Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

The enduring legacy of Liz Truss – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,733
edited May 12 in General
imageThe enduring legacy of Liz Truss – politicalbetting.com

Patrick English, YouGov’s Director of Political Analytics, has done some sterling work in identifying this trend from the locals.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,635
    edited May 5
    Lettuce not go there.

    Also, interest rates are not going the right way at all. Quite the contrary. And with food and oil prices set to soar, that won't change.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,964
    ydoethur said:

    Lettuce not go there.

    Why can't we just leaf Truss alone?
  • Options
    El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,907
    edited May 5
    Third like the Tories by seats won

    (also FPT… 95% of cyclists do have a device capable of measuring speed on their bike, it’s called a smartphone. And the 5% that don’t are called Bert, aged 90, and use the bike for cycling to Spar and church at 6mph. I’m a fairly fervent cycling advocate but I tend to think speed limits should apply to us too.)
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,964
    edited May 5
    FPT - curse of the new thread:

    Jonathan said:

    Sunak will go when he thinks he can win, ergo the decision on the date of the next election is inherently irrational and unpredictable.

    Probably will be triggered by some random news story causing a temporary blip in the polls.

    If Sunak waits until the polls show he can win, it will be Marchvember the Oneteenth.
    Tories should just pass a law to say parliaments can last 10 years; what is there legally to stop them, since Parliament is sovereign?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,635

    ydoethur said:

    Lettuce not go there.

    Why can't we just leaf Truss alone?
    Because as Webs, we Wonder full time.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,610
    edited May 5
    Not the most convincing of correlations, though, a weak slope heavily influenced by a few outliers.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,543
    edited May 5
    Deleted like a controversial tweet from CCHQ.
  • Options
    megasaurmegasaur Posts: 271

    FPT - curse of the new thread:

    Jonathan said:

    Sunak will go when he thinks he can win, ergo the decision on the date of the next election is inherently irrational and unpredictable.

    Probably will be triggered by some random news story causing a temporary blip in the polls.

    If Sunak waits until the polls show he can win, it will be Marchvember the Oneteenth.
    Tories should just pass a law to say parliaments can last 10 years; what is there legally to stop them, since Parliament is sovereign?
    Absolutely nothing. Except Charles refusing to sign the Act.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,964
    I am no statistician but to me those charts look awfully widely scattered to draw much of a clear conclusion from.

    Is it not true that you could draw any number of 'trend' lines through those charts?
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,493
    megasaur said:

    FPT - curse of the new thread:

    Jonathan said:

    Sunak will go when he thinks he can win, ergo the decision on the date of the next election is inherently irrational and unpredictable.

    Probably will be triggered by some random news story causing a temporary blip in the polls.

    If Sunak waits until the polls show he can win, it will be Marchvember the Oneteenth.
    Tories should just pass a law to say parliaments can last 10 years; what is there legally to stop them, since Parliament is sovereign?
    Absolutely nothing. Except Charles refusing to sign the Act.
    The King would have to give assent. But any government that sought to do such a thing would face an onslaught of protests the like of which we’ve never yet seen.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,964
    megasaur said:

    FPT - curse of the new thread:

    Jonathan said:

    Sunak will go when he thinks he can win, ergo the decision on the date of the next election is inherently irrational and unpredictable.

    Probably will be triggered by some random news story causing a temporary blip in the polls.

    If Sunak waits until the polls show he can win, it will be Marchvember the Oneteenth.
    Tories should just pass a law to say parliaments can last 10 years; what is there legally to stop them, since Parliament is sovereign?
    Absolutely nothing. Except Charles refusing to sign the Act.
    No, he's not allowed to refuse to sign an Act - that is much more deeply embedded in our unwritten constitution than 5 year parliaments.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,964
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Lettuce not go there.

    Why can't we just leaf Truss alone?
    Because as Webs, we Wonder full time.
    'Cos as Webs... shirley?
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,733
    Public service announcement: the Racing Post Weekender has announced a new political betting column by William Kedjanyi of Star Sports.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,732
    A hundred thousand fixed rate mortgages renewed a month, so about two hundred thousand people affected. Another million voters by the autumn. And that's the case even if current rates drift down a bit, which they aren't.

    Not entirely Truss's fault- interest rates couldn't remain at minimal forever. But the height of the peak is her memorial.

    The curious thing is that home buyers seem to largely be sucking it up.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,635

    megasaur said:

    FPT - curse of the new thread:

    Jonathan said:

    Sunak will go when he thinks he can win, ergo the decision on the date of the next election is inherently irrational and unpredictable.

    Probably will be triggered by some random news story causing a temporary blip in the polls.

    If Sunak waits until the polls show he can win, it will be Marchvember the Oneteenth.
    Tories should just pass a law to say parliaments can last 10 years; what is there legally to stop them, since Parliament is sovereign?
    Absolutely nothing. Except Charles refusing to sign the Act.
    No, he's not allowed to refuse to sign an Act - that is much more deeply embedded in our unwritten constitution than 5 year parliaments.
    I think he could be legitimately held to refuse that one. And I think he would, as well.

    He might be forced to abdicate a la James VII and II, but just a delay might be enough to stall it.

    William - William I'm not so sure about. He seems a much less forceful character and much less devoted to his own sense of worth.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,610

    I am no statistician but to me those charts look awfully widely scattered to draw much of a clear conclusion from.

    Is it not true that you could draw any number of 'trend' lines through those charts?

    Not if it’s been done properly. But I suspect, remove those four big Tory to Labour swings lower left, and the correlation would look significantly less impressive. One of the shortcomings of linear regression is that it can be overly influenced by datapoints a long way from the line.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,733
    US shared ‘gobsmacking’ Covid lab leak file with UK
    Evidence supporting theory was presented to Dominic Raab, then the Foreign Secretary – but ‘was ignored’

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/04/us-shared-gobsmacking-lab-leak-evidence-with-uk-pandemic/ (£££)

    Newsagents report rocketing demand for the Sunday Telegraph in the Camden area.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,436
    Was discussing this last night with tory friend (I know, I know but hear me out) and it took her all of about 5 seconds to say, ‘But it was Liz Truss that did it. That’s the moment we lost the election.’

    She reckons people would have forgiven or forgotten Boris’ partying but not the Liz Truss budget.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913
    edited May 5
    Heathener said:

    Was discussing this last night with tory friend (I know, I know but hear me out) and it took her all of about 5 seconds to say, ‘But it was Liz Truss that did it. That’s the moment we lost the election.’

    She reckons people would have forgiven or forgotten Boris’ partying but not the Liz Truss budget.

    It was a spectacular moment of self destruction that did completely avoidable harm to the country.
  • Options
    londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,253
    It's quite possible that there will be no Bank Rate cut this year.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,079
    megasaur said:

    FPT - curse of the new thread:

    Jonathan said:

    Sunak will go when he thinks he can win, ergo the decision on the date of the next election is inherently irrational and unpredictable.

    Probably will be triggered by some random news story causing a temporary blip in the polls.

    If Sunak waits until the polls show he can win, it will be Marchvember the Oneteenth.
    Tories should just pass a law to say parliaments can last 10 years; what is there legally to stop them, since Parliament is sovereign?
    Absolutely nothing. Except Charles refusing to sign the Act.
    There is also the House of Lords!
  • Options
    megasaurmegasaur Posts: 271
    ydoethur said:

    megasaur said:

    FPT - curse of the new thread:

    Jonathan said:

    Sunak will go when he thinks he can win, ergo the decision on the date of the next election is inherently irrational and unpredictable.

    Probably will be triggered by some random news story causing a temporary blip in the polls.

    If Sunak waits until the polls show he can win, it will be Marchvember the Oneteenth.
    Tories should just pass a law to say parliaments can last 10 years; what is there legally to stop them, since Parliament is sovereign?
    Absolutely nothing. Except Charles refusing to sign the Act.
    No, he's not allowed to refuse to sign an Act - that is much more deeply embedded in our unwritten constitution than 5 year parliaments.
    I think he could be legitimately held to refuse that one. And I think he would, as well.

    He might be forced to abdicate a la James VII and II, but just a delay might be enough to stall it.

    William - William I'm not so sure about. He seems a much less forceful character and much less devoted to his own sense of worth.
    He could do an inverted Lascelles manoeuvre and grant a dissolution without being asked for one.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,436

    I think the key takeaways from me yesterday are:

    (1) Reform still don't party
    (2) They won't match their polling
    (3) Polling generally good, and suggests the Tories are in 26-28% zone atm (not 20-22%) and YouGov are still off
    (4) However, the seat count could be made worse by tactical voting
    (5) They will clearly suffer a very very heavy defeat, but won't be wiped out
    (6) Labour will probably get a moderate landslide- with the LDs doing a tad better than expected

    I don't believe the hung parliament stuff. Figures yesterday point to me at Labour clocking 400+ seats

    Excellent post. Agree with all 6 points.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,964
    LK looks balanced as usual today: Braverman, Harper from the Tories, McFadden Lab, then someone from the Rwanda govt, presumably telling us what a great scheme it is.

    No one from the party that came 2nd in the Locals.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-68609732
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,857

    A hundred thousand fixed rate mortgages renewed a month, so about two hundred thousand people affected. Another million voters by the autumn. And that's the case even if current rates drift down a bit, which they aren't.

    Not entirely Truss's fault- interest rates couldn't remain at minimal forever. But the height of the peak is her memorial.

    The curious thing is that home buyers seem to largely be sucking it up.

    They don't have much choice.

    I think a lot will be extending their mortgage terms.
  • Options
    megasaurmegasaur Posts: 271

    megasaur said:

    FPT - curse of the new thread:

    Jonathan said:

    Sunak will go when he thinks he can win, ergo the decision on the date of the next election is inherently irrational and unpredictable.

    Probably will be triggered by some random news story causing a temporary blip in the polls.

    If Sunak waits until the polls show he can win, it will be Marchvember the Oneteenth.
    Tories should just pass a law to say parliaments can last 10 years; what is there legally to stop them, since Parliament is sovereign?
    Absolutely nothing. Except Charles refusing to sign the Act.
    There is also the House of Lords!
    And the House of Lords Acts.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913
    edited May 5

    I think the key takeaways from me yesterday are:

    (1) Reform still don't party
    (2) They won't match their polling
    (3) Polling generally good, and suggests the Tories are in 26-28% zone atm (not 20-22%) and YouGov are still off
    (4) However, the seat count could be made worse by tactical voting
    (5) They will clearly suffer a very very heavy defeat, but won't be wiped out
    (6) Labour will probably get a moderate landslide- with the LDs doing a tad better than expected

    I don't believe the hung parliament stuff. Figures yesterday point to me at Labour clocking 400+ seats

    Cameron’s advantage in the nev share in 2009 was higher than Starmers yesterday and he started from about as far back. He ended up in a minority situation. That’s the evidence for a hung outcome.

  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,043

    A hundred thousand fixed rate mortgages renewed a month, so about two hundred thousand people affected. Another million voters by the autumn. And that's the case even if current rates drift down a bit, which they aren't.

    Not entirely Truss's fault- interest rates couldn't remain at minimal forever. But the height of the peak is her memorial.

    The curious thing is that home buyers seem to largely be sucking it up.

    Many (most?) of those mortgages will be for households with two voters, so double the numbers.

    Plus their parents or adult children.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,857
    On topic, the lesson from Black Wednesday (negative equity and repossession), GE2017 (dementia tax), Truss and the interest rate spike (very expensive mortages) is you don't touch people's houses. You just don't touch them.

    By the same token, when the Tories launched RTB, liberalised banks to lend and had lots of houses built in the 80s, they did very well. Right now, lots of young people can't really afford them, so they're not.

    The secret is to ease access for people to good homes at good and low prices. And then leave them alone.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,284

    megasaur said:

    FPT - curse of the new thread:

    Jonathan said:

    Sunak will go when he thinks he can win, ergo the decision on the date of the next election is inherently irrational and unpredictable.

    Probably will be triggered by some random news story causing a temporary blip in the polls.

    If Sunak waits until the polls show he can win, it will be Marchvember the Oneteenth.
    Tories should just pass a law to say parliaments can last 10 years; what is there legally to stop them, since Parliament is sovereign?
    Absolutely nothing. Except Charles refusing to sign the Act.
    No, he's not allowed to refuse to sign an Act - that is much more deeply embedded in our unwritten constitution than 5 year parliaments.
    Possibly - but the Supreme Court might decide otherwise in those circumstances.

    In any event, I doubt they could get a majority in Parliament. There are still a few principled Tory MPs, whether moderate or right wing.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,964

    I think the key takeaways from me yesterday are:

    (1) Reform still don't party
    (2) They won't match their polling
    (3) Polling generally good, and suggests the Tories are in 26-28% zone atm (not 20-22%) and YouGov are still off
    (4) However, the seat count could be made worse by tactical voting
    (5) They will clearly suffer a very very heavy defeat, but won't be wiped out
    (6) Labour will probably get a moderate landslide- with the LDs doing a tad better than expected

    I don't believe the hung parliament stuff. Figures yesterday point to me at Labour clocking 400+ seats

    Yes, I think that's a good summary of the current position.

    I do think things are more likely to get worse for the Tories than better, the longer they wait though.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,043
    Mark Harper on Sky this morning saying:

    - results show the polls were wrong and it’s very close
    - Railings and thrasher, the country’s top experts, predict that we’re heading for a hung parliament
    - It’s all to play for, we need to get behind our PM. Labour hadn’t sealed the deal
    - We’re focusing on the priorities of the British people: continuing to improve the economy, and stopping the boats (Labour are apparently proposing an amnesty for all illegal immigrants)

    Good stuff Mark. Call an election and seal another 5 glorious years!
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,110
    Can Harper stop telling us what our priorities are. And clinging onto the projections to a GE are ridiculous. The Lib Dems aren’t going to poll 17% and the independents aren’t going to do aswell .

    And now we’re back to the life raft of Tees Valley ! zzzzzzz
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,964

    A hundred thousand fixed rate mortgages renewed a month, so about two hundred thousand people affected. Another million voters by the autumn. And that's the case even if current rates drift down a bit, which they aren't.

    Not entirely Truss's fault- interest rates couldn't remain at minimal forever. But the height of the peak is her memorial.

    The curious thing is that home buyers seem to largely be sucking it up.

    They don't have much choice.

    I think a lot will be extending their mortgage terms.
    I've seen evidence that BTL owners are just passing it on to their tenants. Appreciate that only a relatively small proportion of owners.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,162

    megasaur said:

    FPT - curse of the new thread:

    Jonathan said:

    Sunak will go when he thinks he can win, ergo the decision on the date of the next election is inherently irrational and unpredictable.

    Probably will be triggered by some random news story causing a temporary blip in the polls.

    If Sunak waits until the polls show he can win, it will be Marchvember the Oneteenth.
    Tories should just pass a law to say parliaments can last 10 years; what is there legally to stop them, since Parliament is sovereign?
    Absolutely nothing. Except Charles refusing to sign the Act.
    No, he's not allowed to refuse to sign an Act - that is much more deeply embedded in our unwritten constitution than 5 year parliaments.
    The Chartists and lots of groups would argue about annual parliaments 3 or 7 years, all at the discretion of parliament.

    Legally it is doable.

    Politically it would be… unwise
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,043
    nico679 said:

    Can Harper stop telling us what our priorities are. And clinging onto the projections to a GE are ridiculous. The Lib Dems aren’t going to poll 17% and the independents aren’t going to do aswell .

    And now we’re back to the life raft of Tees Valley ! zzzzzzz

    When faced with a question on being beaten by the Lib Dems he then said “local elections are not representative of what will happen in a general election”!
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,543
    edited May 5

    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Time for this to change? Currently speed limits don't apply to cyclists.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/04/cyclist-escapes-prosecution-after-fatal-collision-with-pens/

    "A speeding cyclist involved in a fatal collision with a pensioner could not be prosecuted because speed limits do not apply to bicycles, a court heard.

    Brian Fitzgerald, a director at Credit Suisse, was in a “fast group” of cyclists doing timed laps of Regent’s Park in London when Hilda Griffiths, 81, crossed the road they were on to try to reach a pedestrian island.

    Despite a 20mph speed limit, Mr Fitzgerald, a member of the Muswell Hill Peloton cycling club, told a coroner they were travelling at up to 29 mph in aerodynamic “pace line” formation to maximise momentum when he struck the retired nursery teacher walking her dog.

    He said he had “zero-reaction time”, adding how cyclists are not required to obey 20mph signs because “the legal speed limit doesn’t apply to cyclists [the same] as motorists”."

    I was very nearly knocked over yesterday by a twat on a Surron doing estimated 35mph on the pavement while on his phone. If I hadn't jumped there's a very good chance I'd have been killed.

    He's been riding around a lot recently at high speed including on the paths, through the parks and on the wrong side of the road.

    But the police do not care. They're spooked by what happened in Cardiff where the parents of those two tossers blamed the police for their deaths while riding like lunatics.

    Hopefully when he crashes he will kill himself rather than somebody else.

    But certainly cracking down on inconsiderate and dangerous cyclists and e-bikes including that idiot Drakeford to fuck off when he supports them (a compelling sign he doesn't really give a shit about dangerous driving despite his 20mph nonsense) would be a good start by any government. They're not a pest, they're a real menace.
    I've spotted a number of near misses in London, both pedestrians and cyclists, who have their headphones on whilst entering traffic - often at odds with traffic signals. Sooner or later someone will be killed.

    Are you crossing the road or on the road? If so, remove your headphones.

    ...

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:


    Lewis Goodall
    @lewis_goodall
    ·
    57m
    January election remains underpriced

    I bet on that yesterday, and December.
    I think September underpriced. I don't think Sunak fancies conference season.
    Yes I don’t know how to second guess the timing so I’m not in on this market yet.

    January feels like utter lunacy and might lead to a Canadageddon.

    December would be tricky. I know it happened last time but that had a specific set of justifications which don’t really pertain this time.

    We’re too late for May and (I think) June. So that leaves 5 options: July through November.

    The problem from a betting POV is that we’re dealing with a volatile Party, in febrile mood. I have no way of applying my head over heart metric to this one at the moment. Almost anything could happen with the current Conservative Party.

    The only sure bet is that they’re going to lose.
    Latest parliament can dissolve is 17 December 2024, and then polling day will be Tuesday 28 January 2025. You'd have a v. soft campaign over the week before Christmas, and it wouldn't really heat up until Boxing Day. It could work, although the January payday point is a good one. I wouldn't recommend it but it's possible.

    The point on "go now because otherwise it will be even worse" is almost always made by political opponents desperate to get into office trying to goad the Government into dissolving early so they get in early. There's no reason the Government should play that game; there's plenty on the upside that might work out for them.

    Rwanda and the Summer boat crossings is probably the biggest political risk, and after that the performance of the NHS through another Winter. But, it's possible the former 'works' and a big cash injection is delivered on the latter, as the economy recovers, and that strengthens Sunak's GE defensive strategy.
    I thought it traditional that elections take place on a Thursday which gives us the 23rd January. If he hangs on until the following Tuesday he really is desperate for his black swan event.

    But maybe you are right and 9 more months of performative cruelty will swing the dial. I am not sure Sunak pulls of "nasty" to electoral benefit in the way a real piece of work like Braverman or Jenrick would. He's just not convincing.
    You say "performative cruelty" and throw around other charming words like nasty and piece of work. That rigid blend of moral sanctimony and tribalism that's so very Labour.

    How do I see it?

    I look upon a prospective Labour government with unabashed horror: I think it will be very negative for me and my family. Not to mention the country with pointless nationalisations, class war, an expansion of public sector entitlements and taxes, without any commensurate increase in output, turning identity politics back up to 11 and making ill-thought through and partisan changes to fundamental parts of our constitution.

    I'm delighted if he cockblocks you for as long as possible.
    Performative cruelty looks like Braverman "dreaming of flights to Rwanda" Jenrick painting over Disney characters at a reception centre for children ". And more recently Sunak's war on PiP recipients.

    You say I am partisan, and it is true I would prefer to see a Labour Government over this current outrage, but to be honest I would be happy to see any party, with the exception of Reform and the Workers Party replace this shower.

    You list your objections which are essentially ideological issues. You state you and your family would be worse off under a Labour Government, which is a fair analysis to conclude, however were you and your family enhanced by Truss's budget. Were you and your family enhanced by spending £2m per refugee on removals to Rwanda. Did you or your family benefit from the PPE scandal or from Boris Johnson's parties. I suspect the answers are all no.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,284

    LK looks balanced as usual today: Braverman, Harper from the Tories, McFadden Lab, then someone from the Rwanda govt, presumably telling us what a great scheme it is.

    No one from the party that came 2nd in the Locals.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-68609732

    Today's story is probably the debate opened by Street and Braverman over the future of the party.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,317

    A few weeks ago I read an interview with Gruff Rhys, frontman of the psychedelic Welsh rockers the Super Furry Animals. He said something along the lines of ‘There were always tempting arguments for Brexit from a left-wing perspective, but it would always be really a project of the right.’

    I don't remember who said it, but "Brexit was popular means to unpopular ends"

    It was sold as reducing immigration without the fine print that immigration would in fact increase.

    It was sold as increased consumer choice without the fine print of lower standards and higher cost.

    It was sold as saving the NHS while waiting lists increase and staff shortages multiply.

    And yes, the Tories own all of it...
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,246
    edited May 5

    I think the key takeaways from me yesterday are:

    (1) Reform still don't party
    (2) They won't match their polling
    (3) Polling generally good, and suggests the Tories are in 26-28% zone atm (not 20-22%) and YouGov are still off
    (4) However, the seat count could be made worse by tactical voting
    (5) They will clearly suffer a very very heavy defeat, but won't be wiped out
    (6) Labour will probably get a moderate landslide- with the LDs doing a tad better than expected

    I don't believe the hung parliament stuff. Figures yesterday point to me at Labour clocking 400+ seats

    The black swan event for the Tories is Farage leading the Reform campaign.
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,493
    Heathener said:

    Was discussing this last night with tory friend (I know, I know but hear me out) and it took her all of about 5 seconds to say, ‘But it was Liz Truss that did it. That’s the moment we lost the election.’

    She reckons people would have forgiven or forgotten Boris’ partying but not the Liz Truss budget.

    Agree, had the party picked a different leader then the situation post-Boris was recoverable. Whether that would have been election winning or not I don’t know.

    The Truss budget was Black Wednesday on steroids, and even worse entirely self inflicted. It absolutely immolated Tory credibility. Unlike the real Black Wednesday though there was no glimmer of an upside. Truss and Kwarteng detonated a hydrogen bomb on the household budgets of middle England and the Tories are radioactive to most voters in consequence.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,284

    On topic, the lesson from Black Wednesday (negative equity and repossession), GE2017 (dementia tax), Truss and the interest rate spike (very expensive mortages) is you don't touch people's houses. You just don't touch them.

    By the same token, when the Tories launched RTB, liberalised banks to lend and had lots of houses built in the 80s, they did very well. Right now, lots of young people can't really afford them, so they're not.

    The secret is to ease access for people to good homes at good and low prices. And then leave them alone.

    Labour actually have a plan for that, if they have the balls to go big on it.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,471
    Heathener said:

    Was discussing this last night with tory friend (I know, I know but hear me out) and it took her all of about 5 seconds to say, ‘But it was Liz Truss that did it. That’s the moment we lost the election.’

    She reckons people would have forgiven or forgotten Boris’ partying but not the Liz Truss budget.

    I saw a comment in a previous thread from someone saying the next election was lost for the Tories the moment Kwasi Kwarteng sat down after delivering the mini budget.

    I think that was spot on.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,147

    I think the key takeaways from me yesterday are:

    (1) Reform still don't party
    (2) They won't match their polling
    (3) Polling generally good, and suggests the Tories are in 26-28% zone atm (not 20-22%) and YouGov are still off
    (4) However, the seat count could be made worse by tactical voting
    (5) They will clearly suffer a very very heavy defeat, but won't be wiped out
    (6) Labour will probably get a moderate landslide- with the LDs doing a tad better than expected

    I don't believe the hung parliament stuff. Figures yesterday point to me at Labour clocking 400+ seats

    The black swan event for the Tories is Farage leading the Reform campaign.
    Farage had the choice of either leading the Reform campaign or setting the agenda via his GBNews evening show.

    You can see why he had difficulty choosing which one to go for.

    Either way the Tories are as dead as a dodo and may well have as many seats
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,317
    ToryJim said:

    Truss and Kwarteng detonated a hydrogen bomb on the household budgets of middle England and the Tories are radioactive to most voters in consequence.

    This is true, but what I don't think Team Richi have grasped is the breadth of failure they are offering the electorate.

    Fiscal incompetence? Tick
    Performative cruelty? Tick
    Endless culture war? Tick

    There is no currently no good reason for vote for these halfwits, and may, many reasons to vote against them
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,284

    megasaur said:

    FPT - curse of the new thread:

    Jonathan said:

    Sunak will go when he thinks he can win, ergo the decision on the date of the next election is inherently irrational and unpredictable.

    Probably will be triggered by some random news story causing a temporary blip in the polls.

    If Sunak waits until the polls show he can win, it will be Marchvember the Oneteenth.
    Tories should just pass a law to say parliaments can last 10 years; what is there legally to stop them, since Parliament is sovereign?
    Absolutely nothing. Except Charles refusing to sign the Act.
    No, he's not allowed to refuse to sign an Act - that is much more deeply embedded in our unwritten constitution than 5 year parliaments.
    The Chartists and lots of groups would argue about annual parliaments 3 or 7 years, all at the discretion of parliament.

    Legally it is doable.

    Politically it would be… unwise
    Parliament already has discretion on the length of parliaments - anything between 0 and 5 years.
    Government legislating to further extend its time in office would be more than unwise.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,684
    I'm glad that my political instincts that Sadiq would win with a 10+ point margin weren't mistaken, though I'd still have liked to see him unseated. Maybe next time when Labour are unr incumbent party it will be much easier.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,964
    A truly magnificent effort from the Mail on Sunday, whose front page is a poll on the King’s popularity - with a sidebar on Angela Rayner - and absolutely no mention whatsoever of the thrashing the Tories have just received in the last major polls ahead of the General Election.

    https://x.com/MatthewStadlen/status/1786863809933557844
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,317
    Nigelb said:

    Today's story is probably the debate opened by Street and Braverman over the future of the party.

    It would be nice to think so. Unfortunately the current parliamentary party (thanks to BoZo) is predominantly in the Braverman camp
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,460

    megasaur said:

    FPT - curse of the new thread:

    Jonathan said:

    Sunak will go when he thinks he can win, ergo the decision on the date of the next election is inherently irrational and unpredictable.

    Probably will be triggered by some random news story causing a temporary blip in the polls.

    If Sunak waits until the polls show he can win, it will be Marchvember the Oneteenth.
    Tories should just pass a law to say parliaments can last 10 years; what is there legally to stop them, since Parliament is sovereign?
    Absolutely nothing. Except Charles refusing to sign the Act.
    There is also the House of Lords
    The Parliament Acts contained a saving that a sitting of Parliament could not be extended
    without the consent of the Lords. I think that provision survived the FTPA chaos. You’ll forgive me for not checking on a beautiful day like this.
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,110
    I don’t get how people like Thrasher come up with comparisons with Blair when independents then did much worse . And the projection assumes that nothing has changed in Scotland and Wales . How can alleged experts keep peddling this nonsense .
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,380
    DavidL said:

    There's a myth being propagated here which is in serious danger of becoming acknowledged "fact". During Truss's brief tenure bond rates rose because the UK no longer seemed a safe bet with irresponsible spending and cuts in taxes. The major problem was the uncosted open ended cheque in respect of peoples' fuel bills, the tax cuts themselves were more modest.

    After Sunak and particularly Hunt took over we returned to trend. The gas subsidy, whilst still large, was costed and time limited. What was also happening, however, is that the burst of international inflation that had caused the spike in gas prices became much more generalised as fuel costs drove everything else higher, particularly food. This meant interest rates rose internationally as well as here.

    The myth is that the current rise in mortgage rates as people come to the end of their fixed rates has anything to do with Truss, her economic incompetence or is in any way out of the norm. It's just not true. After more than a decade of incredibly low interest rates following the GFC bond rates have returned to the lower end of normal and mortgages have moved accordingly. Hard for those who had got used to practically free money but inevitable. And absolutely nothing to do with Truss.

    I think the point is that the obvious incompetence of her period has led people to pin the complex causes of mortgage problems firmly onto the Conservatives. We can debate whether that's fair, but it's true anyway.
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,782
    Nigelb said:

    megasaur said:

    FPT - curse of the new thread:

    Jonathan said:

    Sunak will go when he thinks he can win, ergo the decision on the date of the next election is inherently irrational and unpredictable.

    Probably will be triggered by some random news story causing a temporary blip in the polls.

    If Sunak waits until the polls show he can win, it will be Marchvember the Oneteenth.
    Tories should just pass a law to say parliaments can last 10 years; what is there legally to stop them, since Parliament is sovereign?
    Absolutely nothing. Except Charles refusing to sign the Act.
    No, he's not allowed to refuse to sign an Act - that is much more deeply embedded in our unwritten constitution than 5 year parliaments.
    The Chartists and lots of groups would argue about annual parliaments 3 or 7 years, all at the discretion of parliament.

    Legally it is doable.

    Politically it would be… unwise
    Parliament already has discretion on the length of parliaments - anything between 0 and 5 years.
    Government legislating to further extend its time in office would be more than unwise.
    The 1940 general election was postponed indefinitely (for five years, as it turned out). Did it require primary legislation or just an Order in Council?
  • Options
    londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,253
    DavidL said:

    There's a myth being propagated here which is in serious danger of becoming acknowledged "fact". During Truss's brief tenure bond rates rose because the UK no longer seemed a safe bet with irresponsible spending and cuts in taxes. The major problem was the uncosted open ended cheque in respect of peoples' fuel bills, the tax cuts themselves were more modest.

    After Sunak and particularly Hunt took over we returned to trend. The gas subsidy, whilst still large, was costed and time limited. What was also happening, however, is that the burst of international inflation that had caused the spike in gas prices became much more generalised as fuel costs drove everything else higher, particularly food. This meant interest rates rose internationally as well as here.

    The myth is that the current rise in mortgage rates as people come to the end of their fixed rates has anything to do with Truss, her economic incompetence or is in any way out of the norm. It's just not true. After more than a decade of incredibly low interest rates following the GFC bond rates have returned to the lower end of normal and mortgages have moved accordingly. Hard for those who had got used to practically free money but inevitable. And absolutely nothing to do with Truss.

    Absolutely! Interest rates are returning to a longer term 'normal' level so even if CPI stabilises around 2% target the Bank Rate is unlikely to fall below 4%.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,684
    Nigelb said:

    On topic, the lesson from Black Wednesday (negative equity and repossession), GE2017 (dementia tax), Truss and the interest rate spike (very expensive mortages) is you don't touch people's houses. You just don't touch them.

    By the same token, when the Tories launched RTB, liberalised banks to lend and had lots of houses built in the 80s, they did very well. Right now, lots of young people can't really afford them, so they're not.

    The secret is to ease access for people to good homes at good and low prices. And then leave them alone.

    Labour actually have a plan for that, if they have the balls to go big on it.
    Labour will do precisely zero. In fact I think they will end up rolling back some of the first time buyer specific reliefs.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,317
    @SkyNews

    "The Liberal Democrats beat you!" - @TrevorPTweets


    "No they didn't..." - @Mark_J_Harper


    The transport secretary rejects claims that the Tories are "squatting" in No 10, after winning fewer council seats than the Lib Dems.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,471
    TimS said:

    Mark Harper on Sky this morning saying:

    - results show the polls were wrong and it’s very close
    - Railings and thrasher, the country’s top experts, predict that we’re heading for a hung parliament
    - It’s all to play for, we need to get behind our PM. Labour hadn’t sealed the deal
    - We’re focusing on the priorities of the British people: continuing to improve the economy, and stopping the boats (Labour are apparently proposing an amnesty for all illegal immigrants)

    Good stuff Mark. Call an election and seal another 5 glorious years!

    What else can he say really though ?

    People aren’t stupid and, although he has a point about Railings and Thrasher, these results were a calamity for the Tories. An utter disaster. I doubt even he believes what he is saying.

    Robert Colville has a point when he says pro development Tory mayors have done well. The Tory way back isn’t as a UKIP tribute act, but is as a pro growth pro development party.

    Quite frankly if labour propose an amnesty for all illegal immigrants then so what is my view At least it does something to address the problem and the expense.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,460
    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    On topic, the lesson from Black Wednesday (negative equity and repossession), GE2017 (dementia tax), Truss and the interest rate spike (very expensive mortages) is you don't touch people's houses. You just don't touch them.

    By the same token, when the Tories launched RTB, liberalised banks to lend and had lots of houses built in the 80s, they did very well. Right now, lots of young people can't really afford them, so they're not.

    The secret is to ease access for people to good homes at good and low prices. And then leave them alone.

    Labour actually have a plan for that, if they have the balls to go big on it.
    Labour will do precisely zero. In fact I think they will end up rolling back some of the first time buyer specific reliefs.
    Interesting. Do you have a link for the rolling back proposal?
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,079

    Nigelb said:

    megasaur said:

    FPT - curse of the new thread:

    Jonathan said:

    Sunak will go when he thinks he can win, ergo the decision on the date of the next election is inherently irrational and unpredictable.

    Probably will be triggered by some random news story causing a temporary blip in the polls.

    If Sunak waits until the polls show he can win, it will be Marchvember the Oneteenth.
    Tories should just pass a law to say parliaments can last 10 years; what is there legally to stop them, since Parliament is sovereign?
    Absolutely nothing. Except Charles refusing to sign the Act.
    No, he's not allowed to refuse to sign an Act - that is much more deeply embedded in our unwritten constitution than 5 year parliaments.
    The Chartists and lots of groups would argue about annual parliaments 3 or 7 years, all at the discretion of parliament.

    Legally it is doable.

    Politically it would be… unwise
    Parliament already has discretion on the length of parliaments - anything between 0 and 5 years.
    Government legislating to further extend its time in office would be more than unwise.
    The 1940 general election was postponed indefinitely (for five years, as it turned out). Did it require primary legislation or just an Order in Council?
    Multiple primary legislation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septennial_Act_1715#Prolongation_of_Parliament_during_the_First_World_War_and_Second_World_War
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,317
    Meanwhile...

    @9andrewmcdonald

    New: John Swinney faces a leadership contest after all

    Graeme McCormick, a veteran SNP activist and long-time leadership critic, tells me he has the required nominations to trigger a contest

    SNP hierarchy hoped Swinney was on course for a coronation when noms close noon Monday
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,684
    edited May 5
    DougSeal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    On topic, the lesson from Black Wednesday (negative equity and repossession), GE2017 (dementia tax), Truss and the interest rate spike (very expensive mortages) is you don't touch people's houses. You just don't touch them.

    By the same token, when the Tories launched RTB, liberalised banks to lend and had lots of houses built in the 80s, they did very well. Right now, lots of young people can't really afford them, so they're not.

    The secret is to ease access for people to good homes at good and low prices. And then leave them alone.

    Labour actually have a plan for that, if they have the balls to go big on it.
    Labour will do precisely zero. In fact I think they will end up rolling back some of the first time buyer specific reliefs.
    Interesting. Do you have a link for the rolling back proposal?
    No link, there's just no money to do anything. Plus Labour just completely u turned on their workers "new deal". They've got form.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,284
    DavidL said:

    There's a myth being propagated here which is in serious danger of becoming acknowledged "fact". During Truss's brief tenure bond rates rose because the UK no longer seemed a safe bet with irresponsible spending and cuts in taxes. The major problem was the uncosted open ended cheque in respect of peoples' fuel bills, the tax cuts themselves were more modest.

    After Sunak and particularly Hunt took over we returned to trend. The gas subsidy, whilst still large, was costed and time limited. What was also happening, however, is that the burst of international inflation that had caused the spike in gas prices became much more generalised as fuel costs drove everything else higher, particularly food. This meant interest rates rose internationally as well as here.

    The myth is that the current rise in mortgage rates as people come to the end of their fixed rates has anything to do with Truss, her economic incompetence or is in any way out of the norm. It's just not true. After more than a decade of incredibly low interest rates following the GFC bond rates have returned to the lower end of normal and mortgages have moved accordingly. Hard for those who had got used to practically free money but inevitable. And absolutely nothing to do with Truss.

    She probably introduced a further risk premium on the UK which won't entirely have dissipated.

    But in any event, the Tories have been in power for a decade and a half. 'Not really their fault' just isn't going to work as a political argument, irrespective of the economics.
    Black Wednesday was no different - and the economy under Major far better.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,732
    DavidL said:

    There's a myth being propagated here which is in serious danger of becoming acknowledged "fact". During Truss's brief tenure bond rates rose because the UK no longer seemed a safe bet with irresponsible spending and cuts in taxes. The major problem was the uncosted open ended cheque in respect of peoples' fuel bills, the tax cuts themselves were more modest.

    After Sunak and particularly Hunt took over we returned to trend. The gas subsidy, whilst still large, was costed and time limited. What was also happening, however, is that the burst of international inflation that had caused the spike in gas prices became much more generalised as fuel costs drove everything else higher, particularly food. This meant interest rates rose internationally as well as here.

    The myth is that the current rise in mortgage rates as people come to the end of their fixed rates has anything to do with Truss, her economic incompetence or is in any way out of the norm. It's just not true. After more than a decade of incredibly low interest rates following the GFC bond rates have returned to the lower end of normal and mortgages have moved accordingly. Hard for those who had got used to practically free money but inevitable. And absolutely nothing to do with Truss.

    Whilst that's true, it doesn't matter electorally.

    It's like 'under Callaghan, we couldn't even bury our dead'. Both of them were More Complicated Than That, but they point to a wider malaise.

    Unfair? Yes. But a politician complaining about the unfairness of public perception (which Rishi is said to do a fair bit) is like a fish complaining about the wetness of water.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,460

    Nigelb said:

    megasaur said:

    FPT - curse of the new thread:

    Jonathan said:

    Sunak will go when he thinks he can win, ergo the decision on the date of the next election is inherently irrational and unpredictable.

    Probably will be triggered by some random news story causing a temporary blip in the polls.

    If Sunak waits until the polls show he can win, it will be Marchvember the Oneteenth.
    Tories should just pass a law to say parliaments can last 10 years; what is there legally to stop them, since Parliament is sovereign?
    Absolutely nothing. Except Charles refusing to sign the Act.
    No, he's not allowed to refuse to sign an Act - that is much more deeply embedded in our unwritten constitution than 5 year parliaments.
    The Chartists and lots of groups would argue about annual parliaments 3 or 7 years, all at the discretion of parliament.

    Legally it is doable.

    Politically it would be… unwise
    Parliament already has discretion on the length of parliaments - anything between 0 and 5 years.
    Government legislating to further extend its time in office would be more than unwise.
    The 1940 general election was postponed indefinitely (for five years, as it turned out). Did it require primary legislation or just an Order in Council?
    A Parliament can be extended via primary legislation but back then, and I think now, the Parliament Acts still require the consent of the Lords. It was a saving put in the 1911 Act that effectively disapplied the rest of the act to such a bill. Such consent was, for obvious reasons, easier to get in the circumstances of 1939/1940 than now.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,471
    MaxPB said:

    I'm glad that my political instincts that Sadiq would win with a 10+ point margin weren't mistaken, though I'd still have liked to see him unseated. Maybe next time when Labour are unr incumbent party it will be much easier.

    Well he seriously underperformed and Susan Hall seriously overperformed their respective parties polling numbers.

    So, yeah, it may well happen next time.
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,493
    Scott_xP said:

    ToryJim said:

    Truss and Kwarteng detonated a hydrogen bomb on the household budgets of middle England and the Tories are radioactive to most voters in consequence.

    This is true, but what I don't think Team Richi have grasped is the breadth of failure they are offering the electorate.

    Fiscal incompetence? Tick
    Performative cruelty? Tick
    Endless culture war? Tick

    There is no currently no good reason for vote for these halfwits, and may, many reasons to vote against them
    They have definitely not boned up on their Burke who said “it’s a general popular error to believe that the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for their welfare.”

    I actually think that Hunt is doing a reasonable job given the circumstances and the remit. He’s the guy sent to the poker game to win back all the money but finds that his hand has been dealt with Tarot cards and they are all marked Death.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,284
    Scott_xP said:

    Nigelb said:

    Today's story is probably the debate opened by Street and Braverman over the future of the party.

    It would be nice to think so. Unfortunately the current parliamentary party (thanks to BoZo) is predominantly in the Braverman camp
    It's a bit like those Supreme Court dissents which only become accepted wisdom a decade or two later.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,848
    There are two major reports - in the Indy and the FT - saying that Russia is intent on attacking all of Europe, sabotage, hacking, explosions, assassinations. The next five years of Labour might see us more or less at war with Russia

    See what China is doing to Boeing
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,284
    MaxPB said:

    DougSeal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    On topic, the lesson from Black Wednesday (negative equity and repossession), GE2017 (dementia tax), Truss and the interest rate spike (very expensive mortages) is you don't touch people's houses. You just don't touch them.

    By the same token, when the Tories launched RTB, liberalised banks to lend and had lots of houses built in the 80s, they did very well. Right now, lots of young people can't really afford them, so they're not.

    The secret is to ease access for people to good homes at good and low prices. And then leave them alone.

    Labour actually have a plan for that, if they have the balls to go big on it.
    Labour will do precisely zero. In fact I think they will end up rolling back some of the first time buyer specific reliefs.
    Interesting. Do you have a link for the rolling back proposal?
    No link, there's just no money to do anything. Plus Labour just completely u turned on their workers "new deal". They've got form.
    Their plan (which they've give very quiet on) would be net positive for the public finances.
    It doesn't involve tax giveaways.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,885
    Condemned for unTRUSSing. Farewell...

    As it were
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,543
    Scott_xP said:

    ToryJim said:

    Truss and Kwarteng detonated a hydrogen bomb on the household budgets of middle England and the Tories are radioactive to most voters in consequence.


    Fiscal incompetence? Tick
    Performative cruelty? Tick
    Endless culture war? Tick

    If that is Rishi's plan, it is working and Labour do not have a similar plan.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,973
    edited May 5
    I can never remember thinking a change of government would make me richer or poorer.

    Governments affect the mood.

    A mean spirited nasty government like this Tory one just puts a downer on all of us.

    The Labour one of '97 had the opposite effect. The UK felt freer kinder and more progressive.

    Does anyone think governments are going to affect our mortgage costs or make us individually richer or poorer?
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,317
    Now the rebels have decided Sunak should “own” the expected general election defeat.

    Labour strategists are baffled by the decision of the Tory rebels. “They must be innumerate,” a Starmer aide said. “If you look at the difference between the police and crime commissioner vote and the Street vote in Birmingham you can see what a drag Sunak is on the ticket for them. If they’re paying attention to the numbers, they should be getting rid of him. The guy’s a loser.”

    Even Houchen, a close ally of Johnson, is no great fan of Sunak. When the prime minister flew to the Tees Valley for a victory rally, the body language between them was awkward and Houchen said he “forgot” to wear a blue rosette. He then issued a statement saying he would “absolutely” work with a prime minister Starmer. “Ben was putting as much distance between them as possible,” a minister said. “Apparently he was pissed off that Rishi turned up at all.”

    Street too ran on a personal ticket with no mentions of Sunak on his literature. “Andy absolutely despises him,” a minister said. A former No 10 aide explained: “When Rishi was chancellor, Andy found him haughty, arrogant, patronising and dismissive when he wanted money for things.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-celebrating-keir-starmers-next-steps-to-no-10-b0z6dxkg3
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,461
    We’re still 7 months from an election. What the Tories are doing isn’t working. What they are saying is being openly laughed at. But they still have time to change tack.

    This is the lunacy. Plan. Rwanda. Tax cuts. Priorities. All rejected massively and comprehensively. So stop saying them. Say something different.

    This is not a mid term protest vote. This is the end. People are not waiting for Rwanda to start or for interest rates to fall. Thursday did not prove that the race is close and that Labour haven’t sealed the deal. Harper may as well say “I am a Fish” in response to every question to sound more sane.

    Forget waiting for a black swan. Pivot now and pivot hard. Away from the failed mess. Give people something new to concentrate on. Campaign on bringing back hanging for small boat refugees. Campaign on forcing people off sick notes into building new prisons which you then lock them up in. Campaign on mandatory skirts for girls in schools.

    Whatever. Just change the script.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,635
    Leon said:

    There are two major reports - in the Indy and the FT - saying that Russia is intent on attacking all of Europe, sabotage, hacking, explosions, assassinations. The next five years of Labour might see us more or less at war with Russia

    See what China is doing to Boeing

    It's hard to imagine China is doing more to Boeing than Boeing is to itself.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,684
    edited May 5
    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    DougSeal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    On topic, the lesson from Black Wednesday (negative equity and repossession), GE2017 (dementia tax), Truss and the interest rate spike (very expensive mortages) is you don't touch people's houses. You just don't touch them.

    By the same token, when the Tories launched RTB, liberalised banks to lend and had lots of houses built in the 80s, they did very well. Right now, lots of young people can't really afford them, so they're not.

    The secret is to ease access for people to good homes at good and low prices. And then leave them alone.

    Labour actually have a plan for that, if they have the balls to go big on it.
    Labour will do precisely zero. In fact I think they will end up rolling back some of the first time buyer specific reliefs.
    Interesting. Do you have a link for the rolling back proposal?
    No link, there's just no money to do anything. Plus Labour just completely u turned on their workers "new deal". They've got form.
    Their plan (which they've give very quiet on) would be net positive for the public finances.
    It doesn't involve tax giveaways.
    But net negative for their image, pushing through planning reform in the UK is notoriously difficult. It's why successive governments since the 70s have all dodged the issue.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,317

    Scott_xP said:

    ToryJim said:

    Truss and Kwarteng detonated a hydrogen bomb on the household budgets of middle England and the Tories are radioactive to most voters in consequence.


    Fiscal incompetence? Tick
    Performative cruelty? Tick
    Endless culture war? Tick

    If that is Rishi's plan, it is working and Labour do not have a similar plan.
    It is working. It is propelling Keith Starmer directly into Number 10...
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,610
    Heathener said:

    Was discussing this last night with tory friend (I know, I know but hear me out) and it took her all of about 5 seconds to say, ‘But it was Liz Truss that did it. That’s the moment we lost the election.’

    She reckons people would have forgiven or forgotten Boris’ partying but not the Liz Truss budget.

    Remind me who it was who promoted Truss into pole position in the first place, and then treated her as his anointed successor thus ensuring she won the members’ vote?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,543
    Taz said:

    MaxPB said:

    I'm glad that my political instincts that Sadiq would win with a 10+ point margin weren't mistaken, though I'd still have liked to see him unseated. Maybe next time when Labour are unr incumbent party it will be much easier.

    Well he seriously underperformed and Susan Hall seriously overperformed their respective parties polling numbers.

    So, yeah, it may well happen next time.
    That's what the Corbynistas thought the weekend after GE2017.

    One more push!
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,857

    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Time for this to change? Currently speed limits don't apply to cyclists.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/04/cyclist-escapes-prosecution-after-fatal-collision-with-pens/

    "A speeding cyclist involved in a fatal collision with a pensioner could not be prosecuted because speed limits do not apply to bicycles, a court heard.

    Brian Fitzgerald, a director at Credit Suisse, was in a “fast group” of cyclists doing timed laps of Regent’s Park in London when Hilda Griffiths, 81, crossed the road they were on to try to reach a pedestrian island.

    Despite a 20mph speed limit, Mr Fitzgerald, a member of the Muswell Hill Peloton cycling club, told a coroner they were travelling at up to 29 mph in aerodynamic “pace line” formation to maximise momentum when he struck the retired nursery teacher walking her dog.

    He said he had “zero-reaction time”, adding how cyclists are not required to obey 20mph signs because “the legal speed limit doesn’t apply to cyclists [the same] as motorists”."

    I was very nearly knocked over yesterday by a twat on a Surron doing estimated 35mph on the pavement while on his phone. If I hadn't jumped there's a very good chance I'd have been killed.

    He's been riding around a lot recently at high speed including on the paths, through the parks and on the wrong side of the road.

    But the police do not care. They're spooked by what happened in Cardiff where the parents of those two tossers blamed the police for their deaths while riding like lunatics.

    Hopefully when he crashes he will kill himself rather than somebody else.

    But certainly cracking down on inconsiderate and dangerous cyclists and e-bikes including that idiot Drakeford to fuck off when he supports them (a compelling sign he doesn't really give a shit about dangerous driving despite his 20mph nonsense) would be a good start by any government. They're not a pest, they're a real menace.
    I've spotted a number of near misses in London, both pedestrians and cyclists, who have their headphones on whilst entering traffic - often at odds with traffic signals. Sooner or later someone will be killed.

    Are you crossing the road or on the road? If so, remove your headphones.

    ...

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:


    Lewis Goodall
    @lewis_goodall
    ·
    57m
    January election remains underpriced

    I bet on that yesterday, and December.
    I think September underpriced. I don't think Sunak fancies conference season.
    Yes I don’t know how to second guess the timing so I’m not in on this market yet.

    January feels like utter lunacy and might lead to a Canadageddon.

    December would be tricky. I know it happened last time but that had a specific set of justifications which don’t really pertain this time.

    We’re too late for May and (I think) June. So that leaves 5 options: July through November.

    The problem from a betting POV is that we’re dealing with a volatile Party, in febrile mood. I have no way of applying my head over heart metric to this one at the moment. Almost anything could happen with the current Conservative Party.

    The only sure bet is that they’re going to lose.
    Latest parliament can dissolve is 17 December 2024, and then polling day will be Tuesday 28 January 2025. You'd have a v. soft campaign over the week before Christmas, and it wouldn't really heat up until Boxing Day. It could work, although the January payday point is a good one. I wouldn't recommend it but it's possible.

    The point on "go now because otherwise it will be even worse" is almost always made by political opponents desperate to get into office trying to goad the Government into dissolving early so they get in early. There's no reason the Government should play that game; there's plenty on the upside that might work out for them.

    Rwanda and the Summer boat crossings is probably the biggest political risk, and after that the performance of the NHS through another Winter. But, it's possible the former 'works' and a big cash injection is delivered on the latter, as the economy recovers, and that strengthens Sunak's GE defensive strategy.
    I thought it traditional that elections take place on a Thursday which gives us the 23rd January. If he hangs on until the following Tuesday he really is desperate for his black swan event.

    But maybe you are right and 9 more months of performative cruelty will swing the dial. I am not sure Sunak pulls of "nasty" to electoral benefit in the way a real piece of work like Braverman or Jenrick would. He's just not convincing.
    You say "performative cruelty" and throw around other charming words like nasty and piece of work. That rigid blend of moral sanctimony and tribalism that's so very Labour.

    How do I see it?

    I look upon a prospective Labour government with unabashed horror: I think it will be very negative for me and my family. Not to mention the country with pointless nationalisations, class war, an expansion of public sector entitlements and taxes, without any commensurate increase in output, turning identity politics back up to 11 and making ill-thought through and partisan changes to fundamental parts of our constitution.

    I'm delighted if he cockblocks you for as long as possible.
    Performative cruelty looks like Braverman "dreaming of flights to Rwanda" Jenrick painting over Disney characters at a reception centre for children ". And more recently Sunak's war on PiP recipients.

    You say I am partisan, and it is true I would prefer to see a Labour Government over this current outrage, but to be honest I would be happy to see any party, with the exception of Reform and the Workers Party replace this shower.

    You list your objections which are essentially ideological issues. You state you and your family would be worse off under a Labour Government, which is a fair analysis to conclude, however were you and your family enhanced by Truss's budget. Were you and your family enhanced by spending £2m per refugee on removals to Rwanda. Did you or your family benefit from the PPE scandal or from Boris Johnson's parties. I suspect the answers are all no.
    I don't have any problem with Rwanda. Flying migrants who've come here illegally with the aid of people smugglers to a nice hotel in Kigali could break the business model of the people smugglers, save lives, prevent exploitation, and aid social harmony here.

    Unchecked migration and loose border control will not have a happy ending.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,460
    edited May 5
    MaxPB said:

    DougSeal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    On topic, the lesson from Black Wednesday (negative equity and repossession), GE2017 (dementia tax), Truss and the interest rate spike (very expensive mortages) is you don't touch people's houses. You just don't touch them.

    By the same token, when the Tories launched RTB, liberalised banks to lend and had lots of houses built in the 80s, they did very well. Right now, lots of young people can't really afford them, so they're not.

    The secret is to ease access for people to good homes at good and low prices. And then leave them alone.

    Labour actually have a plan for that, if they have the balls to go big on it.
    Labour will do precisely zero. In fact I think they will end up rolling back some of the first time buyer specific reliefs.
    Interesting. Do you have a link for the rolling back proposal?
    No link, there's just no money to do anything. Plus Labour just completely u turned on their workers "new deal". They've got form.
    So you have no evidence whatsoever for that assertion.

    Also, FYI, they have not u-turned completely on their proposed workers reforms. Even this week’s FT piece didn’t suggest that. Without wishing to get into arguments from authority I’m an employment lawyer and have to keep up with these things. In fact (polishes nails) I was quoted in City AM on the matter (bows)
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,573

    DavidL said:

    There's a myth being propagated here which is in serious danger of becoming acknowledged "fact". During Truss's brief tenure bond rates rose because the UK no longer seemed a safe bet with irresponsible spending and cuts in taxes. The major problem was the uncosted open ended cheque in respect of peoples' fuel bills, the tax cuts themselves were more modest.

    After Sunak and particularly Hunt took over we returned to trend. The gas subsidy, whilst still large, was costed and time limited. What was also happening, however, is that the burst of international inflation that had caused the spike in gas prices became much more generalised as fuel costs drove everything else higher, particularly food. This meant interest rates rose internationally as well as here.

    The myth is that the current rise in mortgage rates as people come to the end of their fixed rates has anything to do with Truss, her economic incompetence or is in any way out of the norm. It's just not true. After more than a decade of incredibly low interest rates following the GFC bond rates have returned to the lower end of normal and mortgages have moved accordingly. Hard for those who had got used to practically free money but inevitable. And absolutely nothing to do with Truss.

    I think the point is that the obvious incompetence of her period has led people to pin the complex causes of mortgage problems firmly onto the Conservatives. We can debate whether that's fair, but it's true anyway.
    Yeah, I get that. Its like black Wednesday. The feeling of our national economy being out of control is highly disconcerting, particularly for those who have bet large on the property market. It took the Tories the best part of 2 decades to get over that perception of incompetence and it may well be that Truss has a similar effect. The moral of the story is, as @TSE suggests, don't mess with the biggest financial decision most people make in their lives.

    Just as the rather excellent stewardship of Ken Clarke in the years to 97 counted for naught, it seems likely that the rather more modest but reasonably sensible stewardship of Hunt is not winning back any votes for the Tories, as we have seen over the last 3 days. Them's the breaks. Politics is a tough trade.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,610
    DavidL said:

    There's a myth being propagated here which is in serious danger of becoming acknowledged "fact". During Truss's brief tenure bond rates rose because the UK no longer seemed a safe bet with irresponsible spending and cuts in taxes. The major problem was the uncosted open ended cheque in respect of peoples' fuel bills, the tax cuts themselves were more modest.

    After Sunak and particularly Hunt took over we returned to trend. The gas subsidy, whilst still large, was costed and time limited. What was also happening, however, is that the burst of international inflation that had caused the spike in gas prices became much more generalised as fuel costs drove everything else higher, particularly food. This meant interest rates rose internationally as well as here.

    The myth is that the current rise in mortgage rates as people come to the end of their fixed rates has anything to do with Truss, her economic incompetence or is in any way out of the norm. It's just not true. After more than a decade of incredibly low interest rates following the GFC bond rates have returned to the lower end of normal and mortgages have moved accordingly. Hard for those who had got used to practically free money but inevitable. And absolutely nothing to do with Truss.

    Brown had nothing to do with those dodgy American mortgages, either, but thems the breaks.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,317

    Forget waiting for a black swan. Pivot now and pivot hard. Away from the failed mess. Give people something new to concentrate on. Campaign on bringing back hanging for small boat refugees. Campaign on forcing people off sick notes into building new prisons which you then lock them up in. Campaign on mandatory skirts for girls in schools.

    Whatever. Just change the script.

    Waaaay ahead of you.

    Tory MP yesterday suggested they stand on a joint Tory/Reform ticket at the GE
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,684
    DougSeal said:

    MaxPB said:

    DougSeal said:

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    On topic, the lesson from Black Wednesday (negative equity and repossession), GE2017 (dementia tax), Truss and the interest rate spike (very expensive mortages) is you don't touch people's houses. You just don't touch them.

    By the same token, when the Tories launched RTB, liberalised banks to lend and had lots of houses built in the 80s, they did very well. Right now, lots of young people can't really afford them, so they're not.

    The secret is to ease access for people to good homes at good and low prices. And then leave them alone.

    Labour actually have a plan for that, if they have the balls to go big on it.
    Labour will do precisely zero. In fact I think they will end up rolling back some of the first time buyer specific reliefs.
    Interesting. Do you have a link for the rolling back proposal?
    No link, there's just no money to do anything. Plus Labour just completely u turned on their workers "new deal". They've got form.
    So you have no evidence whatsoever for that “assertion”

    Also, FYI, they have not u-turned completely on their proposed workers reforms. Even this week’s FT piece didn’t suggest that. Without wishing to get into arguments from authority I’m an employment lawyer and have to keep up with these things. In fact (polishes nails) I was quoted in City AM on the matter (bows)
    How can I get evidence for a future u turn I expect from Labour? Are you thick?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,857
    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    Was discussing this last night with tory friend (I know, I know but hear me out) and it took her all of about 5 seconds to say, ‘But it was Liz Truss that did it. That’s the moment we lost the election.’

    She reckons people would have forgiven or forgotten Boris’ partying but not the Liz Truss budget.

    I saw a comment in a previous thread from someone saying the next election was lost for the Tories the moment Kwasi Kwarteng sat down after delivering the mini budget.

    I think that was spot on.
    Curtice is right when he said two 6 week periods in this Parliament have been crucial to the fate of the Conservatives: (1) Partygate and (2) Liz Truss.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,460
    DougSeal said:

    megasaur said:

    FPT - curse of the new thread:

    Jonathan said:

    Sunak will go when he thinks he can win, ergo the decision on the date of the next election is inherently irrational and unpredictable.

    Probably will be triggered by some random news story causing a temporary blip in the polls.

    If Sunak waits until the polls show he can win, it will be Marchvember the Oneteenth.
    Tories should just pass a law to say parliaments can last 10 years; what is there legally to stop them, since Parliament is sovereign?
    Absolutely nothing. Except Charles refusing to sign the Act.
    There is also the House of Lords
    The Parliament Acts contained a saving that a sitting of Parliament could not be extended
    without the consent of the Lords. I think that provision survived the FTPA chaos. You’ll forgive me for not checking on a beautiful day like this.
    Okay - I checked. It’s still there. Section 2(1) - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/13/section/2

    So the Commons still needs the Lords consent to extend itself beyond 5 years as it would have before 1911.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,284
    Scott_xP said:

    Now the rebels have decided Sunak should “own” the expected general election defeat.

    Labour strategists are baffled by the decision of the Tory rebels. “They must be innumerate,” a Starmer aide said. “If you look at the difference between the police and crime commissioner vote and the Street vote in Birmingham you can see what a drag Sunak is on the ticket for them. If they’re paying attention to the numbers, they should be getting rid of him. The guy’s a loser.”...



    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-celebrating-keir-starmers-next-steps-to-no-10-b0z6dxkg3

    If they kick him out, they are not going to replace him with an Andy Street.

  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,848

    US shared ‘gobsmacking’ Covid lab leak file with UK
    Evidence supporting theory was presented to Dominic Raab, then the Foreign Secretary – but ‘was ignored’

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/04/us-shared-gobsmacking-lab-leak-evidence-with-uk-pandemic/ (£££)

    Newsagents report rocketing demand for the Sunday Telegraph in the Camden area.

    I’m beyond caring. Of COURSE it came from the fucking lab. Anyone who now thinks otherwise offers compelling evidence they have a sub-80 IQ
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,077
    Stock market up whilst house prices remain pretty stagnant. How much longer will the good news last?
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,562
    Braverman launching her post-GE leadership campaign on Kuenssberg this morning, I see.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,461

    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Time for this to change? Currently speed limits don't apply to cyclists.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/04/cyclist-escapes-prosecution-after-fatal-collision-with-pens/

    "A speeding cyclist involved in a fatal collision with a pensioner could not be prosecuted because speed limits do not apply to bicycles, a court heard.

    Brian Fitzgerald, a director at Credit Suisse, was in a “fast group” of cyclists doing timed laps of Regent’s Park in London when Hilda Griffiths, 81, crossed the road they were on to try to reach a pedestrian island.

    Despite a 20mph speed limit, Mr Fitzgerald, a member of the Muswell Hill Peloton cycling club, told a coroner they were travelling at up to 29 mph in aerodynamic “pace line” formation to maximise momentum when he struck the retired nursery teacher walking her dog.

    He said he had “zero-reaction time”, adding how cyclists are not required to obey 20mph signs because “the legal speed limit doesn’t apply to cyclists [the same] as motorists”."

    I was very nearly knocked over yesterday by a twat on a Surron doing estimated 35mph on the pavement while on his phone. If I hadn't jumped there's a very good chance I'd have been killed.

    He's been riding around a lot recently at high speed including on the paths, through the parks and on the wrong side of the road.

    But the police do not care. They're spooked by what happened in Cardiff where the parents of those two tossers blamed the police for their deaths while riding like lunatics.

    Hopefully when he crashes he will kill himself rather than somebody else.

    But certainly cracking down on inconsiderate and dangerous cyclists and e-bikes including that idiot Drakeford to fuck off when he supports them (a compelling sign he doesn't really give a shit about dangerous driving despite his 20mph nonsense) would be a good start by any government. They're not a pest, they're a real menace.
    I've spotted a number of near misses in London, both pedestrians and cyclists, who have their headphones on whilst entering traffic - often at odds with traffic signals. Sooner or later someone will be killed.

    Are you crossing the road or on the road? If so, remove your headphones.

    ...

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:


    Lewis Goodall
    @lewis_goodall
    ·
    57m
    January election remains underpriced

    I bet on that yesterday, and December.
    I think September underpriced. I don't think Sunak fancies conference season.
    Yes I don’t know how to second guess the timing so I’m not in on this market yet.

    January feels like utter lunacy and might lead to a Canadageddon.

    December would be tricky. I know it happened last time but that had a specific set of justifications which don’t really pertain this time.

    We’re too late for May and (I think) June. So that leaves 5 options: July through November.

    The problem from a betting POV is that we’re dealing with a volatile Party, in febrile mood. I have no way of applying my head over heart metric to this one at the moment. Almost anything could happen with the current Conservative Party.

    The only sure bet is that they’re going to lose.
    Latest parliament can dissolve is 17 December 2024, and then polling day will be Tuesday 28 January 2025. You'd have a v. soft campaign over the week before Christmas, and it wouldn't really heat up until Boxing Day. It could work, although the January payday point is a good one. I wouldn't recommend it but it's possible.

    The point on "go now because otherwise it will be even worse" is almost always made by political opponents desperate to get into office trying to goad the Government into dissolving early so they get in early. There's no reason the Government should play that game; there's plenty on the upside that might work out for them.

    Rwanda and the Summer boat crossings is probably the biggest political risk, and after that the performance of the NHS through another Winter. But, it's possible the former 'works' and a big cash injection is delivered on the latter, as the economy recovers, and that strengthens Sunak's GE defensive strategy.
    I thought it traditional that elections take place on a Thursday which gives us the 23rd January. If he hangs on until the following Tuesday he really is desperate for his black swan event.

    But maybe you are right and 9 more months of performative cruelty will swing the dial. I am not sure Sunak pulls of "nasty" to electoral benefit in the way a real piece of work like Braverman or Jenrick would. He's just not convincing.
    You say "performative cruelty" and throw around other charming words like nasty and piece of work. That rigid blend of moral sanctimony and tribalism that's so very Labour.

    How do I see it?

    I look upon a prospective Labour government with unabashed horror: I think it will be very negative for me and my family. Not to mention the country with pointless nationalisations, class war, an expansion of public sector entitlements and taxes, without any commensurate increase in output, turning identity politics back up to 11 and making ill-thought through and partisan changes to fundamental parts of our constitution.

    I'm delighted if he cockblocks you for as long as possible.
    Performative cruelty looks like Braverman "dreaming of flights to Rwanda" Jenrick painting over Disney characters at a reception centre for children ". And more recently Sunak's war on PiP recipients.

    You say I am partisan, and it is true I would prefer to see a Labour Government over this current outrage, but to be honest I would be happy to see any party, with the exception of Reform and the Workers Party replace this shower.

    You list your objections which are essentially ideological issues. You state you and your family would be worse off under a Labour Government, which is a fair analysis to conclude, however were you and your family enhanced by Truss's budget. Were you and your family enhanced by spending £2m per refugee on removals to Rwanda. Did you or your family benefit from the PPE scandal or from Boris Johnson's parties. I suspect the answers are all no.
    I don't have any problem with Rwanda. Flying migrants who've come here illegally with the aid of people smugglers to a nice hotel in Kigali could break the business model of the people smugglers, save lives, prevent exploitation, and aid social harmony here.

    Unchecked migration and loose border control will not have a happy ending.
    We get that. We *have* unchecked migration and loose border control. That’s why we need a change of give to actually get a grip on it.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,610

    I think the key takeaways from me yesterday are:

    (1) Reform still don't party
    (2) They won't match their polling
    (3) Polling generally good, and suggests the Tories are in 26-28% zone atm (not 20-22%) and YouGov are still off
    (4) However, the seat count could be made worse by tactical voting
    (5) They will clearly suffer a very very heavy defeat, but won't be wiped out
    (6) Labour will probably get a moderate landslide- with the LDs doing a tad better than expected

    I don't believe the hung parliament stuff. Figures yesterday point to me at Labour clocking 400+ seats

    The black swan event for the Tories is Farage leading the Reform campaign.
    He’s weighing up whether he can really kill them off; he’s only up for it if he really lands the killer blow, this time.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,077
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a myth being propagated here which is in serious danger of becoming acknowledged "fact". During Truss's brief tenure bond rates rose because the UK no longer seemed a safe bet with irresponsible spending and cuts in taxes. The major problem was the uncosted open ended cheque in respect of peoples' fuel bills, the tax cuts themselves were more modest.

    After Sunak and particularly Hunt took over we returned to trend. The gas subsidy, whilst still large, was costed and time limited. What was also happening, however, is that the burst of international inflation that had caused the spike in gas prices became much more generalised as fuel costs drove everything else higher, particularly food. This meant interest rates rose internationally as well as here.

    The myth is that the current rise in mortgage rates as people come to the end of their fixed rates has anything to do with Truss, her economic incompetence or is in any way out of the norm. It's just not true. After more than a decade of incredibly low interest rates following the GFC bond rates have returned to the lower end of normal and mortgages have moved accordingly. Hard for those who had got used to practically free money but inevitable. And absolutely nothing to do with Truss.

    Brown had nothing to do with those dodgy American mortgages, either, but thems the breaks.
    Levels of bank capital were at historic lows although the trend had admittedly begun well before he came to office.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,543

    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Time for this to change? Currently speed limits don't apply to cyclists.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/04/cyclist-escapes-prosecution-after-fatal-collision-with-pens/

    "A speeding cyclist involved in a fatal collision with a pensioner could not be prosecuted because speed limits do not apply to bicycles, a court heard.

    Brian Fitzgerald, a director at Credit Suisse, was in a “fast group” of cyclists doing timed laps of Regent’s Park in London when Hilda Griffiths, 81, crossed the road they were on to try to reach a pedestrian island.

    Despite a 20mph speed limit, Mr Fitzgerald, a member of the Muswell Hill Peloton cycling club, told a coroner they were travelling at up to 29 mph in aerodynamic “pace line” formation to maximise momentum when he struck the retired nursery teacher walking her dog.

    He said he had “zero-reaction time”, adding how cyclists are not required to obey 20mph signs because “the legal speed limit doesn’t apply to cyclists [the same] as motorists”."

    I was very nearly knocked over yesterday by a twat on a Surron doing estimated 35mph on the pavement while on his phone. If I hadn't jumped there's a very good chance I'd have been killed.

    He's been riding around a lot recently at high speed including on the paths, through the parks and on the wrong side of the road.

    But the police do not care. They're spooked by what happened in Cardiff where the parents of those two tossers blamed the police for their deaths while riding like lunatics.

    Hopefully when he crashes he will kill himself rather than somebody else.

    But certainly cracking down on inconsiderate and dangerous cyclists and e-bikes including that idiot Drakeford to fuck off when he supports them (a compelling sign he doesn't really give a shit about dangerous driving despite his 20mph nonsense) would be a good start by any government. They're not a pest, they're a real menace.
    I've spotted a number of near misses in London, both pedestrians and cyclists, who have their headphones on whilst entering traffic - often at odds with traffic signals. Sooner or later someone will be killed.

    Are you crossing the road or on the road? If so, remove your headphones.

    ...

    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:


    Lewis Goodall
    @lewis_goodall
    ·
    57m
    January election remains underpriced

    I bet on that yesterday, and December.
    I think September underpriced. I don't think Sunak fancies conference season.
    Yes I don’t know how to second guess the timing so I’m not in on this market yet.

    January feels like utter lunacy and might lead to a Canadageddon.

    December would be tricky. I know it happened last time but that had a specific set of justifications which don’t really pertain this time.

    We’re too late for May and (I think) June. So that leaves 5 options: July through November.

    The problem from a betting POV is that we’re dealing with a volatile Party, in febrile mood. I have no way of applying my head over heart metric to this one at the moment. Almost anything could happen with the current Conservative Party.

    The only sure bet is that they’re going to lose.
    Latest parliament can dissolve is 17 December 2024, and then polling day will be Tuesday 28 January 2025. You'd have a v. soft campaign over the week before Christmas, and it wouldn't really heat up until Boxing Day. It could work, although the January payday point is a good one. I wouldn't recommend it but it's possible.

    The point on "go now because otherwise it will be even worse" is almost always made by political opponents desperate to get into office trying to goad the Government into dissolving early so they get in early. There's no reason the Government should play that game; there's plenty on the upside that might work out for them.

    Rwanda and the Summer boat crossings is probably the biggest political risk, and after that the performance of the NHS through another Winter. But, it's possible the former 'works' and a big cash injection is delivered on the latter, as the economy recovers, and that strengthens Sunak's GE defensive strategy.
    I thought it traditional that elections take place on a Thursday which gives us the 23rd January. If he hangs on until the following Tuesday he really is desperate for his black swan event.

    But maybe you are right and 9 more months of performative cruelty will swing the dial. I am not sure Sunak pulls of "nasty" to electoral benefit in the way a real piece of work like Braverman or Jenrick would. He's just not convincing.
    You say "performative cruelty" and throw around other charming words like nasty and piece of work. That rigid blend of moral sanctimony and tribalism that's so very Labour.

    How do I see it?

    I look upon a prospective Labour government with unabashed horror: I think it will be very negative for me and my family. Not to mention the country with pointless nationalisations, class war, an expansion of public sector entitlements and taxes, without any commensurate increase in output, turning identity politics back up to 11 and making ill-thought through and partisan changes to fundamental parts of our constitution.

    I'm delighted if he cockblocks you for as long as possible.
    Performative cruelty looks like Braverman "dreaming of flights to Rwanda" Jenrick painting over Disney characters at a reception centre for children ". And more recently Sunak's war on PiP recipients.

    You say I am partisan, and it is true I would prefer to see a Labour Government over this current outrage, but to be honest I would be happy to see any party, with the exception of Reform and the Workers Party replace this shower.

    You list your objections which are essentially ideological issues. You state you and your family would be worse off under a Labour Government, which is a fair analysis to conclude, however were you and your family enhanced by Truss's budget. Were you and your family enhanced by spending £2m per refugee on removals to Rwanda. Did you or your family benefit from the PPE scandal or from Boris Johnson's parties. I suspect the answers are all no.
    I don't have any problem with Rwanda. Flying migrants who've come here illegally with the aid of people smugglers to a nice hotel in Kigali could break the business model of the people smugglers, save lives, prevent exploitation, and aid social harmony here.

    Unchecked migration and loose border control will not have a happy ending.
    I wholly agree with your last paragraph.

    The trouble is Rwanda is expensive performative nonsense that doesn't touch the sides. We need some pan-European remedy, because you could rightly comment that it is equally chaotic in Europe. We need to sit down with the EU and ask what they are planning to do with boats from Africa and Turkey and how can we help? The current Government refuses to engage with Europe over practical solutions
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,635
    edited May 5
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    There's a myth being propagated here which is in serious danger of becoming acknowledged "fact". During Truss's brief tenure bond rates rose because the UK no longer seemed a safe bet with irresponsible spending and cuts in taxes. The major problem was the uncosted open ended cheque in respect of peoples' fuel bills, the tax cuts themselves were more modest.

    After Sunak and particularly Hunt took over we returned to trend. The gas subsidy, whilst still large, was costed and time limited. What was also happening, however, is that the burst of international inflation that had caused the spike in gas prices became much more generalised as fuel costs drove everything else higher, particularly food. This meant interest rates rose internationally as well as here.

    The myth is that the current rise in mortgage rates as people come to the end of their fixed rates has anything to do with Truss, her economic incompetence or is in any way out of the norm. It's just not true. After more than a decade of incredibly low interest rates following the GFC bond rates have returned to the lower end of normal and mortgages have moved accordingly. Hard for those who had got used to practically free money but inevitable. And absolutely nothing to do with Truss.

    Brown had nothing to do with those dodgy American mortgages, either, but thems the breaks.
    It is however fair to blame him (and Darling actually, who as CST set up the regulatory regime) for not noticing that British banks were undercapitalised and heavily dependent on the American loan market to stay solvent.
This discussion has been closed.