Howdy, Stranger!

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

Turnout betting – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 20 in General
imageTurnout betting – politicalbetting.com

At the last election turnout was 67.3% and I might expect turnout to be higher at this election as voters mobilise to get the Tories out but I suspect turnout will be lower due to voting ID requirements change. After last year’s locals, Jacob Rees-Mogg admitted those changes were a gerrymander aka voter suppression.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,198
    The Electoral Commission is running some advertising about voter ID in the run-up to the local elections but how effective that will be...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,833
    Low turnout, for the same reasons 1997 turnout was lower that 1992. Blair gained 2m votes compared to Kinnock, but 4m Major voters sat on their hands. 2019 turnout was 67%, so I’d go with the two groups covering 60-65% and expect it to be the low end of that range.
  • Turnout, I suspect will essentially remain roughly static in % terms, or drop a little as a small surge in voting the dead government out, mostly from the younger voters is cancelled out by the gerrymandering of voter id and generally uninspiring candidates
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,579
    Sub 60 looks like a distinct possibility. Tories staying home due to anger/despair/fatigue, Labour not as inspiring as 97, and a drop of 8% looks easy enough.

    Voter ID I'm not sure will have a huge effect, but I'd think a depression of 1-2% from that is not an unreasonable prediction. I always felt it would hit the older cohort hardest, people who have voted for decades and just plain forget to change habit for the new rules.

    I'm told by contacts in Elections things haven't gone too badly with the new rules in many places, but there's no test so big as a GE.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,198
    An important factor in the fall of Labour's red wall in 2019 was the sense of decline caused by the loss of major stores (see for instance Deborah Mattinson, who is now part of Keir Starmer's team). (Brexit was largely about levelling up rather than Europe; something Rishi never understood.)

    With that in mind, Marks & Spencer plans to close more than 100 stores and here is a list.
    https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/ms-full-list-stores-closing-32388977
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,198
    HMRC to close phone lines for six months every year
    Annual six-month closure goes ahead despite self-assessment chaos

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/hmrc-permanently-close-tax-return-phone-lines-summer/ (£££)

    There must be a Labour mole deep inside Jeremy Hunt's brain if he thinks this will not add to the Broken Britain narrative. In addition, now, let's think, is it natural Labour or Conservative supporters who are more likely to try and phone HMRC with self-assessed tax problems?
  • sbjme19sbjme19 Posts: 120
    Although I don't like Mogg at all, I do give him credit for being the only one who was honest about voter ID.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234

    HMRC to close phone lines for six months every year
    Annual six-month closure goes ahead despite self-assessment chaos

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/hmrc-permanently-close-tax-return-phone-lines-summer/ (£££)

    There must be a Labour mole deep inside Jeremy Hunt's brain if he thinks this will not add to the Broken Britain narrative. In addition, now, let's think, is it natural Labour or Conservative supporters who are more likely to try and phone HMRC with self-assessed tax problems?

    The theory is that it will save people many hours they'd otherwise spend in the phone queue on hold, thus transforming our nation's productivity ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090
    Nigelb said:

    HMRC to close phone lines for six months every year
    Annual six-month closure goes ahead despite self-assessment chaos

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/hmrc-permanently-close-tax-return-phone-lines-summer/ (£££)

    There must be a Labour mole deep inside Jeremy Hunt's brain if he thinks this will not add to the Broken Britain narrative. In addition, now, let's think, is it natural Labour or Conservative supporters who are more likely to try and phone HMRC with self-assessed tax problems?

    The theory is that it will save people many hours they'd otherwise spend in the phone queue on hold, thus transforming our nation's productivity ?
    Average wait time 16 minutes? That’s short.

    The least time I ever spent on the phone queue to British Gas was 48 minutes.

    The Treasury are mad.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,241
    edited March 20
    Good morning!

    This is a risky betting market imho. @TSE and y’all have have posted various unknowns.

    Generally people get out to vote more for negative than positive reasons.

    Fear is a huge motivator. 1992 was driven by fear of Kinnock. Fear of high taxation or immigrants etc. are also proven motivators. Extremist leaders like Michael Foot or Jeremy Corbyn usually get people out to vote against.

    Positivity isn’t the biggest reason why people vote: hence 1997.

    Starmer may not inspire in the way that Blair did, but he doesn’t need to. This Government is by far the most unpopular of my lifetime and there is raw hatred of them.

    On balance therefore I suspect a reasonable turnout.

  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017
    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,284
    edited March 20
    Heathener said:

    Good morning!

    This is a risky betting market imho. @TSE and y’all have have posted various unknowns.

    Generally people get out to vote more for negative than positive reasons.

    Fear is a huge motivator. 1992 was driven by fear of Kinnock. Fear of high taxation or immigrants etc. are also proven motivators. Extremist leaders like Michael Foot or Jeremy Corbyn usually get people out to vote against.

    Positivity isn’t the biggest reason why people vote: hence 1997.

    Starmer may not inspire in the way that Blair did, but he doesn’t need to. This Government is by far the most unpopular of my lifetime and there is raw hatred of them.

    On balance therefore I suspect a reasonable turnout.

    Reasonable, yes, but not high. My butcher can tell you why.

    He says the oldies around here (and there are plenty of them) are annoyed at having to take ID, and would sooner not do so than comply.

    It's a fun market rather than a heavy-betting one, but if I were to get involved I would err on the low side.

    And of course there's nothing much to get enthused about with any Party.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,215
    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She confirms what so many in Labour have denied for years.


  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,241
    edited March 20

    Heathener said:

    Good morning!

    This is a risky betting market imho. @TSE and y’all have have posted various unknowns.

    Generally people get out to vote more for negative than positive reasons.

    Fear is a huge motivator. 1992 was driven by fear of Kinnock. Fear of high taxation or immigrants etc. are also proven motivators. Extremist leaders like Michael Foot or Jeremy Corbyn usually get people out to vote against.

    Positivity isn’t the biggest reason why people vote: hence 1997.

    Starmer may not inspire in the way that Blair did, but he doesn’t need to. This Government is by far the most unpopular of my lifetime and there is raw hatred of them.

    On balance therefore I suspect a reasonable turnout.

    Reasonable, yes, but not high. My butcher can tell you why.

    He says the oldies around here (and there are plenty of them) are annoyed at having to take ID, and would sooner not do so than comply.

    It's a fun market rather than a heavy-betting one, but if I were to get involved I would err on the low side.

    And of course there's nothing much to ge enthused about with any Party.
    Yep nothing to disagree with from me there Peter. That’s very interesting from your butcher. If that’s true, and they are unmotivated in the first place, then this is a spectacular own goal by the Conservatives of which Axel Disasi would be proud.

    Giving the tories a kicking will definitely inspire some.

    I think it will creep over 60% but possibly not by much.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090
    edited March 20

    Heathener said:

    Good morning!

    This is a risky betting market imho. @TSE and y’all have have posted various unknowns.

    Generally people get out to vote more for negative than positive reasons.

    Fear is a huge motivator. 1992 was driven by fear of Kinnock. Fear of high taxation or immigrants etc. are also proven motivators. Extremist leaders like Michael Foot or Jeremy Corbyn usually get people out to vote against.

    Positivity isn’t the biggest reason why people vote: hence 1997.

    Starmer may not inspire in the way that Blair did, but he doesn’t need to. This Government is by far the most unpopular of my lifetime and there is raw hatred of them.

    On balance therefore I suspect a reasonable turnout.

    Reasonable, yes, but not high. My butcher can tell you why.

    He says the oldies around here (and there are plenty of them) are annoyed at having to take ID, and would sooner not do so than comply.

    It's a fun market rather than a heavy-betting one, but if I were to get involved I would err on the low side.

    And of course there's nothing much to ge enthused about with any Party.
    We should all turn up with ID proving we are Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    Just to cause confusion.
  • sbjme19sbjme19 Posts: 120
    rkrkrk said:

    sbjme19 said:

    Although I don't like Mogg at all, I do give him credit for being the only one who was honest about voter ID.

    It was very helpful he said it out loud. Far too many on here swallowed the idea that this was about voter fraud.
    Amazing when there was so little actual evidence of it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,090
    sbjme19 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    sbjme19 said:

    Although I don't like Mogg at all, I do give him credit for being the only one who was honest about voter ID.

    It was very helpful he said it out loud. Far too many on here swallowed the idea that this was about voter fraud.
    Amazing when there was so little actual evidence of it.
    Since when has evidence played any part in the decision making of Sunak and Braverman?
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,241
    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She is.

    I know a couple of neutrals who are very impressed by her.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,241
    I think I’m correct in saying that you don’t need voter id as such if you vote by post?

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,478
    Sandpit said:

    Low turnout, for the same reasons 1997 turnout was lower that 1992. Blair gained 2m votes compared to Kinnock, but 4m Major voters sat on their hands. 2019 turnout was 67%, so I’d go with the two groups covering 60-65% and expect it to be the low end of that range.

    It's not yet a very liquid market, but 60-65% would be my guess too. I think a lot of REFUK voters won't bother on the day.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,000
    I wonder if a future government will row back voter ID? Probably not an issue anyone will have much enthusiasm for.

    Enfranchisement is (obviously, you’d think) a fundamental feature of democracy. Incidentally, it must be a decade or so since Cameron came out with his ‘physically sick’ remarks around prisoners voting. Another area where tbh I accept I am I probably pretty firmly in the minority, but I don’t agree with taking the vote away from convicts.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,284
    edited March 20
    ydoethur said:

    sbjme19 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    sbjme19 said:

    Although I don't like Mogg at all, I do give him credit for being the only one who was honest about voter ID.

    It was very helpful he said it out loud. Far too many on here swallowed the idea that this was about voter fraud.
    Amazing when there was so little actual evidence of it.
    Since when has evidence played any part in the decision making of Sunak and Braverman?
    Yes, it was a classic example of a cure for which there was no known disease.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,215
    Ghedebrav said:

    I wonder if a future government will row back voter ID? Probably not an issue anyone will have much enthusiasm for.

    Enfranchisement is (obviously, you’d think) a fundamental feature of democracy. Incidentally, it must be a decade or so since Cameron came out with his ‘physically sick’ remarks around prisoners voting. Another area where tbh I accept I am I probably pretty firmly in the minority, but I don’t agree with taking the vote away from convicts.

    If I was cynical I would expect Labour to focus on postal votes and make it harder to vote by post.

    The fact it would screw up the Tories would be mere happenstance.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,000
    Heathener said:

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She is.

    I know a couple of neutrals who are very impressed by her.
    Another reason why I think Sunak was wrong (though as we know, his terribleness at politics is axiomatic) to not go in May.

    As well as squandering the initiative and opening himself up to further demonstrate the Tories’ extraordinary capacity for the self-sabotaging navel gaze, one of the key attack lines against Starmer (no policies, what do they stand for?) will become increasingly less effective as Labour now receive more time and media space to state their case.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,215
    I see inflation is still well over target.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029
    ...
    Ghedebrav said:

    I wonder if a future government will row back voter ID? Probably not an issue anyone will have much enthusiasm for.

    Enfranchisement is (obviously, you’d think) a fundamental feature of democracy. Incidentally, it must be a decade or so since Cameron came out with his ‘physically sick’ remarks around prisoners voting. Another area where tbh I accept I am I probably pretty firmly in the minority, but I don’t agree with taking the vote away from convicts.

    After any investigation and subsequent prosecutions of those involved in the PPE scandals, convict votes might be something of a plus for the Conservative Party.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,924

    Ghedebrav said:

    I wonder if a future government will row back voter ID? Probably not an issue anyone will have much enthusiasm for.

    Enfranchisement is (obviously, you’d think) a fundamental feature of democracy. Incidentally, it must be a decade or so since Cameron came out with his ‘physically sick’ remarks around prisoners voting. Another area where tbh I accept I am I probably pretty firmly in the minority, but I don’t agree with taking the vote away from convicts.

    If I was cynical I would expect Labour to focus on postal votes and make it harder to vote by post.

    The fact it would screw up the Tories would be mere happenstance.
    So they should, postal votes are wheee the (albeit limited compared to elsewhere) fraud is
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029
    Vaughan Gething could well be FM for fewer days than Truss was PM at this rate.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51jkypr04ko.amp
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,560
    edited March 20
    Ghedebrav said:

    Heathener said:

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She is.

    I know a couple of neutrals who are very impressed by her.
    Another reason why I think Sunak was wrong (though as we know, his terribleness at politics is axiomatic) to not go in May.

    As well as squandering the initiative and opening himself up to further demonstrate the Tories’ extraordinary capacity for the self-sabotaging navel gaze, one of the key attack lines against Starmer (no policies, what do they stand for?) will become increasingly less effective as Labour now receive more time and media space to state their case.
    Unless of course they really DO have no policies and don't stand for anything worthwhile...
  • ydoethur said:

    sbjme19 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    sbjme19 said:

    Although I don't like Mogg at all, I do give him credit for being the only one who was honest about voter ID.

    It was very helpful he said it out loud. Far too many on here swallowed the idea that this was about voter fraud.
    Amazing when there was so little actual evidence of it.
    Since when has evidence played any part in the decision making of Sunak and Braverman?
    Yes, it was a classic example of a cure for which there was no known disease.
    Actually there was a known disease, let's be honest.

    The recommendation for voter ID came from the Electoral Commission itself in 2012 not from any Party and was in response to a spate of voter fraud cases and fear of more in the future.

    However, the way it's been implemented, targeting in person voting and not postal, is utterly hamfisted.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029

    I see inflation is still well over target.

    3.4% is excellent news and entirely as claimed, Rishi's own work with no external assistance.

    "We have a plan and the plan is working, don't let Labour squander our golden legacy and take us back to square one".
  • eekeek Posts: 24,924
    edited March 20

    I see inflation is still well over target.

    3.4% is excellent news and entirely as claimed, Rishi's own work with no external assistance.

    "We have a plan and the plan is working, don't let Labour squander our golden legacy and take us back to square one".
    Looks back to 2010 - hang on I felt better off then and local government services were way better than they are now.

    Back to square one isn’t a threat, it’s an improvement

    Oh and inflation at 3.4% isn’t brilliant, it will be interesting to see the impact in April / May / June as minimum wage increases by 10%
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    edited March 20
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    HMRC to close phone lines for six months every year
    Annual six-month closure goes ahead despite self-assessment chaos

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/hmrc-permanently-close-tax-return-phone-lines-summer/ (£££)

    There must be a Labour mole deep inside Jeremy Hunt's brain if he thinks this will not add to the Broken Britain narrative. In addition, now, let's think, is it natural Labour or Conservative supporters who are more likely to try and phone HMRC with self-assessed tax problems?

    The theory is that it will save people many hours they'd otherwise spend in the phone queue on hold, thus transforming our nation's productivity ?
    Average wait time 16 minutes? That’s short.

    The least time I ever spent on the phone queue to British Gas was 48 minutes.

    The Treasury are mad.
    I didn't say the theory made sense.

    This is, after all, the current government we're talking about.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She confirms what so many in Labour have denied for years.


    As Cyclefree so often reminds us, you can address a problem until you acknowledge it exists.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029

    ydoethur said:

    sbjme19 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    sbjme19 said:

    Although I don't like Mogg at all, I do give him credit for being the only one who was honest about voter ID.

    It was very helpful he said it out loud. Far too many on here swallowed the idea that this was about voter fraud.
    Amazing when there was so little actual evidence of it.
    Since when has evidence played any part in the decision making of Sunak and Braverman?
    Yes, it was a classic example of a cure for which there was no known disease.
    Actually there was a known disease, let's be honest.

    The recommendation for voter ID came from the Electoral Commission itself in 2012 not from any Party and was in response to a spate of voter fraud cases and fear of more in the future.

    However, the way it's been implemented, targeting in person voting and not postal, is utterly hamfisted.
    So the patient has a cancerous left kidney and a cancer-free right kidney, so in the interests of balance the surgeon leaves the left kidney but removes the right kidney just in case cancer appears in the future.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    rkrkrk said:

    sbjme19 said:

    Although I don't like Mogg at all, I do give him credit for being the only one who was honest about voter ID.

    It was very helpful he said it out loud. Far too many on here swallowed the idea that this was about voter fraud.
    Though actually they were regurgitating it, having already swallowed it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,191
    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    Good morning!

    This is a risky betting market imho. @TSE and y’all have have posted various unknowns.

    Generally people get out to vote more for negative than positive reasons.

    Fear is a huge motivator. 1992 was driven by fear of Kinnock. Fear of high taxation or immigrants etc. are also proven motivators. Extremist leaders like Michael Foot or Jeremy Corbyn usually get people out to vote against.

    Positivity isn’t the biggest reason why people vote: hence 1997.

    Starmer may not inspire in the way that Blair did, but he doesn’t need to. This Government is by far the most unpopular of my lifetime and there is raw hatred of them.

    On balance therefore I suspect a reasonable turnout.

    Reasonable, yes, but not high. My butcher can tell you why.

    He says the oldies around here (and there are plenty of them) are annoyed at having to take ID, and would sooner not do so than comply.

    It's a fun market rather than a heavy-betting one, but if I were to get involved I would err on the low side.

    And of course there's nothing much to ge enthused about with any Party.
    We should all turn up with ID proving we are Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    Just to cause confusion.
    It’s a long drive to Somerset, tho ;)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    Trump solidifies his grip on the party.
    Though not Republican voters.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/20/ohio-illinois-primaries-trump-takeaways-00147967
    ..Moreno’s win capped a strong night for the former president down the ballot: Trump went three-for-three in competitive primaries, boosting Moreno and two other House candidates who won close races.

    But there were also warning signs for Trump as hundreds of thousands of Republicans — particularly in suburban areas where the GOP has struggled in the Trump era — chose Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis on the presidential ballot, despite the fact that neither is an active candidate anymore...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,191

    ydoethur said:

    sbjme19 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    sbjme19 said:

    Although I don't like Mogg at all, I do give him credit for being the only one who was honest about voter ID.

    It was very helpful he said it out loud. Far too many on here swallowed the idea that this was about voter fraud.
    Amazing when there was so little actual evidence of it.
    Since when has evidence played any part in the decision making of Sunak and Braverman?
    Yes, it was a classic example of a cure for which there was no known disease.
    Just like Sunak and Braverman…
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,191

    Ghedebrav said:

    I wonder if a future government will row back voter ID? Probably not an issue anyone will have much enthusiasm for.

    Enfranchisement is (obviously, you’d think) a fundamental feature of democracy. Incidentally, it must be a decade or so since Cameron came out with his ‘physically sick’ remarks around prisoners voting. Another area where tbh I accept I am I probably pretty firmly in the minority, but I don’t agree with taking the vote away from convicts.

    If I was cynical I would expect Labour to focus on postal votes and make it harder to vote by post.

    The fact it would screw up the Tories would be mere happenstance.
    After the elderly, Asian voters are the second biggest group of postal voters, followed by dedicated party supporters who have been persuaded to sign up on the doorstep.
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017
    eek said:

    I see inflation is still well over target.

    3.4% is excellent news and entirely as claimed, Rishi's own work with no external assistance.

    "We have a plan and the plan is working, don't let Labour squander our golden legacy and take us back to square one".
    Looks back to 2010 - hang on I felt better off then and local government services were way better than they are now.

    Back to square one isn’t a threat, it’s an improvement

    Oh and inflation at 3.4% isn’t brilliant, it will be interesting to see the impact in April / May / June as minimum wage increases by 10%
    3.4% is fine, given where we came from and what expectation was, and we will be sub 2% soon.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,344

    An important factor in the fall of Labour's red wall in 2019 was the sense of decline caused by the loss of major stores (see for instance Deborah Mattinson, who is now part of Keir Starmer's team). (Brexit was largely about levelling up rather than Europe; something Rishi never understood.)

    With that in mind, Marks & Spencer plans to close more than 100 stores and here is a list.
    https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/ms-full-list-stores-closing-32388977

    The Mirror Maths seems a little confused, once one gets past all the attention grabbing popup boxes:

    In an update in October 2022, the supermarket said it wants to reduce its "full line" stores from 247 to 180 by 2028, but it will open 104 more Simply Food shops. If these plans go ahead, it means M&S will increase the number of its Simply Food sites from 316 to 420.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    Nigelb said:

    Trump solidifies his grip on the party.
    Though not Republican voters.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/20/ohio-illinois-primaries-trump-takeaways-00147967
    ..Moreno’s win capped a strong night for the former president down the ballot: Trump went three-for-three in competitive primaries, boosting Moreno and two other House candidates who won close races.

    But there were also warning signs for Trump as hundreds of thousands of Republicans — particularly in suburban areas where the GOP has struggled in the Trump era — chose Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis on the presidential ballot, despite the fact that neither is an active candidate anymore...

    Note that Florida is a closed primary.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,344
    Given that it is Network Rail, I am not convinced that they have thought this through.
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017
    Heathener said:

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She is.

    I know a couple of neutrals who are very impressed by her.
    I listen to a couple of money/finance podcasts and the commentators on there seem to be impressed by her too.

    She is certainly a major improvement over the hapless Annaliese Dodds.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,191
    Taz said:
    As it says in the article, we were due to be the second constituency doing it, but the process is on the edge of collapse, Labour having refused to participate (as in Devon) and the LibDems pulling out, supposedly on HQ advice, at the last minute. The alternative process referred to in the article is likely to be a rather desperate last minute online poll, based on little more than party allegiance, followed up by an email with the outcome. Whether this has any significant effect remains to be seen. But in any event with Labour refusing to participate, this revolutionary ‘new politics’ isn’t likely to be going anywhere (sadly).
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She confirms what so many in Labour have denied for years.


    Gordon Brown was an imbecile. Still is.

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-13041677/HAMISH-MCRAE-Time-fix-Gordon-Browns-pension-errors.html
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,537
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    Good morning!

    This is a risky betting market imho. @TSE and y’all have have posted various unknowns.

    Generally people get out to vote more for negative than positive reasons.

    Fear is a huge motivator. 1992 was driven by fear of Kinnock. Fear of high taxation or immigrants etc. are also proven motivators. Extremist leaders like Michael Foot or Jeremy Corbyn usually get people out to vote against.

    Positivity isn’t the biggest reason why people vote: hence 1997.

    Starmer may not inspire in the way that Blair did, but he doesn’t need to. This Government is by far the most unpopular of my lifetime and there is raw hatred of them.

    On balance therefore I suspect a reasonable turnout.

    Reasonable, yes, but not high. My butcher can tell you why.

    He says the oldies around here (and there are plenty of them) are annoyed at having to take ID, and would sooner not do so than comply.

    It's a fun market rather than a heavy-betting one, but if I were to get involved I would err on the low side.

    And of course there's nothing much to ge enthused about with any Party.
    We should all turn up with ID proving we are Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    Just to cause confusion.
    It’s a long drive to Somerset, tho ;)
    Yebbut... at this rate by the election comes the A303 Stonehenge tunnel will be open.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump solidifies his grip on the party.
    Though not Republican voters.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/20/ohio-illinois-primaries-trump-takeaways-00147967
    ..Moreno’s win capped a strong night for the former president down the ballot: Trump went three-for-three in competitive primaries, boosting Moreno and two other House candidates who won close races.

    But there were also warning signs for Trump as hundreds of thousands of Republicans — particularly in suburban areas where the GOP has struggled in the Trump era — chose Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis on the presidential ballot, despite the fact that neither is an active candidate anymore...

    Note that Florida is a closed primary.
    81% of the vote, versus 93% in 2020.
    Any guesses how significant that might be for the general election ?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029
    edited March 20
    Taz said:

    eek said:

    I see inflation is still well over target.

    3.4% is excellent news and entirely as claimed, Rishi's own work with no external assistance.

    "We have a plan and the plan is working, don't let Labour squander our golden legacy and take us back to square one".
    Looks back to 2010 - hang on I felt better off then and local government services were way better than they are now.

    Back to square one isn’t a threat, it’s an improvement

    Oh and inflation at 3.4% isn’t brilliant, it will be interesting to see the impact in April / May / June as minimum wage increases by 10%
    3.4% is fine, given where we came from and what expectation was, and we will be sub 2% soon.
    Inflation fluctuations are almost wholly outside the gift of the politicians. So we can't really blame them ( in most cases) when it runs out of control and likewise cheer them when it comes down. Inflation has, certainly in this instance, nothing to do with the Prime Minister or the CoE. It is just the swings and roundabouts of incumbency. They are entitled to take the smooth with the rough, however for Rishi Sunak to claim he has brought down inflation is a blatant lie.

    Remember too, Government rampers, that inflation is cumulative. Prices are still going up, just by less.
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017
    edited March 20
    IanB2 said:

    Taz said:
    As it says in the article, we were due to be the second constituency doing it, but the process is on the edge of collapse, Labour having refused to participate (as in Devon) and the LibDems pulling out, supposedly on HQ advice, at the last minute. The alternative process referred to in the article is likely to be a rather desperate last minute online poll, based on little more than party allegiance, followed up by an email with the outcome. Whether this has any significant effect remains to be seen. But in any event with Labour refusing to participate, this revolutionary ‘new politics’ isn’t likely to be going anywhere (sadly).
    So the article is "be afraid Tories, change is coming" but it isn't because it is another half baked scheme dreamed up by centrist Dad types who think progressive is anything they believe in. What a load of crap.

    It is like "vote Swapping", pioneered by the Guardian a few years back, and other so called initiatives. The wet dream of political obsessives and why on earth would Labour waste their time participating. They are poised to win a landslide.

    Also this statement in the article is a massive assumption too. "But cooperation among progressive parties could have averted all eight Conservative majority governments bar 2015." Why assume votes for 1 non Tory party are internchangeable with another non Tory Party. I vote Labour. I would not vote Green or Lib Dem irrespective. Not that I vote anymore. But when I did.
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017

    Taz said:

    eek said:

    I see inflation is still well over target.

    3.4% is excellent news and entirely as claimed, Rishi's own work with no external assistance.

    "We have a plan and the plan is working, don't let Labour squander our golden legacy and take us back to square one".
    Looks back to 2010 - hang on I felt better off then and local government services were way better than they are now.

    Back to square one isn’t a threat, it’s an improvement

    Oh and inflation at 3.4% isn’t brilliant, it will be interesting to see the impact in April / May / June as minimum wage increases by 10%
    3.4% is fine, given where we came from and what expectation was, and we will be sub 2% soon.
    Inflation fluctuations are almost wholly outside the gift of the politicians. So we can't really blame them ( in most cases) when it runs out of control and likewise cheer them when it comes down. Inflation has, certainly in this instance, nothing to do with the Prime Minister or the CoE. It is just the swings and roundabouts of incumbency. They are entitled to take the smooth with through, however for Rishi Sunak to claim he has brought down inflation is a blatant lie
    I agree and never claimed otherwise. I just think 3.4% is fine where we are. You may be confusing me with someone else.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,101
    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She confirms what so many in Labour have denied for years.


    As Cyclefree so often reminds us, you can address a problem until you acknowledge it exists.
    If I thought that Reeves was seriously going to address our biggest key weakness, namely our trade deficit, which Brown persuaded himself did not matter in a world of floating currencies, I would be tempted to vote for her myself. It would involve serious pain to do it in terms of reduced consumption and much reduced borrowing so I will believe it when I see it.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,174
    Taz said:

    eek said:

    I see inflation is still well over target.

    3.4% is excellent news and entirely as claimed, Rishi's own work with no external assistance.

    "We have a plan and the plan is working, don't let Labour squander our golden legacy and take us back to square one".
    Looks back to 2010 - hang on I felt better off then and local government services were way better than they are now.

    Back to square one isn’t a threat, it’s an improvement

    Oh and inflation at 3.4% isn’t brilliant, it will be interesting to see the impact in April / May / June as minimum wage increases by 10%
    3.4% is fine, given where we came from and what expectation was, and we will be sub 2% soon.
    3.4% is indeed 'ok' compared with what we have seen recently and yes it should be around 2% for April as there will be a big fall in the year on year domestic energy.

    HOWEVER there will be a bounce back due to the continuing high level of wage rises particularly minimum wage. This probably won't come through until late 2024. MPC knows this is coming so are unlikely to cut interest rates by any extent this year. Lenders also know this is happening which is why mortgage rates are moving up albeit by a small amount.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,101
    Taz said:

    eek said:

    I see inflation is still well over target.

    3.4% is excellent news and entirely as claimed, Rishi's own work with no external assistance.

    "We have a plan and the plan is working, don't let Labour squander our golden legacy and take us back to square one".
    Looks back to 2010 - hang on I felt better off then and local government services were way better than they are now.

    Back to square one isn’t a threat, it’s an improvement

    Oh and inflation at 3.4% isn’t brilliant, it will be interesting to see the impact in April / May / June as minimum wage increases by 10%
    3.4% is fine, given where we came from and what expectation was, and we will be sub 2% soon.
    I suspect that inflation will continue to fall more slowly than currently forecast. The red sea disruption is the latest thing to give it a tick upwards. But we are now at a level where being above target is not economically significant, provided it doesn't form a launch pad for another surge in inflation. What we need now is some proper growth. January and February both looked reasonably good but the Q1 number will be important.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,092
    New Labour: "Things can only get better!"

    Reeves : "Er...not so fast...."

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She confirms what so many in Labour have denied for years.


    As Cyclefree so often reminds us, you can address a problem until you acknowledge it exists.
    If I thought that Reeves was seriously going to address our biggest key weakness, namely our trade deficit, which Brown persuaded himself did not matter in a world of floating currencies, I would be tempted to vote for her myself. It would involve serious pain to do it in terms of reduced consumption and much reduced borrowing so I will believe it when I see it.
    Blaming New Labour for importing cheap Chinese consumer products doesn't reveal the source of the problem.

    De-industrialisation and the sale of UK assets overseas in the 1980s started the ball rolling. Resolving the industrial manufacturing strife of the 1970s by eradicating industrial manufacturing for domestic consumption was a crap idea in the first place, but it turns out one wholly incompatible with Brexit.

    Good luck to Reeves if she ever becomes CoE, but I don't see how this genie is ever returned to the bottle.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,150

    Also, even if we get back to 2% CPI in the Spring which will probably happen, that doesn't take away the 20% cumulative over 2022/2023. This has caused real financial damage for many, particularly those who have not been getting large pay rises or fully indexed pensions.

    Yes, too many Tory MPs talk about inflation dropping as if prices are dropping. I’ve said for ages that voters aren’t as stupid as Tory MPs think they are, but it appears that Tory MPs *are* that stupid.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,101

    Also, even if we get back to 2% CPI in the Spring which will probably happen, that doesn't take away the 20% cumulative over 2022/2023. This has caused real financial damage for many, particularly those who have not been getting large pay rises or fully indexed pensions.

    True, wages and pensions did not rise as fast as inflation so we all got a bit poorer and still are. Real wages will grow significantly this year (especially given the generous minimum wage) so things will be improving but most will not recover the ground they lost this year so I don't see that helping the Tories in the election much.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,335

    New Labour: "Things can only get better!"

    Reeves : "Er...not so fast...."

    Good. One of the reasons for all this is politicians giving the impression that there are quick easy solutions to our problems.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,000

    Also, even if we get back to 2% CPI in the Spring which will probably happen, that doesn't take away the 20% cumulative over 2022/2023. This has caused real financial damage for many, particularly those who have not been getting large pay rises or fully indexed pensions.

    This is very true and doesn’t include the disastrous mortgage Trussflation that battered so many and still does. Political memory may be short but financial memory is not, and a significant chunk of people (homeowners, remember - workers, productive strivers who the Tories really ought to be persuading!) will want to give this shower a good kicking in the election.

  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017

    Taz said:

    eek said:

    I see inflation is still well over target.

    3.4% is excellent news and entirely as claimed, Rishi's own work with no external assistance.

    "We have a plan and the plan is working, don't let Labour squander our golden legacy and take us back to square one".
    Looks back to 2010 - hang on I felt better off then and local government services were way better than they are now.

    Back to square one isn’t a threat, it’s an improvement

    Oh and inflation at 3.4% isn’t brilliant, it will be interesting to see the impact in April / May / June as minimum wage increases by 10%
    3.4% is fine, given where we came from and what expectation was, and we will be sub 2% soon.
    3.4% is indeed 'ok' compared with what we have seen recently and yes it should be around 2% for April as there will be a big fall in the year on year domestic energy.

    HOWEVER there will be a bounce back due to the continuing high level of wage rises particularly minimum wage. This probably won't come through until late 2024. MPC knows this is coming so are unlikely to cut interest rates by any extent this year. Lenders also know this is happening which is why mortgage rates are moving up albeit by a small amount.
    And saving rates too. There may well be a bounce back later this year. We have, as you say, seen forecasts for rate cuts pushed back. Still seem to be expected in June.

    People miss the fact in terms of interest rates we are just reverting to the mean here. The last decade or so has not been normal for long term interest rates. Rates where they currently are are nearer to that.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,000

    This is a mug's game: like throwing a dart blindfolded. You could easily offset 'higher turnout' by lots of Tories staying at home to give no net effect.

    The odds aren't attractive and the bands are too narrow.

    No bet.

    Strongly agree. I wouldn't touch this market.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,167

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She confirms what so many in Labour have denied for years.


    As Cyclefree so often reminds us, you can address a problem until you acknowledge it exists.
    If I thought that Reeves was seriously going to address our biggest key weakness, namely our trade deficit, which Brown persuaded himself did not matter in a world of floating currencies, I would be tempted to vote for her myself. It would involve serious pain to do it in terms of reduced consumption and much reduced borrowing so I will believe it when I see it.
    Blaming New Labour for importing cheap Chinese consumer products doesn't reveal the source of the problem.

    De-industrialisation and the sale of UK assets overseas in the 1980s started the ball rolling. Resolving the industrial manufacturing strife of the 1970s by eradicating industrial manufacturing for domestic consumption was a crap idea in the first place, but it turns out one wholly incompatible with Brexit.

    Good luck to Reeves if she ever becomes CoE, but I don't see how this genie is ever returned to the bottle.
    Domestic manufacturing damaged itself. Not continuing to subsidise corpses was simply non-insane.

    U.K. manufacturing is alive and doing quite well. The meme that it doesn’t exist seems embedded in parts of the Left.

  • TazTaz Posts: 11,017

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She confirms what so many in Labour have denied for years.


    As Cyclefree so often reminds us, you can address a problem until you acknowledge it exists.
    If I thought that Reeves was seriously going to address our biggest key weakness, namely our trade deficit, which Brown persuaded himself did not matter in a world of floating currencies, I would be tempted to vote for her myself. It would involve serious pain to do it in terms of reduced consumption and much reduced borrowing so I will believe it when I see it.
    Blaming New Labour for importing cheap Chinese consumer products doesn't reveal the source of the problem.


    She is not really saying that, though. That is misrepresenting her argument.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,101
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She confirms what so many in Labour have denied for years.


    Gordon Brown was an imbecile. Still is.

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-13041677/HAMISH-MCRAE-Time-fix-Gordon-Browns-pension-errors.html
    Hamish McRae is right that the immediate cost would be negligible and if it made UK equities more attractive to pension funds once again the long term benefits would be enormous. This running down of UK equities is probably the largest single reason that the London Stock market has underperformed many of its rivals and why UK quoted companies can be bought up on the cheap.

    This is as close to a no brainer as you get when trying to encourage domestic investment.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,229

    I see inflation is still well over target.

    3.4% isn't bad at all.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,537

    HMRC to close phone lines for six months every year
    Annual six-month closure goes ahead despite self-assessment chaos

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/hmrc-permanently-close-tax-return-phone-lines-summer/ (£££)

    There must be a Labour mole deep inside Jeremy Hunt's brain if he thinks this will not add to the Broken Britain narrative. In addition, now, let's think, is it natural Labour or Conservative supporters who are more likely to try and phone HMRC with self-assessed tax problems?

    That's one of the worst ideas I've seen.

    HMRC regularly screw up or alter tax codes (sometimes by their auto bots) and I need to phone them 2-3 times a year to sort it out.

    Only humans can understand an individual's own circumstances.
    I agree (until and unless AI improves significantly, at least).

    But presumably HMRC then is not one of the public services you would wish to cut further?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,229

    Ghedebrav said:

    I wonder if a future government will row back voter ID? Probably not an issue anyone will have much enthusiasm for.

    Enfranchisement is (obviously, you’d think) a fundamental feature of democracy. Incidentally, it must be a decade or so since Cameron came out with his ‘physically sick’ remarks around prisoners voting. Another area where tbh I accept I am I probably pretty firmly in the minority, but I don’t agree with taking the vote away from convicts.

    If I was cynical I would expect Labour to focus on postal votes and make it harder to vote by post.

    The fact it would screw up the Tories would be mere happenstance.
    I don't think it makes much difference.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,198

    HMRC to close phone lines for six months every year
    Annual six-month closure goes ahead despite self-assessment chaos

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/hmrc-permanently-close-tax-return-phone-lines-summer/ (£££)

    There must be a Labour mole deep inside Jeremy Hunt's brain if he thinks this will not add to the Broken Britain narrative. In addition, now, let's think, is it natural Labour or Conservative supporters who are more likely to try and phone HMRC with self-assessed tax problems?

    That's one of the worst ideas I've seen.

    HMRC regularly screw up or alter tax codes (sometimes by their auto bots) and I need to phone them 2-3 times a year to sort it out.

    Only humans can understand an individual's own circumstances.
    Not to mention that some people cannot use HMRC's website because (and this brings us back to the thread header) even if online, they do not have the right ID needed to open a digital tax account.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,101

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She confirms what so many in Labour have denied for years.


    As Cyclefree so often reminds us, you can address a problem until you acknowledge it exists.
    If I thought that Reeves was seriously going to address our biggest key weakness, namely our trade deficit, which Brown persuaded himself did not matter in a world of floating currencies, I would be tempted to vote for her myself. It would involve serious pain to do it in terms of reduced consumption and much reduced borrowing so I will believe it when I see it.
    Blaming New Labour for importing cheap Chinese consumer products doesn't reveal the source of the problem.

    De-industrialisation and the sale of UK assets overseas in the 1980s started the ball rolling. Resolving the industrial manufacturing strife of the 1970s by eradicating industrial manufacturing for domestic consumption was a crap idea in the first place, but it turns out one wholly incompatible with Brexit.

    Good luck to Reeves if she ever becomes CoE, but I don't see how this genie is ever returned to the bottle.
    I think that is over simplifying her argument. But what we need to do is encourage domestic investment and production so that we get import substitution, try to build productivity so that we are more competitive and incentivise training and capital whilst addressing infrastructure problems.

    We also need to reduce consumption to what we are actually earning which means we cannot have demand boosted by £100bn+ of government borrowing. So more taxes and less public spending. Not an easy sell by any means which is why politicians of all stripes have ducked it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029
    edited March 20

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She confirms what so many in Labour have denied for years.


    As Cyclefree so often reminds us, you can address a problem until you acknowledge it exists.
    If I thought that Reeves was seriously going to address our biggest key weakness, namely our trade deficit, which Brown persuaded himself did not matter in a world of floating currencies, I would be tempted to vote for her myself. It would involve serious pain to do it in terms of reduced consumption and much reduced borrowing so I will believe it when I see it.
    Blaming New Labour for importing cheap Chinese consumer products doesn't reveal the source of the problem.

    De-industrialisation and the sale of UK assets overseas in the 1980s started the ball rolling. Resolving the industrial manufacturing strife of the 1970s by eradicating industrial manufacturing for domestic consumption was a crap idea in the first place, but it turns out one wholly incompatible with Brexit.

    Good luck to Reeves if she ever becomes CoE, but I don't see how this genie is ever returned to the bottle.
    Domestic manufacturing damaged itself. Not continuing to subsidise corpses was simply non-insane.

    U.K. manufacturing is alive and doing quite well. The meme that it doesn’t exist seems embedded in parts of the Left.

    You can not deny a decline. Here's a pretty comprehensive explanation, and it is happy to shower the blame on everyone.

    https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/manufacturing/who-killed-british-manufacturing/?cf-view

    Just this week Tata are closing the coke ovens at Port Talbot.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/18/tata-steel-to-shut-down-port-talbot-coke-ovens-earlier-than-expected
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,092
    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Taz said:
    As it says in the article, we were due to be the second constituency doing it, but the process is on the edge of collapse, Labour having refused to participate (as in Devon) and the LibDems pulling out, supposedly on HQ advice, at the last minute. The alternative process referred to in the article is likely to be a rather desperate last minute online poll, based on little more than party allegiance, followed up by an email with the outcome. Whether this has any significant effect remains to be seen. But in any event with Labour refusing to participate, this revolutionary ‘new politics’ isn’t likely to be going anywhere (sadly).
    So the article is "be afraid Tories, change is coming" but it isn't because it is another half baked scheme dreamed up by centrist Dad types who think progressive is anything they believe in. What a load of crap.

    It is like "vote Swapping", pioneered by the Guardian a few years back, and other so called initiatives. The wet dream of political obsessives and why on earth would Labour waste their time participating. They are poised to win a landslide.

    Also this statement in the article is a massive assumption too. "But cooperation among progressive parties could have averted all eight Conservative majority governments bar 2015." Why assume votes for 1 non Tory party are internchangeable with another non Tory Party. I vote Labour. I would not vote Green or Lib Dem irrespective. Not that I vote anymore. But when I did.
    The campaign in South Devon (formerly Totnes) has had a lot of oxygen. The total number of people who have turned up/signed up is around a thousand.

    The LibDems got 15,000 votes in 2019. So on that basis, only 1:15 previous LibDems expressed any interest. And zero Tories, Labour, Green, Reform... (known Tories were escorted from the meetings). This was all about the LibDems trying to gain poll position as challenger to the excellent sitting Tory MP, Anthony Mangnall. It is complicated because in 2017, the challenger was Labour. In 2019, the LibDems put in a shitload of money to try to get the previous Conservative MP, Dr Sarah Wollaston, returned as a LibDem. Dr Sarah had a circuitous route to being a LibDem, having been selected as a Conservative candidate in a constituency-wide open primary (in which over 15,000 participated). She had quite a significant personal vote - a vote that will melt away at this upcoming election, meaning the LibDems starting point is significantly overstated.

    On current national polling, Labour is again the main challenger in South Devon. Local LibDems should urge a vote for Labour if they really want to boot out a Tory. That they haven't tells you all you need to know. Meanwhile, Anthony Mangnall spends a lot of time getting to all the nooks and crannies of his extensive constituency. He also recently secured £25m to upgrade the harbour at Brixham - which has been very well received.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,537
    Given inflation is probably down to 2% in April (before rising again later in the year) how about a June election?

    Sunak could have three things going in his favour:

    - Inflation (temporarily) hitting target.
    - A first flight to Rwanda, maybe?
    - Less than catastrophic local election results (net of expectation management).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,579
    sbjme19 said:

    Although I don't like Mogg at all, I do give him credit for being the only one who was honest about voter ID.

    Afterwards, but yes. It was always at nest a disproportionate solution to the stated problem, in the absence of a universal ID.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,335
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She confirms what so many in Labour have denied for years.


    As Cyclefree so often reminds us, you can address a problem until you acknowledge it exists.
    If I thought that Reeves was seriously going to address our biggest key weakness, namely our trade deficit, which Brown persuaded himself did not matter in a world of floating currencies, I would be tempted to vote for her myself. It would involve serious pain to do it in terms of reduced consumption and much reduced borrowing so I will believe it when I see it.
    Blaming New Labour for importing cheap Chinese consumer products doesn't reveal the source of the problem.

    De-industrialisation and the sale of UK assets overseas in the 1980s started the ball rolling. Resolving the industrial manufacturing strife of the 1970s by eradicating industrial manufacturing for domestic consumption was a crap idea in the first place, but it turns out one wholly incompatible with Brexit.

    Good luck to Reeves if she ever becomes CoE, but I don't see how this genie is ever returned to the bottle.
    I think that is over simplifying her argument. But what we need to do is encourage domestic investment and production so that we get import substitution, try to build productivity so that we are more competitive and incentivise training and capital whilst addressing infrastructure problems.

    We also need to reduce consumption to what we are actually earning which means we cannot have demand boosted by £100bn+ of government borrowing. So more taxes and less public spending. Not an easy sell by any means which is why politicians of all stripes have ducked it.
    Though when they have to- Cripps, Healey, early Brown- Labour have shown that it's possible for them. Perhaps it's a Nixon-China scenario.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    .
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She confirms what so many in Labour have denied for years.


    As Cyclefree so often reminds us, you can address a problem until you acknowledge it exists.
    If I thought that Reeves was seriously going to address our biggest key weakness, namely our trade deficit, which Brown persuaded himself did not matter in a world of floating currencies, I would be tempted to vote for her myself. It would involve serious pain to do it in terms of reduced consumption and much reduced borrowing so I will believe it when I see it.
    Blaming New Labour for importing cheap Chinese consumer products doesn't reveal the source of the problem.

    De-industrialisation and the sale of UK assets overseas in the 1980s started the ball rolling. Resolving the industrial manufacturing strife of the 1970s by eradicating industrial manufacturing for domestic consumption was a crap idea in the first place, but it turns out one wholly incompatible with Brexit.

    Good luck to Reeves if she ever becomes CoE, but I don't see how this genie is ever returned to the bottle.
    I think that is over simplifying her argument. But what we need to do is encourage domestic investment and production so that we get import substitution, try to build productivity so that we are more competitive and incentivise training and capital whilst addressing infrastructure problems.

    We also need to reduce consumption to what we are actually earning which means we cannot have demand boosted by £100bn+ of government borrowing. So more taxes and less public spending. Not an easy sell by any means which is why politicians of all stripes have ducked it.
    Not easy at all; we've had chronic underinvestment in business for decades.

    Government spending on "the green crap" is not a bad idea to move the dial a bit. Renewables are cheap energy - and would substitute energy imports.
    Renewable assets need to be UK owned to make much of a difference, though.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,473

    I see inflation is still well over target.

    3.4% isn't bad at all.
    Above target. 3.4 is 70% higher than 2.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,167

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She confirms what so many in Labour have denied for years.


    As Cyclefree so often reminds us, you can address a problem until you acknowledge it exists.
    If I thought that Reeves was seriously going to address our biggest key weakness, namely our trade deficit, which Brown persuaded himself did not matter in a world of floating currencies, I would be tempted to vote for her myself. It would involve serious pain to do it in terms of reduced consumption and much reduced borrowing so I will believe it when I see it.
    Blaming New Labour for importing cheap Chinese consumer products doesn't reveal the source of the problem.

    De-industrialisation and the sale of UK assets overseas in the 1980s started the ball rolling. Resolving the industrial manufacturing strife of the 1970s by eradicating industrial manufacturing for domestic consumption was a crap idea in the first place, but it turns out one wholly incompatible with Brexit.

    Good luck to Reeves if she ever becomes CoE, but I don't see how this genie is ever returned to the bottle.
    Domestic manufacturing damaged itself. Not continuing to subsidise corpses was simply non-insane.

    U.K. manufacturing is alive and doing quite well. The meme that it doesn’t exist seems embedded in parts of the Left.

    You can not deny a decline. Here's a pretty comprehensive explanation, and it is happy to shower the blame on everyone.

    https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/manufacturing/who-killed-british-manufacturing/?cf-view

    Just this week Tata are closing the coke ovens at Port Talbot.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/18/tata-steel-to-shut-down-port-talbot-coke-ovens-earlier-than-expected
    The decline happened because of a blank refusal, especially in heavy industry, to invest in the future and change methods. By the management, government and unions.

    Going round some of the old industrial sites - they had machinery from before WWII. In places that closed in the 70s and 80s.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,101

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She confirms what so many in Labour have denied for years.


    As Cyclefree so often reminds us, you can address a problem until you acknowledge it exists.
    If I thought that Reeves was seriously going to address our biggest key weakness, namely our trade deficit, which Brown persuaded himself did not matter in a world of floating currencies, I would be tempted to vote for her myself. It would involve serious pain to do it in terms of reduced consumption and much reduced borrowing so I will believe it when I see it.
    Blaming New Labour for importing cheap Chinese consumer products doesn't reveal the source of the problem.

    De-industrialisation and the sale of UK assets overseas in the 1980s started the ball rolling. Resolving the industrial manufacturing strife of the 1970s by eradicating industrial manufacturing for domestic consumption was a crap idea in the first place, but it turns out one wholly incompatible with Brexit.

    Good luck to Reeves if she ever becomes CoE, but I don't see how this genie is ever returned to the bottle.
    Domestic manufacturing damaged itself. Not continuing to subsidise corpses was simply non-insane.

    U.K. manufacturing is alive and doing quite well. The meme that it doesn’t exist seems embedded in parts of the Left.

    You can not deny a decline. Here's a pretty comprehensive explanation, and it is happy to shower the blame on everyone.

    https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/manufacturing/who-killed-british-manufacturing/?cf-view

    Just this week Tata are closing the coke ovens at Port Talbot.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/18/tata-steel-to-shut-down-port-talbot-coke-ovens-earlier-than-expected
    I was very much thinking about the Tata decision when writing how important it was to boost domestic production. It makes expansion of our car and vehicle industries much more difficult. We do need to be more strategic about these things.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,579
    Taz said:

    IanB2 said:

    Taz said:
    As it says in the article, we were due to be the second constituency doing it, but the process is on the edge of collapse, Labour having refused to participate (as in Devon) and the LibDems pulling out, supposedly on HQ advice, at the last minute. The alternative process referred to in the article is likely to be a rather desperate last minute online poll, based on little more than party allegiance, followed up by an email with the outcome. Whether this has any significant effect remains to be seen. But in any event with Labour refusing to participate, this revolutionary ‘new politics’ isn’t likely to be going anywhere (sadly).
    So the article is "be afraid Tories, change is coming" but it isn't because it is another half baked scheme dreamed up by centrist Dad types who think progressive is anything they believe in. What a load of crap.

    It is like "vote Swapping", pioneered by the Guardian a few years back, and other so called initiatives. The wet dream of political obsessives and why on earth would Labour waste their time participating. They are poised to win a landslide.

    Also this statement in the article is a massive assumption too. "But cooperation among progressive parties could have averted all eight Conservative majority governments bar 2015." Why assume votes for 1 non Tory party are internchangeable with another non Tory Party. I vote Labour. I would not vote Green or Lib Dem irrespective. Not that I vote anymore. But when I did.
    If being anti tory did automatically mean such cooperation we really should only have two parties.

    The voters for each party will cooperate or not with very little impact from how they might be advised or instructed to do.

    Plus, anyone who's counted at a supplementary vote election or similar can tell you surprising numbers put their preference as Tory 1 Labour 2 or vice versa, even if it makes little sense to do so.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,150

    HMRC to close phone lines for six months every year
    Annual six-month closure goes ahead despite self-assessment chaos

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/hmrc-permanently-close-tax-return-phone-lines-summer/ (£££)

    There must be a Labour mole deep inside Jeremy Hunt's brain if he thinks this will not add to the Broken Britain narrative. In addition, now, let's think, is it natural Labour or Conservative supporters who are more likely to try and phone HMRC with self-assessed tax problems?

    That's one of the worst ideas I've seen.

    HMRC regularly screw up or alter tax codes (sometimes by their auto bots) and I need to phone them 2-3 times a year to sort it out.

    Only humans can understand an individual's own circumstances.
    Not to mention that some people cannot use HMRC's website because (and this brings us back to the thread header) even if online, they do not have the right ID needed to open a digital tax account.
    HMRC are muppets. I'm on a payment plan to clear tax owed at the end of January (having apparently missed a deadline to get it into my tax code despite doing it at the same time of year as I always do. Direct debits going out as agreed.

    So I receive a shouty letter. Self Assessment Statement. Money owed. Pay now or else. Ancient giro form thing on the bottom. So I call them. Navigating my way past the AI door guard I join a 75 minute hold queue. Person answers who clearly hates her job. She has a look, and says "we're sending you statements because you owe us money". Yes. I know. Payment plan. "That is the debt management department, we're self assessment"

    "OK, so I can ignore the shouty letter?" "No, you need to pay the money owed." "I am, the payment plan." "Transpires that HMRC will continue to send demands for payment every month. As they take the payments as agreed. Because the "Debt Management" part and the "Self Assessment" part do not speak to each other. £ spent on pointless admin.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,797
    On topic:

    Turnout at 6 GEs this century: 59.4%-68.8%
    Turnout at last GE: 67.3%
    Turnout change at between 1992-97: -6.4% substantially down to Con don't knows not turning out.

    57.5+ and 60+ ranges looks most attractive here. Assuming a liquid enough market, 57.5-62.5 could be backed for a combined 2.45, 57.5-65 could be backed for a combined 1.36.

    I'm not jumping in on this tbh, but possibly a smidge of value in the 57.5-62.5 range?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,946
    Ghedebrav said:

    I wonder if a future government will row back voter ID? Probably not an issue anyone will have much enthusiasm for.

    Enfranchisement is (obviously, you’d think) a fundamental feature of democracy. Incidentally, it must be a decade or so since Cameron came out with his ‘physically sick’ remarks around prisoners voting. Another area where tbh I accept I am I probably pretty firmly in the minority, but I don’t agree with taking the vote away from convicts.

    It’s an interesting philosophical question

    If you take the view that government is a construct of the people to deliver community services then the ultimate punishment that the government can impose is to exclude people from the benefits of society either by exile or by imprisonment.

    If someone is excluded from society why should they have a say in the formation of the government?

    Now clearly this means that anyone with a prison term of less than 5 years should keep their vote without question. But anyone who is expected to be in prison for the entire term of the next parliament? I’m not so sure.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,557
    edited March 20

    HMRC to close phone lines for six months every year
    Annual six-month closure goes ahead despite self-assessment chaos

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/hmrc-permanently-close-tax-return-phone-lines-summer/ (£££)

    There must be a Labour mole deep inside Jeremy Hunt's brain if he thinks this will not add to the Broken Britain narrative. In addition, now, let's think, is it natural Labour or Conservative supporters who are more likely to try and phone HMRC with self-assessed tax problems?

    That's one of the worst ideas I've seen.

    HMRC regularly screw up or alter tax codes (sometimes by their auto bots) and I need to phone them 2-3 times a year to sort it out.

    Only humans can understand an individual's own circumstances.
    Not to mention that some people cannot use HMRC's website because (and this brings us back to the thread header) even if online, they do not have the right ID needed to open a digital tax account.
    I mentioned the procedure change yesterday, but everyone was too busy with princesses and Great Danes such as Rinka. I also pointed out a lot of people, including many OAPs, have to deal with tax returns for the first time in ages this yeat (fiscal drag, interest rate increase, and reduction of the savings interest allowance). I'd also remind us that there are now absolute fines for non-submission of £1K or so - irrespective of the size of tax actually owed (unlike in the old days when one was never fined more than one owed, so it was a doubling at most).

    Oh yes, and there is one month between the reopening of the phones and the absolute deadline fdor paper returns.

    Genius.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,198
    Nigelb said:

    .

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She confirms what so many in Labour have denied for years.


    As Cyclefree so often reminds us, you can address a problem until you acknowledge it exists.
    If I thought that Reeves was seriously going to address our biggest key weakness, namely our trade deficit, which Brown persuaded himself did not matter in a world of floating currencies, I would be tempted to vote for her myself. It would involve serious pain to do it in terms of reduced consumption and much reduced borrowing so I will believe it when I see it.
    Blaming New Labour for importing cheap Chinese consumer products doesn't reveal the source of the problem.

    De-industrialisation and the sale of UK assets overseas in the 1980s started the ball rolling. Resolving the industrial manufacturing strife of the 1970s by eradicating industrial manufacturing for domestic consumption was a crap idea in the first place, but it turns out one wholly incompatible with Brexit.

    Good luck to Reeves if she ever becomes CoE, but I don't see how this genie is ever returned to the bottle.
    I think that is over simplifying her argument. But what we need to do is encourage domestic investment and production so that we get import substitution, try to build productivity so that we are more competitive and incentivise training and capital whilst addressing infrastructure problems.

    We also need to reduce consumption to what we are actually earning which means we cannot have demand boosted by £100bn+ of government borrowing. So more taxes and less public spending. Not an easy sell by any means which is why politicians of all stripes have ducked it.
    Not easy at all; we've had chronic underinvestment in business for decades.

    Government spending on "the green crap" is not a bad idea to move the dial a bit. Renewables are cheap energy - and would substitute energy imports.
    Renewable assets need to be UK owned to make much of a difference, though.
    A massive contributor to our economic problems is that so many of our assets are foreign-owned so profits and IP are sent abroad, worsening our balance of payments and reducing our tax base.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,167

    HMRC to close phone lines for six months every year
    Annual six-month closure goes ahead despite self-assessment chaos

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/hmrc-permanently-close-tax-return-phone-lines-summer/ (£££)

    There must be a Labour mole deep inside Jeremy Hunt's brain if he thinks this will not add to the Broken Britain narrative. In addition, now, let's think, is it natural Labour or Conservative supporters who are more likely to try and phone HMRC with self-assessed tax problems?

    That's one of the worst ideas I've seen.

    HMRC regularly screw up or alter tax codes (sometimes by their auto bots) and I need to phone them 2-3 times a year to sort it out.

    Only humans can understand an individual's own circumstances.
    Not to mention that some people cannot use HMRC's website because (and this brings us back to the thread header) even if online, they do not have the right ID needed to open a digital tax account.
    HMRC are muppets. I'm on a payment plan to clear tax owed at the end of January (having apparently missed a deadline to get it into my tax code despite doing it at the same time of year as I always do. Direct debits going out as agreed.

    So I receive a shouty letter. Self Assessment Statement. Money owed. Pay now or else. Ancient giro form thing on the bottom. So I call them. Navigating my way past the AI door guard I join a 75 minute hold queue. Person answers who clearly hates her job. She has a look, and says "we're sending you statements because you owe us money". Yes. I know. Payment plan. "That is the debt management department, we're self assessment"

    "OK, so I can ignore the shouty letter?" "No, you need to pay the money owed." "I am, the payment plan." "Transpires that HMRC will continue to send demands for payment every month. As they take the payments as agreed. Because the "Debt Management" part and the "Self Assessment" part do not speak to each other. £ spent on pointless admin.
    Ah, process.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,833
    edited March 20
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    eek said:

    I see inflation is still well over target.

    3.4% is excellent news and entirely as claimed, Rishi's own work with no external assistance.

    "We have a plan and the plan is working, don't let Labour squander our golden legacy and take us back to square one".
    Looks back to 2010 - hang on I felt better off then and local government services were way better than they are now.

    Back to square one isn’t a threat, it’s an improvement

    Oh and inflation at 3.4% isn’t brilliant, it will be interesting to see the impact in April / May / June as minimum wage increases by 10%
    3.4% is fine, given where we came from and what expectation was, and we will be sub 2% soon.
    3.4% is indeed 'ok' compared with what we have seen recently and yes it should be around 2% for April as there will be a big fall in the year on year domestic energy.

    HOWEVER there will be a bounce back due to the continuing high level of wage rises particularly minimum wage. This probably won't come through until late 2024. MPC knows this is coming so are unlikely to cut interest rates by any extent this year. Lenders also know this is happening which is why mortgage rates are moving up albeit by a small amount.
    And saving rates too. There may well be a bounce back later this year. We have, as you say, seen forecasts for rate cuts pushed back. Still seem to be expected in June.

    People miss the fact in terms of interest rates we are just reverting to the mean here. The last decade or so has not been normal for long term interest rates. Rates where they currently are are nearer to that.
    Anyone coming to the end of a two-year fix from 2022, or a three-year fix from 2021, is going to see their mortgage repayments take a rather large jump up, no matter how many quarter-point cuts in rates there are between now and the election.



    Nothing any politician can say or do in the next few months, is going to make a blind bit of difference if a few million people’s mortgages just went up by hundreds or even thousands per month.

    Apart from Bidenomics of massive borrowing to pump the economy, which only the US can really get away with doing, the only thing that might possibly make a positive difference before the autumn is a crash in the oil price.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,579
    edited March 20

    ydoethur said:

    sbjme19 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    sbjme19 said:

    Although I don't like Mogg at all, I do give him credit for being the only one who was honest about voter ID.

    It was very helpful he said it out loud. Far too many on here swallowed the idea that this was about voter fraud.
    Amazing when there was so little actual evidence of it.
    Since when has evidence played any part in the decision making of Sunak and Braverman?
    Yes, it was a classic example of a cure for which there was no known disease.
    Actually there was a known disease, let's be honest.

    The recommendation for voter ID came from the Electoral Commission itself in 2012 not from any Party and was in response to a spate of voter fraud cases and fear of more in the future.

    However, the way it's been implemented, targeting in person voting and not postal, is utterly hamfisted.
    It's been done in many places which are definitely democratic, so the idea it was inherently some moral outrage was overblown and distracted from the specifics being badly done and the glaring omissions.

    I'd go so far as to say the focus on generic criticism as if requiring ID would always be an outrage helped the government present it as not a big deal and avoid some more significant points.

    Not that no-one will have raised specifics, but by and large it was an example of poor tactics in holding them to account by going overbroad in criticism.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Reeves in the papers this morning promising not to repeat the many mistakes of new labour.

    She’s a smart operator.

    She confirms what so many in Labour have denied for years.


    As Cyclefree so often reminds us, you can address a problem until you acknowledge it exists.
    If I thought that Reeves was seriously going to address our biggest key weakness, namely our trade deficit, which Brown persuaded himself did not matter in a world of floating currencies, I would be tempted to vote for her myself. It would involve serious pain to do it in terms of reduced consumption and much reduced borrowing so I will believe it when I see it.
    Blaming New Labour for importing cheap Chinese consumer products doesn't reveal the source of the problem.

    De-industrialisation and the sale of UK assets overseas in the 1980s started the ball rolling. Resolving the industrial manufacturing strife of the 1970s by eradicating industrial manufacturing for domestic consumption was a crap idea in the first place, but it turns out one wholly incompatible with Brexit.

    Good luck to Reeves if she ever becomes CoE, but I don't see how this genie is ever returned to the bottle.
    Domestic manufacturing damaged itself. Not continuing to subsidise corpses was simply non-insane.

    U.K. manufacturing is alive and doing quite well. The meme that it doesn’t exist seems embedded in parts of the Left.

    You can not deny a decline. Here's a pretty comprehensive explanation, and it is happy to shower the blame on everyone.

    https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/manufacturing/who-killed-british-manufacturing/?cf-view

    Just this week Tata are closing the coke ovens at Port Talbot.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/18/tata-steel-to-shut-down-port-talbot-coke-ovens-earlier-than-expected
    The decline happened because of a blank refusal, especially in heavy industry, to invest in the future and change methods. By the management, government and unions.

    Going round some of the old industrial sites - they had machinery from before WWII. In places that closed in the 70s and 80s.
    Let's take the motor industry. In the early 1970s British Leyland was the fourth largest automotive group behind General Motors, Ford, and I think Toyota.

    British Leyland, Volkswagen and Renault were in trouble. Volkswagen were baled out by the West German Government and a growth plan was set in place including modernising model lines and manufacturing techniques. Renault was nationalised and did likewise. What remains of British Leyland is owned by the Germans, the Indians and the Chinese.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,241
    edited March 20

    New Labour: "Things can only get better!"

    Reeves : "Er...not so fast...."

    I was never a great fan of Tony Blair’s Government except for social changes. Britain did move forward in a more socially relaxed way, but even there the seeds of discontent were sown.

    He not only failed to address major issues, he positively contributed to them. For example, stuffing the NHS full of highly paid managers. A friend of mine landed a six figure executive role having never worked in the NHS nor having any real management experience. There was a considerable amount of cronyism. So whilst we may criticise the current levels of corruption, I saw it all going on in Tony Blair’s Government (less so Brown).

    Likewise, the Metropolitan elitist casual disregard about immigration fuelled what happened to the Labour ‘red wall’ vote over Brexit.

    Blair was vacuous.

    Much of our Blairite economic boom relied on the Thatcher-Major legacy, North Sea oil, and the European Union.

    I am of the opinion that Keir Starmer’s Government will prove, in the long term, far better on almost every single metric.

    He’s also not stupid or arrogant enough to take us into an illegal and ill-advised overseas war.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,537
    edited March 20
    O/T With apologies, I am going to post this again because the more I think about it the more intriguing it seems.

    A different take on the housing crisis:

    "Mass-scale housebuilding isn’t necessary – there is already enough housing stock. But we need to learn the wisdom of the last century when it comes to landlordism"


    And:

    "In terms of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, the UK has roughly the average number of homes per capita: 468 per 1,000 people in 2019. We have a comparable amount of housing to the Netherlands, Hungary or Canada, and our housing stock far exceeds many more affordable places such as Poland, Slovenia and the Czech Republic."

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/19/end-of-landlords-surprisingly-simple-solution-to-uk-housing-crisis

    Maybe we don't need to increase housebuilding massively. If this is true it's a much easier problem for Labour to solve - still tricky, but not as hard as building over the greenbelt. I hope Angela Rayner is reading this (the Guardian article, not my post).
Sign In or Register to comment.