingly expensive debt at that.

    Peronism, English style.
    And that is the dead end we've been skipping into for a while.

    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.
    Or grow the economy sufficiently to fund it.

    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.
    The best growth strategy is getting government debt down.
    Our government is finding it hard to get borrowing down, let alone debt.

    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.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,576

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Looks like the ceasefire and hostage exchanges are on:

    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...

    Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
    I was rather tongue in cheek!

    But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
    Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
    There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.

    Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,468
    I'm trying to imagine this being said by the late queen at a state banquet.

    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..
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,189

    Taz said:

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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 cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.

    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.
    I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
    But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,189
    Nigelb said:

    I'm trying to imagine this being said by the late queen at a state banquet.

    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..

    Oh she would have. She was a trooper and willing to spout any old rubbish she was given to say with barely a raised eyebrow.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,468
    DavidL said:

    Taz said:

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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 cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.

    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.
    I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
    But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
    Are they ?
    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.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    How long before the BBC goes back to ‘accidentally’ mispronouncing his name?

    That is nothing compared with the roasting the Speaker will dish out for announcing measures in the press rather than in the Commons.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Looks like the ceasefire and hostage exchanges are on:

    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...

    Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
    I was rather tongue in cheek!

    But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
    Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
    There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.

    Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
    So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...

    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...).
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,800
    Not by much, but cutting NI is undoubtedly, the right thing to do.

    Perhaps the difference between revenues and expenditure is, as @RochdalePioneers suggests, due to government supporters stealing from the public purse, but colour me sceptical.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,119

    Taz said:

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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 cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.

    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.
    I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
    If so, then good, I really do hope so. However I will believe it when I see it. These sort of crimes rarely seem to be prosecuted. The US is far better at dealing with white collar crime than we are.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,468
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm trying to imagine this being said by the late queen at a state banquet.

    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..

    Oh she would have. She was a trooper and willing to spout any old rubbish she was given to say with barely a raised eyebrow.
    Naturally. Just trying to imagine it in her slightly acerbic deadpan.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,119
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Taz said:

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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 cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.

    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.
    I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
    But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
    Are they ?
    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.
    Rachel Reeves does seem to have an air of competence about her, certainly far more than her predecessor Annaliese Dodds.

    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.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,468
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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 cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.

    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.
    I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
    If so, then good, I really do hope so. However I will believe it when I see it. These sort of crimes rarely seem to be prosecuted. The US is far better at dealing with white collar crime than we are.
    I might even believe that if Trump is convicted.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,119
    Nigelb said:

    I'm trying to imagine this being said by the late queen at a state banquet.

    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..

    OR the rather cringeworthy "gettin down wiv da kidz" stuff he was speaking about gangam style and BTS, as shown on GMB earlier.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Looks like the ceasefire and hostage exchanges are on:

    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...

    Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
    I was rather tongue in cheek!

    But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
    Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
    There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.

    Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
    Haven't they agreed a pause rather than a ceasefire!? That was how parliament voted....

    Anyway all irrelevant what we do in the UK. This is locally decided with a hint of US influence.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,679

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Looks like the ceasefire and hostage exchanges are on:

    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...

    Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
    I was rather tongue in cheek!

    But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
    Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
    There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.

    Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
    So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...

    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...).
    I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.

    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.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,468
    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm trying to imagine this being said by the late queen at a state banquet.

    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..

    OR the rather cringeworthy "gettin down wiv da kidz" stuff he was speaking about gangam style and BTS, as shown on GMB earlier.
    Yes, hideous.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,189
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Taz said:

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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 cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.

    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.
    I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
    But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
    Are they ?
    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.
    I have made the point before that their plans to increase taxes by a billion here and a billion there by removing things like VAT exemptions for private schools and non dom status are utterly trivial compared with the amounts already being spent on education and health, not even 1% in the latter case. When you match these sums against the enormous perceived need to boost spending in these areas you are looking at either much higher general taxation or ruinous borrowing. I don't see anything "realistic" about that.

    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.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,800
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Taz said:

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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 cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.

    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.
    I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
    But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
    Are they ?
    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.
    I have made the point before that their plans to increase taxes by a billion here and a billion there by removing things like VAT exemptions for private schools and non dom status are utterly trivial compared with the amounts already being spent on education and health, not even 1% in the latter case. When you match these sums against the enormous perceived need to boost spending in these areas you are looking at either much higher general taxation or ruinous borrowing. I don't see anything "realistic" about that.

    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.
    It will probably be the next Labour government that has to explain to people that they can't get everything they want from the government.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Looks like the ceasefire and hostage exchanges are on:

    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...

    Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
    I was rather tongue in cheek!

    But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
    Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
    There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.

    Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
    You have misunderstood for some reason.

    Calling for a unilateral ceasefire by Israel and only Israel was wrong. A bilateral ceasefire is great.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,504
    As to the question, Hunt can help the Tories but not much. The polls will narrow, and a Labour overall majority is still in question, but Labour will lead the next government. (Unless a black swan intervenes, like the anti semitism row.

    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.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,468
    .
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Taz said:

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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 cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.

    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.
    I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
    But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
    Are they ?
    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.
    I have made the point before that their plans to increase taxes by a billion here and a billion there by removing things like VAT exemptions for private schools and non dom status are utterly trivial compared with the amounts already being spent on education and health, not even 1% in the latter case. When you match these sums against the enormous perceived need to boost spending in these areas you are looking at either much higher general taxation or ruinous borrowing. I don't see anything "realistic" about that.

    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.
    No party is at all honest about our finances when campaigning - which is regrettable, but unlikely to change.
    I'm sceptical about their prospects too - but I'm a very long way past being sceptical about the Tories.
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,887

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Looks like the ceasefire and hostage exchanges are on:

    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...

    Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
    I was rather tongue in cheek!

    But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
    Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
    There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.

    Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
    So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...

    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...).
    Some people on this forum HAVE said that calling for ceasefire is anti-semitic.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,279
    148grss said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Looks like the ceasefire and hostage exchanges are on:

    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...

    Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
    I was rather tongue in cheek!

    But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
    Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
    There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.

    Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
    So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...

    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...).
    I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.

    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.
    "All the bombing"

    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.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,189
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Taz said:

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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 cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.

    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.
    I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
    But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
    Are they ?
    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.
    I have made the point before that their plans to increase taxes by a billion here and a billion there by removing things like VAT exemptions for private schools and non dom status are utterly trivial compared with the amounts already being spent on education and health, not even 1% in the latter case. When you match these sums against the enormous perceived need to boost spending in these areas you are looking at either much higher general taxation or ruinous borrowing. I don't see anything "realistic" about that.

    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.
    It will probably be the next Labour government that has to explain to people that they can't get everything they want from the government.
    A Rolling Stones revival is always welcome:

    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
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,011
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    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.

    Also, Conservative politics has reached a fiscal dead end; there is simply no way they can make the numbers add up over the next five years without reneging on their current beliefs. And they've done enough of that anyway.

    There's no point laying landmines in ground you expect to continue to use yourself.
    It’s not really reached a dead end. The problem is they have been implementing a combination of low taxes and high spending. No wonder it hasn’t worked.
    Not low taxes so much as high debt, and increasingly expensive debt at that.


    Peronism, English style.
    Not really. At least Peron pretended to care for the descamisados
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Taz said:

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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 cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.

    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.
    I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
    But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
    I think Labour believe there are corruption charges to go after because the Tories are corrupt. £107m contracts awarded without tender to a Tory with no PPE experience to a company incorporated days earlier. Hundreds of millions paid out for PPE that was either out of spec unusable or not delivered at all. Companies being awarded further £millions contracts to store the unusable PPE which they had already been paid £hundredsofmillions for.

    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.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,279

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Looks like the ceasefire and hostage exchanges are on:

    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...

    Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
    I was rather tongue in cheek!

    But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
    Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
    There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.

    Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
    You have misunderstood for some reason.

    Calling for a unilateral ceasefire by Israel and only Israel was wrong. A bilateral ceasefire is great.
    It would be great but precisely no one thinks that Hamas will adhere to a genuine ceasefire and many think they shouldn't. Why a few even posting on PB I'd warrant.
  • Options
    theProletheProle Posts: 948
    TimS said:

    So now the Telegraph is leaking that he will after all make full expensing permanent.

    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.

    Maybe I'm being thick, but doesn't full expensing merely shift the tax point, all other things being equal?
    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.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Taz said:

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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 cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.

    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.
    I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
    But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
    Are they ?
    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.
    I have made the point before that their plans to increase taxes by a billion here and a billion there by removing things like VAT exemptions for private schools and non dom status are utterly trivial compared with the amounts already being spent on education and health, not even 1% in the latter case. When you match these sums against the enormous perceived need to boost spending in these areas you are looking at either much higher general taxation or ruinous borrowing. I don't see anything "realistic" about that.

    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.
    It will probably be the next Labour government that has to explain to people that they can't get everything they want from the government.
    Lots of people already know that.

    But they don't tend to vote Labour or work in the public sector.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,011
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    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.

    Also, Conservative politics has reached a fiscal dead end; there is simply no way they can make the numbers add up over the next five years without reneging on their current beliefs. And they've done enough of that anyway.

    There's no point laying landmines in ground you expect to continue to use yourself.
    It’s not really reached a dead end. The problem is they have been implementing a combination of low taxes and high spending. No wonder it hasn’t worked.
    We have the highest tax burden in half a century, so whatever they've been implementing, it's not what you say.

    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.
    I should have said lower taxes than needed to fund their spending ambitions rather than “low taxes” in absolute terms

    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)

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,189
    algarkirk said:

    As to the question, Hunt can help the Tories but not much. The polls will narrow, and a Labour overall majority is still in question, but Labour will lead the next government. (Unless a black swan intervenes, like the anti semitism row.

    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.

    The amount of tax paid by a single earning family compared with families with two earners totalling the same is one of the more extreme absurdities in our current tax system. If they get caught by the £100k trap as well it can be almost double and yet there is no additional money.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,906
    edited November 2023
    algarkirk said:

    As to the question, Hunt can help the Tories but not much. The polls will narrow, and a Labour overall majority is still in question, but Labour will lead the next government. (Unless a black swan intervenes, like the anti semitism row.

    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.

    The couple where Dad is earning £51K has the advantage of ~ 9 extra hours a day (After presumed work travel/getting ready etc) of time for Mum. When both parents are full time, there's less time.
    Or is the option of being a stay at home Mum an expected privilege once Dad earns north of 50k ?
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,326
    Pedantically, it's not a Budget, it's the last Autumn Statement before the election. Actually reducing income tax is likely in the Budget.

    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.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,011

    It doesn’t matter what Hunt does today. Or in the budget next March. The country is broken, with an economy which only works for an increasing few with infrastructure and services crumbling around our ears.

    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.

    I like your optimistic outlook on life!

    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)
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,906
    edited November 2023

    Pedantically, it's not a Budget, it's the last Autumn Statement before the election. Actually reducing income tax is likely in the Budget.

    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.

    Working pensioners if they're 'employed' already benefit from basically a 12% cut in effective tax rate.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,011

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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…

    That’s rubbish. I’m sure you can point to individual cases of fraud - and they should be pursued and punished - but it won’t touch the sides of government spending

    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

  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,279
    edited November 2023
    I have to say looking at the front page of the Evening Standard yesterday ("Hunt cutting taxes" or somesuch) there was a definite election feeling about it.

    I realise this was yesterday's post topic but I'd say very possibly earlier next year than we thought.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,117
    Chris said:
    Sorry, that's already out of date. The article says, about the possibility of Altman returning to OPenAI, "It seems pretty unlikely, but never say never.". However, he's back already.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,679
    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Looks like the ceasefire and hostage exchanges are on:

    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...

    Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
    I was rather tongue in cheek!

    But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
    Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
    There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.

    Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
    So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...

    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...).
    I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.

    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.
    "All the bombing"

    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.
    Apologies - all was indeed hyperbole. But Israel is dropping state of the art bombs at a rate greater than the US military in Afghanistan and Hamas are firing (mostly) ineffectual rockets (and less as time has gone on)

    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.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Taz said:

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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 cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.

    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.
    I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
    But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
    Are they ?
    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.
    I have made the point before that their plans to increase taxes by a billion here and a billion there by removing things like VAT exemptions for private schools and non dom status are utterly trivial compared with the amounts already being spent on education and health, not even 1% in the latter case. When you match these sums against the enormous perceived need to boost spending in these areas you are looking at either much higher general taxation or ruinous borrowing. I don't see anything "realistic" about that.

    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.
    At the moment the public sector needs support and motivation more than challenge. A demotivated workforce regularly losing experienced staff before their time is a really expensive and inefficient workforce to run.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,317
    a

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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…

    That’s rubbish. I’m sure you can point to individual cases of fraud - and they should be pursued and punished - but it won’t touch the sides of government spending

    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

    Where the cash is going is quite obvious - it is in the papers. Every single day.

    Must Finish Header.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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…

    That’s rubbish. I’m sure you can point to individual cases of fraud - and they should be pursued and punished - but it won’t touch the sides of government spending

    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

    Ask Speaker McCarthy what happens when you promise to do a zero-based budget, and then fail to do it?

    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.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,011
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Looks like the ceasefire and hostage exchanges are on:

    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...

    Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
    I was rather tongue in cheek!

    But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
    Netenyahu has said the war will continue. I have my doubts but he is keeping his options open.

    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
  • Options

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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…

    The money is going to oldies and the NHS.

    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.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,189

    DavidL said:

    Taz said:

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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 cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.

    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.
    I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
    But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
    I think Labour believe there are corruption charges to go after because the Tories are corrupt. £107m contracts awarded without tender to a Tory with no PPE experience to a company incorporated days earlier. Hundreds of millions paid out for PPE that was either out of spec unusable or not delivered at all. Companies being awarded further £millions contracts to store the unusable PPE which they had already been paid £hundredsofmillions for.

    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.
    Firstly, you are talking about less than the petty cash of government spending. Secondly, we were in a situation where the need for PPE was desperate: our health service could not work without it and the lack of masks etc for the general public was restricting other policies needed to deal with Covid. Thirdly, I completely accept that those who failed to deliver should have been sued and, if there was fraud, any corporate limitations on liability should have been stripped away.

    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.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    edited November 2023
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.

    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 cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.

    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.
    I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
    If so, then good, I really do hope so. However I will believe it when I see it. These sort of crimes rarely seem to be prosecuted. The US is far better at dealing with white collar crime than we are.
    Changpeng Zhao has seemingly got away with massive fraud at Binance, agreeing to pay a $4.3bn(!) fine and step down from his role as CEO.
    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.
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,887
    ydoethur said:

    Question.

    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.

    From the view point of the Tories a functioning majority, e.g. 25 seat majority a la 1992 would be better, on the proviso that they don't just plod along like they have post 2016. It would take a brave PM to do that but a modernisation should be possible, the HoC woüld have quite a few ne MPs and the senior tories can put the best hopes the fast track. Chances are though that such a result will be taken by Sunak as a vindication to carry on as before which would be worse than the 92-97 government with resulting GE catastrophe.

    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.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,632
    People talk about how we as a nation have been living beyond our means for years and it's true.

    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.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,447
    edited November 2023
    Good morning all.

    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.

This discussion has been closed.