The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Evening folks. An observation on social media campaigning in this election. Over that last couple of days I have had lots of FB posts from the Tory candidate in my reboundaried constituency in Lincolnshire. Judging by the spread of comments these are clearly going out to the general public like me rather than targetting supposed Tory faithful.
What has been amusing this evening is travelling by train from Newark to Aberdeen. All the way up there have been local FB messages from Tory candidates. Clearly CCHQ are putting a lot of effort into locally targeted social media campaigning. This culminated a few minutes ago with a FB message as I arrived in Aberdeen from the Aberdeen South Tory candidate with a classic 'only we can bestcthe SNP' bar chart.
I have to say I am surprised at the sophistication of the Tory social media campaign if not with their actual message.
So Rishi has stolen a march on the hapless Starmer with his snap election.
I was watching a Times Radio piece earlier.suggesting the Tory war chest is empty.
I don't think it will make much difference but it is the first election where I have noticed such organised targeted social media activity on constituency basis. I suspect it will become the norm for all parties going forward.
Rory on Trip on C4 last night said the Conservatives have already spent £800,000 on social media advertising (iirc).
This is an interesting twitter account on political ads:
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
Wow? Our "imaginary" army is getting on with delivering a mountain of leaflets. Whether they have much impact, we will see. But you keep thinking the deal is sealed, and I'll keep working on the basis that there are a vast number of previous Tory voters out there who can be motivated to return, rather than sit on their hands.
The debates will be interesting. I've seen Rishi work a room. A little hyper-active, but people who watch might be surprised at how well he engages. He will make a good pitch to previous Tory voters is my assessment.
I genuinely think I was one of the only Abbott fans on here, until I did a bit of reading into what she's said where I concluded she's a racist and/or quite possibly has dementia.
She is a diabetic who for various reasons has trouble controlling the condition leading to a number of episodes where she gets confused. That is not the same as dementia.
Of course she's a racist, and a hypocrite, and a horrible human being, but that isn't the point. The point is the whole affair has been bungled. It's ended up pissing off all sides, which is poor management.
I do not care about Diane Abbott, per se. I do care about whether my Prime Minister is a muppet. We've had three of those in the last five years and I was hoping for a change.
Again, I think the way they've handled it is wrong. She should have been sacked months ago for her behaviour. But as it is, they should have let her retire in peace.
It sounds as though you and I are in agreement that this has been bungled, but we're drawing different conclusions from it.
You think it's bad but not important because only dud MPs are affected.
I think it's bad and possibly important because of the query it raises over Starmer's leadership skills.
I think it's bad because it's bad. I don't think Starmer has bungled it, I think he's been quite deliberate in sitting on it to have Abbott removed, which to me is ruthless but I also don't agree with it. As I said, I'd just have let her retire in peace.
I don't like factionalism in Labour.
How do you get rid of her though, she actually believes she is a good MP and intelligent rather than the reality. If she was sentient she would have packed it in years ago. One good thing he is doing is trying to get rid of some of the obvious duds.
Even they may struggle to pin that one on Starmer.
I know rather a lot about the Lucan story. My wife applied for the job as the nanny, but got another appointment. Or she could have been the one blugeoned to death.
Lucan himself almost certainly didn't do the deed, but rather employed someone to steal the family silver for the insurance, not knowing he had taken on a complete psychopath for the task.
One thing those who claim he did it never explain is how a man with a pathological fear of blood could have inflicted such terrible injuries.
The late crime author and broadcaster Martin Fido favoured the hitman theory as well, iirc. In practice, I'm not sure what difference it made. Either way, Lucan was guilty, and the more interesting story is how his posh chums got away with not cooperating with the police without falling down the steps to the cells, and how Lucan fled (and possibly committed suicide).
ETA on the question of Lucan's fear of blood, the use of a pipe as a weapon to bludgeon the victim to death, rather than a knife, does suggest the murderer planned to avoid causing bleeding, so this points towards Lucan's guilt rather than away. It would also be an odd choice of weapon for a professional assassin.
A piece of lead piping was, as I understand it, a weapon of choice used by burglars - as it punches a small hole through glass to allow a catch to be opened, rather than take out the whole pane of glass (and the noise that makes...).
Even they may struggle to pin that one on Starmer.
I know rather a lot about the Lucan story. My wife applied for the job as the nanny, but got another appointment. Or she could have been the one blugeoned to death.
Lucan himself almost certainly didn't do the deed, but rather employed someone to steal the family silver for the insurance, not knowing he had taken on a complete psychopath for the task.
One thing those who claim he did it never explain is how a man with a pathological fear of blood could have inflicted such terrible injuries.
The late crime author and broadcaster Martin Fido favoured the hitman theory as well, iirc. In practice, I'm not sure what difference it made. Either way, Lucan was guilty, and the more interesting story is how his posh chums got away with not cooperating with the police without falling down the steps to the cells, and how Lucan fled (and possibly committed suicide).
ETA on the question of Lucan's fear of blood, the use of a pipe as a weapon to bludgeon the victim to death, rather than a knife, does suggest the murderer planned to avoid causing bleeding, so this points towards Lucan's guilt rather than away. It would also be an odd choice of weapon for a professional assassin.
A piece of lead piping was, as I understand it, a weapon of choice used by burglars - as it punches a small hole through glass to allow a catch to be opened, rather than take out the whole pane of glass (and the noise that makes...).
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
Wow? Our "imaginary" army is getting on with delivering a mountain of leaflets. Whether they have much impact, we will see. But you keep thinking the deal is sealed, and I'll keep working on the basis that there are a vast number of previous Tory voters out there who can be motivated to return, rather than sit on their hands.
The debates will be interesting. I've seen Rishi work a room. A little hyper-active, but people who watch might be surprised at how well he engages. He will make a good pitch to previous Tory voters is my assessment.
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
We are rapidly losing options for tax rises (if we believe their promises). IFS says without tax rises there are already big cuts programmed in. I can't see Labour going all austerity. From Labour I presume messing with IHT threshold and total size of pension pots.
Of course the Tories are being equally dishonest. Aspiration to scrap NI, which is super expensive thing to do, with no plan on how to fund that.
They will come for your pension pot.
If that remotely becomes a narrative, sell Labour seats. It will be worse than Theresa May's campaign woes in 2017. And it is very easy for Rishi to say he won't come for your pension pot. How about you, Labour?
There is a big problem at the heart of Labour's campaign. They are going to be delivering better services than the Tories - but by spending no more money than the Tories. Something there doesn't connect. The vox pops I heard yesterday on improving the NHS were skeptical at best. Tens of thousands of extra appointments a week provided by coming down hard on non-doms? By having more efficient tax enforcement? Give me a break. Labour hammering the internationally mobile rich is going 100% in the wrong direction. If you want the world's best health service, attract billionaires here. Have them pay property taxes, have them pay VAT on each new Ferrari. Money fleeing will be the first obvious sign of a Labour government.
Which means Labour will be either delivering no better services - or their words on not raising taxes will ring very hollow within the year. This being Labour, I kinda expect both to be true.
What does connect, though, is the notion that the tories are the epitome of bad governance. Proper leadership, change management, coordination, implementation, planning and stability are absolutely key for organizational performance and the tories have provided the absolute opposite of that. If you want to see how the tories have run the country look no further than to how disorganised and amateurish their GE campaign has been, because it is the same thing. Money is not the be all and end all of market performance... look at Elon musk's takeover of Twitter... his abysmal leadership destroyed the company. In contrast, Steve Jobs approach saved Apple.
When has Labour ever delivered great governance?
Exhibit A: every Labour government has left office with more unemployed than it inherited.
Starmer has run a large organisation with success. And when I look at how efficiently their campaign is being rolled out I am actually hopeful. And if you want to look at good governance then look at the Blair years. You may not have liked his foreign policy, but domestically labour were very strong: longest unbroken period of growth in british history. NHS performance was second to none etc. People look back on those years with nostalgia now. I am just not buying your chicken little approach to labour... 1) the party you are scared of disappeared in the 70s and 80s, 2) the far left agitators and momentum types largely became popcons, erg and reform voters after 2010. Those idealistic radical voters are largely the torie's problem. Sure there is an old guard left, like abbott and corbyn) but they are marginalized, kicked out or simply at the end of the line due to old age. Just a few years ago 30p Lee was campaigning for eu hating corbyn you know.
The Blair/Brown government were fortunate to be governing in one of the most benign periods in modern history. Around the world most governments of the period did pretty well as there wasn’t the type of economic squalls that made economic management harder for prior administrations. Obviously the 2008 subprime lending crisis and the more recent situations have exposed the less savoury implications of that long period of economic calm. I’m not sure that it is any longer possible to just let the economy run itself with minor tinkering at the margins but that seems to be the assumption underlying both main parties. I think Reeves could come seriously unstuck if she sticks to her current stance, as has been suggested her hyper cautious approach and ruling out of significant tax options are hostages to fortune. Hard to see her being able to avoid all the unpalatable choices she has said she can, and having pledged to avoid austerity and large scale tax hikes she has created a situation where political strategy and economic strategy are going to work against each other.
Another evolution of the nicked phone crime isn't even primarily about the phone itself, rather it is access to things like email, online banking apps. If people haven't been careful about how they setup their banking apps it is very easy for the accounts to get drained.
The trick is to have no money in your accounts.
I am a master at that PS: Think they would clear my overdraft.
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
Wow? Our "imaginary" army is getting on with delivering a mountain of leaflets. Whether they have much impact, we will see. But you keep thinking the deal is sealed, and I'll keep working on the basis that there are a vast number of previous Tory voters out there who can be motivated to return, rather than sit on their hands.
The debates will be interesting. I've seen Rishi work a room. A little hyper-active, but people who watch might be surprised at how well he engages. He will make a good pitch to previous Tory voters is my assessment.
P.s. the tory pitch being made (conscription, quadruple lock, university bashing, and woke war) is exclusively targeted at OAPs at the expense of everybody else. This segment is numerically unable to carry the GE this year. And even more worrying for the right, will have shrunk by 20% by 2029 and yet another 20% by 2034.... anybody under the age of 60 will hold their nose and vote labour. The polling and betting is being very clear about this. A gerontocracy I the last thing this country needs right now with all the challenges facing it.
For what it's worth, I sometimes watch YouTube videos on my PS5 and have seen ads for both Labour (the world is awful, evil Tories) and Conservatives (Starmer changes his mind [bit Dave the Chameleon]).
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
We are rapidly losing options for tax rises (if we believe their promises). IFS says without tax rises there are already big cuts programmed in. I can't see Labour going all austerity. From Labour I presume messing with IHT threshold and total size of pension pots.
Of course the Tories are being equally dishonest. Aspiration to scrap NI, which is super expensive thing to do, with no plan on how to fund that.
They will come for your pension pot.
If that remotely becomes a narrative, sell Labour seats. It will be worse than Theresa May's campaign woes in 2017. And it is very easy for Rishi to say he won't come for your pension pot. How about you, Labour?
There is a big problem at the heart of Labour's campaign. They are going to be delivering better services than the Tories - but by spending no more money than the Tories. Something there doesn't connect. The vox pops I heard yesterday on improving the NHS were skeptical at best. Tens of thousands of extra appointments a week provided by coming down hard on non-doms? By having more efficient tax enforcement? Give me a break. Labour hammering the internationally mobile rich is going 100% in the wrong direction. If you want the world's best health service, attract billionaires here. Have them pay property taxes, have them pay VAT on each new Ferrari. Money fleeing will be the first obvious sign of a Labour government.
Which means Labour will be either delivering no better services - or their words on not raising taxes will ring very hollow within the year. This being Labour, I kinda expect both to be true.
What does connect, though, is the notion that the tories are the epitome of bad governance. Proper leadership, change management, coordination, implementation, planning and stability are absolutely key for organizational performance and the tories have provided the absolute opposite of that. If you want to see how the tories have run the country look no further than to how disorganised and amateurish their GE campaign has been, because it is the same thing. Money is not the be all and end all of market performance... look at Elon musk's takeover of Twitter... his abysmal leadership destroyed the company. In contrast, Steve Jobs approach saved Apple.
When has Labour ever delivered great governance?
Exhibit A: every Labour government has left office with more unemployed than it inherited.
Starmer has run a large organisation with success. And when I look at how efficiently their campaign is being rolled out I am actually hopeful. And if you want to look at good governance then look at the Blair years. You may not have liked his foreign policy, but domestically labour were very strong: longest unbroken period of growth in british history. NHS performance was second to none etc. People look back on those years with nostalgia now. I am just not buying your chicken little approach to labour... 1) the party you are scared of disappeared in the 70s and 80s, 2) the far left agitators and momentum types largely became popcons, erg and reform voters after 2010. Those idealistic radical voters are largely the torie's problem. Sure there is an old guard left, like abbott and corbyn) but they are marginalized, kicked out or simply at the end of the line due to old age. Just a few years ago 30p Lee was campaigning for eu hating corbyn you know.
The Blair/Brown government were fortunate to be governing in one of the most benign periods in modern history. Around the world most governments of the period did pretty well as there wasn’t the type of economic squalls that made economic management harder for prior administrations. Obviously the 2008 subprime lending crisis and the more recent situations have exposed the less savoury implications of that long period of economic calm. I’m not sure that it is any longer possible to just let the economy run itself with minor tinkering at the margins but that seems to be the assumption underlying both main parties. I think Reeves could come seriously unstuck if she sticks to her current stance, as has been suggested her hyper cautious approach and ruling out of significant tax options are hostages to fortune. Hard to see her being able to avoid all the unpalatable choices she has said she can, and having pledged to avoid austerity and large scale tax hikes she has created a situation where political strategy and economic strategy are going to work against each other.
Most benign periods? We were involved in a series of small wars (which might have led to hubris around Iraq) and our beloved Chancellor skilfully avoided European recessions (which might have led to hubris about abolishing boom and bust).
We are rapidly losing options for tax rises (if we believe their promises). IFS says without tax rises there are already big cuts programmed in. I can't see Labour going all austerity. From Labour I presume messing with IHT threshold and total size of pension pots.
Of course the Tories are being equally dishonest. Aspiration to scrap NI, which is super expensive thing to do, with no plan on how to fund that.
They will come for your pension pot.
If that remotely becomes a narrative, sell Labour seats. It will be worse than Theresa May's campaign woes in 2017. And it is very easy for Rishi to say he won't come for your pension pot. How about you, Labour?
There is a big problem at the heart of Labour's campaign. They are going to be delivering better services than the Tories - but by spending no more money than the Tories. Something there doesn't connect. The vox pops I heard yesterday on improving the NHS were skeptical at best. Tens of thousands of extra appointments a week provided by coming down hard on non-doms? By having more efficient tax enforcement? Give me a break. Labour hammering the internationally mobile rich is going 100% in the wrong direction. If you want the world's best health service, attract billionaires here. Have them pay property taxes, have them pay VAT on each new Ferrari. Money fleeing will be the first obvious sign of a Labour government.
Which means Labour will be either delivering no better services - or their words on not raising taxes will ring very hollow within the year. This being Labour, I kinda expect both to be true.
What does connect, though, is the notion that the tories are the epitome of bad governance. Proper leadership, change management, coordination, implementation, planning and stability are absolutely key for organizational performance and the tories have provided the absolute opposite of that. If you want to see how the tories have run the country look no further than to how disorganised and amateurish their GE campaign has been, because it is the same thing. Money is not the be all and end all of market performance... look at Elon musk's takeover of Twitter... his abysmal leadership destroyed the company. In contrast, Steve Jobs approach saved Apple.
When has Labour ever delivered great governance?
Exhibit A: every Labour government has left office with more unemployed than it inherited.
Starmer has run a large organisation with success. And when I look at how efficiently their campaign is being rolled out I am actually hopeful. And if you want to look at good governance then look at the Blair years. You may not have liked his foreign policy, but domestically labour were very strong: longest unbroken period of growth in british history. NHS performance was second to none etc. People look back on those years with nostalgia now. I am just not buying your chicken little approach to labour... 1) the party you are scared of disappeared in the 70s and 80s, 2) the far left agitators and momentum types largely became popcons, erg and reform voters after 2010. Those idealistic radical voters are largely the torie's problem. Sure there is an old guard left, like abbott and corbyn) but they are marginalized, kicked out or simply at the end of the line due to old age. Just a few years ago 30p Lee was campaigning for eu hating corbyn you know.
The Blair/Brown government were fortunate to be governing in one of the most benign periods in modern history. Around the world most governments of the period did pretty well as there wasn’t the type of economic squalls that made economic management harder for prior administrations. Obviously the 2008 subprime lending crisis and the more recent situations have exposed the less savoury implications of that long period of economic calm. I’m not sure that it is any longer possible to just let the economy run itself with minor tinkering at the margins but that seems to be the assumption underlying both main parties. I think Reeves could come seriously unstuck if she sticks to her current stance, as has been suggested her hyper cautious approach and ruling out of significant tax options are hostages to fortune. Hard to see her being able to avoid all the unpalatable choices she has said she can, and having pledged to avoid austerity and large scale tax hikes she has created a situation where political strategy and economic strategy are going to work against each other.
Reeves is a hollow vessel. She has yet to provide a credible policy for growth. Once you pare back the gimmicks she's basically running Hunts policy. though probably worse as she wants to introduce lots of rules to making employing people less attractive.
Labour is winging it and to be fair getting away with it. But thats election time, if in government we get to see what Reeves can do. Not much I would hazard.
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Not a very Tory sneer in its origin either, unless one sided with Blair along with the appalling IDS
Over the last few days, I have delivered a very large number of glossy 8-page leaflets in favour of my current MP, soon to be candidate. (Couldn't be delivered after midnight just gone - thanks for dumping those on us CCHQ, just before the election was announced!) As a result, I can report the following state of play in the nation's gardens:
Only 8 garden gnomes spotted (5 of those in one garden skewing the numbers, two more almost entirely buried in a raised bed)
Zero meerkats. They were quite the ubiqitous thing in 2017, on the wane by 2019, now seemingly extinct.
One unicorn.
Lots of pottery hedghogs.
Undoubtedly the best spot was two VERY LARGE elephants.
I am also astonished by the sheer number of small wellington boots some families have in their porch. Rainbows, Toy Story, unicorns, single vibrant colours. Rarely green or black.
[Memo to self: after the election, set up an online wellies store. The gaudier the stock in tiny sizes, the greater the possibilities...]
Have seen a fair number of plaster/concrete Stan and Ollies in South Leicestershire and Hinckley and Bosworth
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
There really isn't any polling sign that "voters are waking up to it too". The changes are MOE, but if anything slightly in Starmers favour.
For all of Sunaks frantic presidential style campaign for a week there has been no discernable change in polling. Five weeks to go.
I didn't think much of the Diane Abbott story, but my mother seems concerned. She's sent me an email with the subject line, "Diane Abbott" and the body reads: "So. It's all going very badly wrong."
I was hoping we would experience electoral history, but not like that.
Munira Wilson also commits the Lib Dems to not raising VAT after the election, in line with a pledge made by Labour and the Conservatives earlier. She says the party would not hike the sales tax - or income tax and National Insurance.
We are rapidly losing options for tax rises (if we believe their promises). IFS says without tax rises there are already big cuts programmed in. I can't see Labour going all austerity. From Labour I presume messing with IHT threshold and total size of pension pots.
Of course the Tories are being equally dishonest. Aspiration to scrap NI, which is super expensive thing to do, with no plan on how to fund that.
They will come for your pension pot.
That seems the likely conclusion. Also tax the rich olds more.
I'm thinking of transferring my meagre pension pot to a SIPP. Heaven knows what I'll do with it there, but the current fund managers vary between losing money slowly and losing money quickly: £9,000 in the last year; £900 in the last seven days. I might also take the 25 per cent tax free and put it in the Chancellor's finest British bonds, or whatever they are called.
6 funds for starters, depending on age and how long you have you might want to add some bonds or wealth preservers. ii is pretty low cost as well as a platform. Your capital is always at risk but history of trackers over time is always up, just when you sell that matters.
Fidelity Index World P Acc GB00BJS8SJ34 HSBC Global Strategy Balanced C Acc GB00B76WP695 HSBC S&P 500 UCITS ETF HSPX iShares Core MSCI World ETF USD Acc SWDA JPMorgan Global Growth & Income JGGI L&G Global 100 Index I Acc GB00B0CNH056 @DecrepitJohnL
Over the last few days, I have delivered a very large number of glossy 8-page leaflets in favour of my current MP, soon to be candidate. (Couldn't be delivered after midnight just gone - thanks for dumping those on us CCHQ, just before the election was announced!) As a result, I can report the following state of play in the nation's gardens:
Only 8 garden gnomes spotted (5 of those in one garden skewing the numbers, two more almost entirely buried in a raised bed)
Zero meerkats. They were quite the ubiqitous thing in 2017, on the wane by 2019, now seemingly extinct.
One unicorn.
Lots of pottery hedghogs.
Undoubtedly the best spot was two VERY LARGE elephants.
I am also astonished by the sheer number of small wellington boots some families have in their porch. Rainbows, Toy Story, unicorns, single vibrant colours. Rarely green or black.
[Memo to self: after the election, set up an online wellies store. The gaudier the stock in tiny sizes, the greater the possibilities...]
Have seen a fair number of plaster/concrete Stan and Ollies in South Leicestershire and Hinckley and Bosworth
Ooh, will have to look out for them! Several pottery wellies seen, presumably for the purpose of planting up - but invariably not.
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
We are rapidly losing options for tax rises (if we believe their promises). IFS says without tax rises there are already big cuts programmed in. I can't see Labour going all austerity. From Labour I presume messing with IHT threshold and total size of pension pots.
Of course the Tories are being equally dishonest. Aspiration to scrap NI, which is super expensive thing to do, with no plan on how to fund that.
They will come for your pension pot.
That seems the likely conclusion. Also tax the rich olds more.
I'm thinking of transferring my meagre pension pot to a SIPP. Heaven knows what I'll do with it there, but the current fund managers vary between losing money slowly and losing money quickly: £9,000 in the last year; £900 in the last seven days. I might also take the 25 per cent tax free and put it in the Chancellor's finest British bonds, or whatever they are called.
6 funds for starters, depending on age and how long you have you might want to add some bonds or wealth preservers. ii is pretty low cost as well as a platform. Your capital is always at risk but history of trackers over time is always up, just when you sell that matters.
Fidelity Index World P Acc GB00BJS8SJ34 HSBC Global Strategy Balanced C Acc GB00B76WP695 HSBC S&P 500 UCITS ETF HSPX iShares Core MSCI World ETF USD Acc SWDA JPMorgan Global Growth & Income JGGI L&G Global 100 Index I Acc GB00B0CNH056 @DecrepitJohnL
Have a look at Sharia Funds -They don't invest in banks - NEST Sharia fund (Which is in the HSBC Sharia FUnd) are up 27.8% (over 1year) +121.7% (over last 5 years) - but past performance may not continue!!
Voters may be furious with the Tories but glimpses of Starmer’s team and its policies are making some think again
"What feels so different from 1997 is that the chief emotion of those switching their votes isn’t hope. But that doesn’t mean they’re apathetic. On the contrary, this is an election fuelled by anger and anxiety. Many people are furious about what’s been done to them. They have been scalded by the broken promises and failures of the past 14 years. They want something better, but they know how stretched public spending will be, and that the competition over who pays and who benefits will be intense. They are fearful about what’s to come.
But that fear also means the switch against the Conservatives may not be as solid as it looks. A handful of the previously lost Tories I talked to have been unexpectedly spooked by what they have seen of Labour in the past week. Disillusioned as they are, they’re wary of making a further mistake.
A landowner was totally taken aback by what he felt was Starmer’s relish about introducing VAT on school fees immediately and in full. This seemed ill-planned as a sudden change, possibly plunging both private and state schools into chaos, and wrecking the hopes not of the rich but of striving parents. Why didn’t he implement it over three or four years? “It’s made me wonder, is this man a class warrior in disguise? For a year I’ve been certain I’d vote Labour. Now I’m thinking again.”
So what you're really saying is that Labour switchers are preparing not to be too disappointed when they get in and don't immediately solve all the country's problems ?
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
Shelling Calais would probably save a few Lincolnshire seats to be fair
Diane Abbott. Is it just me who is not following this. Starmer says she is not barred. She says she is. The NEC has yet to make (or announce) a decision. Sue Gray is said to be concerned about the optics. Is the allegation that they are running down the clock?
The Lloyd Russel-Moyle case is kafkaesque to the point where it appears deliberately absurd. A 'serious allegation', unspecified, from 10 years ago, being made exactly now.
Yes, it is very convenient
One does not have to like him to realise this stinks.
Not dissimilar, possibly, to what the Corbynites got away with in Ilford South when they had the sway
We are rapidly losing options for tax rises (if we believe their promises). IFS says without tax rises there are already big cuts programmed in. I can't see Labour going all austerity. From Labour I presume messing with IHT threshold and total size of pension pots.
Of course the Tories are being equally dishonest. Aspiration to scrap NI, which is super expensive thing to do, with no plan on how to fund that.
They will come for your pension pot.
That seems the likely conclusion. Also tax the rich olds more.
I'm thinking of transferring my meagre pension pot to a SIPP. Heaven knows what I'll do with it there, but the current fund managers vary between losing money slowly and losing money quickly: £9,000 in the last year; £900 in the last seven days. I might also take the 25 per cent tax free and put it in the Chancellor's finest British bonds, or whatever they are called.
No expert but is that a good idea? British bonds are simply a 3 year fix paying 4.15%, you can get 4.7% elsewhere. But either way you will pay tax on the interest. Keep it within the sipp and stick it in a short term money market fund and you will get 5.2% mounting up tax free.
Voters may be furious with the Tories but glimpses of Starmer’s team and its policies are making some think again
"What feels so different from 1997 is that the chief emotion of those switching their votes isn’t hope. But that doesn’t mean they’re apathetic. On the contrary, this is an election fuelled by anger and anxiety. Many people are furious about what’s been done to them. They have been scalded by the broken promises and failures of the past 14 years. They want something better, but they know how stretched public spending will be, and that the competition over who pays and who benefits will be intense. They are fearful about what’s to come.
But that fear also means the switch against the Conservatives may not be as solid as it looks. A handful of the previously lost Tories I talked to have been unexpectedly spooked by what they have seen of Labour in the past week. Disillusioned as they are, they’re wary of making a further mistake.
A landowner was totally taken aback by what he felt was Starmer’s relish about introducing VAT on school fees immediately and in full. This seemed ill-planned as a sudden change, possibly plunging both private and state schools into chaos, and wrecking the hopes not of the rich but of striving parents. Why didn’t he implement it over three or four years? “It’s made me wonder, is this man a class warrior in disguise? For a year I’ve been certain I’d vote Labour. Now I’m thinking again.”
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
The polling doesn’t show that.
What the polling does show is a large number of older voters who might switch back to the Tories from Reform. So Casino's jingoism might be quite an effective strategy.
Otoh, Labour has an enormous lead with working and younger people, groups with relatively low turnout. What that means is a small percentage increase in turnout for that group will lead to more absolute votes compared with a similar change for older votes.
Swing voters - good for the Tories. Any change in differential turnout - good for Labour.
And the budget set for various departments by the Government have built in further cuts and austerity, and leave institutions from Universities to Councils to Hospital Trusts on the verge of financial collapse.
Yet all the talk is of tax cuts or freezes, paid for by mythical crackdowns on tax dodging.
No party is being honest about the dire state of the countries finances or proposing realistic solutions.
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
The polling doesn’t show that.
Not yet. There are 5 weeks to go.
Sure, things could change. But a week ago, it was “There are 6 weeks to go,” and time is ticking away. You might be posting, “Not yet. There are 4 weeks to go” next week.
You have to be optimistic when campaigning, but when betting, realism is needed.
We are rapidly losing options for tax rises (if we believe their promises). IFS says without tax rises there are already big cuts programmed in. I can't see Labour going all austerity. From Labour I presume messing with IHT threshold and total size of pension pots.
Of course the Tories are being equally dishonest. Aspiration to scrap NI, which is super expensive thing to do, with no plan on how to fund that.
They will come for your pension pot.
That seems the likely conclusion. Also tax the rich olds more.
I'm thinking of transferring my meagre pension pot to a SIPP. Heaven knows what I'll do with it there, but the current fund managers vary between losing money slowly and losing money quickly: £9,000 in the last year; £900 in the last seven days. I might also take the 25 per cent tax free and put it in the Chancellor's finest British bonds, or whatever they are called.
No expert but is that a good idea? British bonds are simply a 3 year fix paying 4.15%, you can get 4.7% elsewhere. But either way you will pay tax on the interest. Keep it within the sipp and stick it in a short term money market fund and you will get 5.2% mounting up tax free.
NOT ADVICE, merely a talking point
If you are an existing Nationwide member you can get 5.5% fixed for 18 months up to 10k no withdrawals.
Voters may be furious with the Tories but glimpses of Starmer’s team and its policies are making some think again
"What feels so different from 1997 is that the chief emotion of those switching their votes isn’t hope. But that doesn’t mean they’re apathetic. On the contrary, this is an election fuelled by anger and anxiety. Many people are furious about what’s been done to them. They have been scalded by the broken promises and failures of the past 14 years. They want something better, but they know how stretched public spending will be, and that the competition over who pays and who benefits will be intense. They are fearful about what’s to come.
But that fear also means the switch against the Conservatives may not be as solid as it looks. A handful of the previously lost Tories I talked to have been unexpectedly spooked by what they have seen of Labour in the past week. Disillusioned as they are, they’re wary of making a further mistake.
A landowner was totally taken aback by what he felt was Starmer’s relish about introducing VAT on school fees immediately and in full. This seemed ill-planned as a sudden change, possibly plunging both private and state schools into chaos, and wrecking the hopes not of the rich but of striving parents. Why didn’t he implement it over three or four years? “It’s made me wonder, is this man a class warrior in disguise? For a year I’ve been certain I’d vote Labour. Now I’m thinking again.”
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
The polling doesn’t show that.
What the polling does show is a large number of older voters who might switch back to the Tories from Reform. So Casino's jingoism might be quite an effective strategy.
Otoh, Labour has an enormous lead with working and younger people, groups with relatively low turnout. What that means is a small percentage increase in turnout for that group will lead to more absolute votes compared with a similar change for older votes.
Swing voters - good for the Tories. Any change in differential turnout - good for Labour.
Speaking to my younger relatives at the weekend Natty Serves is going to drive turnout by the young.
Over the last few days, I have delivered a very large number of glossy 8-page leaflets in favour of my current MP, soon to be candidate. (Couldn't be delivered after midnight just gone - thanks for dumping those on us CCHQ, just before the election was announced!) As a result, I can report the following state of play in the nation's gardens:
Only 8 garden gnomes spotted (5 of those in one garden skewing the numbers, two more almost entirely buried in a raised bed)
Zero meerkats. They were quite the ubiqitous thing in 2017, on the wane by 2019, now seemingly extinct.
One unicorn.
Lots of pottery hedghogs.
Undoubtedly the best spot was two VERY LARGE elephants.
I am also astonished by the sheer number of small wellington boots some families have in their porch. Rainbows, Toy Story, unicorns, single vibrant colours. Rarely green or black.
[Memo to self: after the election, set up an online wellies store. The gaudier the stock in tiny sizes, the greater the possibilities...]
Have seen a fair number of plaster/concrete Stan and Ollies in South Leicestershire and Hinckley and Bosworth
That's not a very respectful way of referring to Sunak and Hunt,
Trouble in paradise between the owner, who is doing his own thing, and the figurehead Leader who would like ot be more substantial than he is?
Think Nige may be orchestrating a split between him and REFORM because he's hoping to rejoin the Tories and become CON leader after the next election?
It’s a crap shoot as to which MPs constitute the majority of the parliamentary party afterward isn’t it? Didn’t I see some analysis that the largest majorities actually tend not to be rabid right wingers?
Farage will never lead the Tories (or be a Tory MP) - After the coming drubbing there will be a desire within the party to move on from this whole 2010-2024 period.
Whatevers left of the Tory Party after 4th July they'll be looking for a fresh face and some new ideas, IMO.
I think that's right. See the Labour Party after 2019 - they didn't exactly double down on Corbynism. Same after 1987. The Tories will have a year or two soul-searching, though.
Many PBers must be quite terrified of popular representation of right wing views and policies judging by the constant wishcasting about the forthcoming revival of Sunak-Huntism after a mere 1 to 2 years of 'soul searching'.
A touch of wishful thinking of your own there with "popular".
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
Wow? Our "imaginary" army is getting on with delivering a mountain of leaflets. Whether they have much impact, we will see. But you keep thinking the deal is sealed, and I'll keep working on the basis that there are a vast number of previous Tory voters out there who can be motivated to return, rather than sit on their hands.
The debates will be interesting. I've seen Rishi work a room. A little hyper-active, but people who watch might be surprised at how well he engages. He will make a good pitch to previous Tory voters is my assessment.
Morning! Election campaigns are always good for fitness! I don't think by "imaginary armies" he was referring to activists like your good self walking miles and miles. More that there are less of you than needed, posting leaflets offering a non-Tory platform and a record of abject failure to a sparcity of voters.
You can't run on your record because its shit. You can't run on "look at Rishi and all his new ideas" because you've had 14 years and haven't done them, and you can't run on "trust us" because Cameron / Boris / May / Truss / Sunak in rapid succession - and look what Truss did to us.
I applaud all candidates and all activists - we need participatory politics. But it may be an uphill battle for you, no?
Debates? As warm and personable as he is in person (and I know), he was awful in the leadership debates, is awful doing "normal", and has a skin so thin you can see his blood boil as anyone criticises him.
KNIGHT OF THE LONG KNIVES: (Sir) Keir Starmer is at the center of a blazing row with the Labour left after he was accused of ruthlessly purging their Corbynista comrades … just as his loyalists were being gifted cushy-looking seats in what amounts to a major reshaping of the parliamentary party. Labour had wanted to focus on tackling antisocial behavior today, but their campaign is likely to be overshadowed for a second day by the antisocialist crackdown which Starmer’s critics say is being waged.
We are rapidly losing options for tax rises (if we believe their promises). IFS says without tax rises there are already big cuts programmed in. I can't see Labour going all austerity. From Labour I presume messing with IHT threshold and total size of pension pots.
Of course the Tories are being equally dishonest. Aspiration to scrap NI, which is super expensive thing to do, with no plan on how to fund that.
They will come for your pension pot.
If that remotely becomes a narrative, sell Labour seats. It will be worse than Theresa May's campaign woes in 2017. And it is very easy for Rishi to say he won't come for your pension pot. How about you, Labour?
There is a big problem at the heart of Labour's campaign. They are going to be delivering better services than the Tories - but by spending no more money than the Tories. Something there doesn't connect. The vox pops I heard yesterday on improving the NHS were skeptical at best. Tens of thousands of extra appointments a week provided by coming down hard on non-doms? By having more efficient tax enforcement? Give me a break. Labour hammering the internationally mobile rich is going 100% in the wrong direction. If you want the world's best health service, attract billionaires here. Have them pay property taxes, have them pay VAT on each new Ferrari. Money fleeing will be the first obvious sign of a Labour government.
Which means Labour will be either delivering no better services - or their words on not raising taxes will ring very hollow within the year. This being Labour, I kinda expect both to be true.
What does connect, though, is the notion that the tories are the epitome of bad governance. Proper leadership, change management, coordination, implementation, planning and stability are absolutely key for organizational performance and the tories have provided the absolute opposite of that. If you want to see how the tories have run the country look no further than to how disorganised and amateurish their GE campaign has been, because it is the same thing. Money is not the be all and end all of market performance... look at Elon musk's takeover of Twitter... his abysmal leadership destroyed the company. In contrast, Steve Jobs approach saved Apple.
When has Labour ever delivered great governance?
Exhibit A: every Labour government has left office with more unemployed than it inherited.
Starmer has run a large organisation with success. And when I look at how efficiently their campaign is being rolled out I am actually hopeful. And if you want to look at good governance then look at the Blair years. You may not have liked his foreign policy, but domestically labour were very strong: longest unbroken period of growth in british history. NHS performance was second to none etc. People look back on those years with nostalgia now. I am just not buying your chicken little approach to labour... 1) the party you are scared of disappeared in the 70s and 80s, 2) the far left agitators and momentum types largely became popcons, erg and reform voters after 2010. Those idealistic radical voters are largely the torie's problem. Sure there is an old guard left, like abbott and corbyn) but they are marginalized, kicked out or simply at the end of the line due to old age. Just a few years ago 30p Lee was campaigning for eu hating corbyn you know.
The Blair/Brown government were fortunate to be governing in one of the most benign periods in modern history. Around the world most governments of the period did pretty well as there wasn’t the type of economic squalls that made economic management harder for prior administrations. Obviously the 2008 subprime lending crisis and the more recent situations have exposed the less savoury implications of that long period of economic calm. I’m not sure that it is any longer possible to just let the economy run itself with minor tinkering at the margins but that seems to be the assumption underlying both main parties. I think Reeves could come seriously unstuck if she sticks to her current stance, as has been suggested her hyper cautious approach and ruling out of significant tax options are hostages to fortune. Hard to see her being able to avoid all the unpalatable choices she has said she can, and having pledged to avoid austerity and large scale tax hikes she has created a situation where political strategy and economic strategy are going to work against each other.
Or they'll just ignore some of their pre-election statements (which seems quite likely).
KNIGHT OF THE LONG KNIVES: (Sir) Keir Starmer is at the center of a blazing row with the Labour left after he was accused of ruthlessly purging their Corbynista comrades … just as his loyalists were being gifted cushy-looking seats in what amounts to a major reshaping of the parliamentary party. Labour had wanted to focus on tackling antisocial behavior today, but their campaign is likely to be overshadowed for a second day by the antisocialist crackdown which Starmer’s critics say is being waged.
We are rapidly losing options for tax rises (if we believe their promises). IFS says without tax rises there are already big cuts programmed in. I can't see Labour going all austerity. From Labour I presume messing with IHT threshold and total size of pension pots.
Of course the Tories are being equally dishonest. Aspiration to scrap NI, which is super expensive thing to do, with no plan on how to fund that.
They will come for your pension pot.
If that remotely becomes a narrative, sell Labour seats. It will be worse than Theresa May's campaign woes in 2017. And it is very easy for Rishi to say he won't come for your pension pot. How about you, Labour?
There is a big problem at the heart of Labour's campaign. They are going to be delivering better services than the Tories - but by spending no more money than the Tories. Something there doesn't connect. The vox pops I heard yesterday on improving the NHS were skeptical at best. Tens of thousands of extra appointments a week provided by coming down hard on non-doms? By having more efficient tax enforcement? Give me a break. Labour hammering the internationally mobile rich is going 100% in the wrong direction. If you want the world's best health service, attract billionaires here. Have them pay property taxes, have them pay VAT on each new Ferrari. Money fleeing will be the first obvious sign of a Labour government.
Which means Labour will be either delivering no better services - or their words on not raising taxes will ring very hollow within the year. This being Labour, I kinda expect both to be true.
What does connect, though, is the notion that the tories are the epitome of bad governance. Proper leadership, change management, coordination, implementation, planning and stability are absolutely key for organizational performance and the tories have provided the absolute opposite of that. If you want to see how the tories have run the country look no further than to how disorganised and amateurish their GE campaign has been, because it is the same thing. Money is not the be all and end all of market performance... look at Elon musk's takeover of Twitter... his abysmal leadership destroyed the company. In contrast, Steve Jobs approach saved Apple.
When has Labour ever delivered great governance?
Exhibit A: every Labour government has left office with more unemployed than it inherited.
Starmer has run a large organisation with success. And when I look at how efficiently their campaign is being rolled out I am actually hopeful. And if you want to look at good governance then look at the Blair years. You may not have liked his foreign policy, but domestically labour were very strong: longest unbroken period of growth in british history. NHS performance was second to none etc. People look back on those years with nostalgia now. I am just not buying your chicken little approach to labour... 1) the party you are scared of disappeared in the 70s and 80s, 2) the far left agitators and momentum types largely became popcons, erg and reform voters after 2010. Those idealistic radical voters are largely the torie's problem. Sure there is an old guard left, like abbott and corbyn) but they are marginalized, kicked out or simply at the end of the line due to old age. Just a few years ago 30p Lee was campaigning for eu hating corbyn you know.
The Blair/Brown government were fortunate to be governing in one of the most benign periods in modern history. Around the world most governments of the period did pretty well as there wasn’t the type of economic squalls that made economic management harder for prior administrations. Obviously the 2008 subprime lending crisis and the more recent situations have exposed the less savoury implications of that long period of economic calm. I’m not sure that it is any longer possible to just let the economy run itself with minor tinkering at the margins but that seems to be the assumption underlying both main parties. I think Reeves could come seriously unstuck if she sticks to her current stance, as has been suggested her hyper cautious approach and ruling out of significant tax options are hostages to fortune. Hard to see her being able to avoid all the unpalatable choices she has said she can, and having pledged to avoid austerity and large scale tax hikes she has created a situation where political strategy and economic strategy are going to work against each other.
Or they'll just ignore some of their pre-election statements (which seems quite likely).
"We've now had a chance to examine the books, and we are horrified about what we have found..."
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
Shelling Calais would probably save a few Lincolnshire seats to be fair
Our armed forces couldn't shell peas at the moment.
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
This is just wishful thinking from a Conservative canvasser.
I wouldn’t discount the risk to Labour of people dithering and then sticking with the Tories, particularly the very old who’ve voted that way for decades. I’m sure our resident campaigners are hopecasting a bit, but they will be picking up sentiments others don’t notice.
It brings to mind the statement by a former boss of mine that whilst he wanted to wean himself off cigarettes, he didn’t want to try vapes because “nobody knows what the long term side effects might be”.
Me pointing out that the principal long term side effect of cigarettes - death - is well known didn’t dissuade him.
3. They would never have appointed Patel or Braverman as Home Secretary.
There are several more of course but if I find myself angry at their pusillanimous attitude to the Israelis or their mean spirited tratment of Diane Abbott and think I might give July 4th a miss these are three things that will drag me back.
Ben Bradshaw outgoing Labour MP was interviewed this morning live on German Radio (Deutschlandfunk) in German.
Na und ?
You seem to be pushing this idea that anyone vaguely competent in a foreign language has great gifts. It's simply a reflection that brits are too lazy to learn.
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
Wow? Our "imaginary" army is getting on with delivering a mountain of leaflets. Whether they have much impact, we will see. But you keep thinking the deal is sealed, and I'll keep working on the basis that there are a vast number of previous Tory voters out there who can be motivated to return, rather than sit on their hands.
The debates will be interesting. I've seen Rishi work a room. A little hyper-active, but people who watch might be surprised at how well he engages. He will make a good pitch to previous Tory voters is my assessment.
Morning! Election campaigns are always good for fitness! I don't think by "imaginary armies" he was referring to activists like your good self walking miles and miles. More that there are less of you than needed, posting leaflets offering a non-Tory platform and a record of abject failure to a sparcity of voters.
You can't run on your record because its shit. You can't run on "look at Rishi and all his new ideas" because you've had 14 years and haven't done them, and you can't run on "trust us" because Cameron / Boris / May / Truss / Sunak in rapid succession - and look what Truss did to us.
I applaud all candidates and all activists - we need participatory politics. But it may be an uphill battle for you, no?
Debates? As warm and personable as he is in person (and I know), he was awful in the leadership debates, is awful doing "normal", and has a skin so thin you can see his blood boil as anyone criticises him.
I would back sunak over starmer in an unscripted debate. His worst problem in the leadership debates was he looked as if he was patronising a woman (because he was). Starmer is wooden and slow thinking. Abbottgate is beginning to look delightfully messy. Five weeks is a bloody eternity in politics. All to play for.
Munira Wilson also commits the Lib Dems to not raising VAT after the election, in line with a pledge made by Labour and the Conservatives earlier. She says the party would not hike the sales tax - or income tax and National Insurance.
Fag paper between them all.
Which means raising corporation tax. There are four main sources of revenue for the government. If income tax, VAT and NI are excluded, it just leaves corporation tax, the smallest of the four, to plug the fiscal black hole left by the current government.
KNIGHT OF THE LONG KNIVES: (Sir) Keir Starmer is at the center of a blazing row with the Labour left after he was accused of ruthlessly purging their Corbynista comrades … just as his loyalists were being gifted cushy-looking seats in what amounts to a major reshaping of the parliamentary party. Labour had wanted to focus on tackling antisocial behavior today, but their campaign is likely to be overshadowed for a second day by the antisocialist crackdown which Starmer’s critics say is being waged.
One senior Tory official messaged to say that Starmer’s “shambolic attempt to ditch” Abbott made it look more like a “night of the blunt knives.”….
…..More decisions from the NEC are expected today but so far it’s been the march of the Starmtroopers with the approvals of fast-tracked candidacies in seats where a shortlist wasn’t possible because, for instance, MPs quit late in the day.
We are rapidly losing options for tax rises (if we believe their promises). IFS says without tax rises there are already big cuts programmed in. I can't see Labour going all austerity. From Labour I presume messing with IHT threshold and total size of pension pots.
Of course the Tories are being equally dishonest. Aspiration to scrap NI, which is super expensive thing to do, with no plan on how to fund that.
They will come for your pension pot.
If that remotely becomes a narrative, sell Labour seats. It will be worse than Theresa May's campaign woes in 2017. And it is very easy for Rishi to say he won't come for your pension pot. How about you, Labour?
There is a big problem at the heart of Labour's campaign. They are going to be delivering better services than the Tories - but by spending no more money than the Tories. Something there doesn't connect. The vox pops I heard yesterday on improving the NHS were skeptical at best. Tens of thousands of extra appointments a week provided by coming down hard on non-doms? By having more efficient tax enforcement? Give me a break. Labour hammering the internationally mobile rich is going 100% in the wrong direction. If you want the world's best health service, attract billionaires here. Have them pay property taxes, have them pay VAT on each new Ferrari. Money fleeing will be the first obvious sign of a Labour government.
Which means Labour will be either delivering no better services - or their words on not raising taxes will ring very hollow within the year. This being Labour, I kinda expect both to be true.
What does connect, though, is the notion that the tories are the epitome of bad governance. Proper leadership, change management, coordination, implementation, planning and stability are absolutely key for organizational performance and the tories have provided the absolute opposite of that. If you want to see how the tories have run the country look no further than to how disorganised and amateurish their GE campaign has been, because it is the same thing. Money is not the be all and end all of market performance... look at Elon musk's takeover of Twitter... his abysmal leadership destroyed the company. In contrast, Steve Jobs approach saved Apple.
When has Labour ever delivered great governance?
Exhibit A: every Labour government has left office with more unemployed than it inherited.
Starmer has run a large organisation with success. And when I look at how efficiently their campaign is being rolled out I am actually hopeful. And if you want to look at good governance then look at the Blair years. You may not have liked his foreign policy, but domestically labour were very strong: longest unbroken period of growth in british history. NHS performance was second to none etc. People look back on those years with nostalgia now. I am just not buying your chicken little approach to labour... 1) the party you are scared of disappeared in the 70s and 80s, 2) the far left agitators and momentum types largely became popcons, erg and reform voters after 2010. Those idealistic radical voters are largely the torie's problem. Sure there is an old guard left, like abbott and corbyn) but they are marginalized, kicked out or simply at the end of the line due to old age. Just a few years ago 30p Lee was campaigning for eu hating corbyn you know.
The Blair/Brown government were fortunate to be governing in one of the most benign periods in modern history. Around the world most governments of the period did pretty well as there wasn’t the type of economic squalls that made economic management harder for prior administrations. Obviously the 2008 subprime lending crisis and the more recent situations have exposed the less savoury implications of that long period of economic calm. I’m not sure that it is any longer possible to just let the economy run itself with minor tinkering at the margins but that seems to be the assumption underlying both main parties. I think Reeves could come seriously unstuck if she sticks to her current stance, as has been suggested her hyper cautious approach and ruling out of significant tax options are hostages to fortune. Hard to see her being able to avoid all the unpalatable choices she has said she can, and having pledged to avoid austerity and large scale tax hikes she has created a situation where political strategy and economic strategy are going to work against each other.
Or they'll just ignore some of their pre-election statements (which seems quite likely).
"We've now had a chance to examine the books, and we are horrified about what we have found..."
They mustn't have been paying attention then. Not a good start.
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
The polling doesn’t show that.
What the polling does show is a large number of older voters who might switch back to the Tories from Reform. So Casino's jingoism might be quite an effective strategy.
Otoh, Labour has an enormous lead with working and younger people, groups with relatively low turnout. What that means is a small percentage increase in turnout for that group will lead to more absolute votes compared with a similar change for older votes.
Swing voters - good for the Tories. Any change in differential turnout - good for Labour.
That's a more sensible analysis than Casino's argument. Though to be fair to him, your line wouldn't be much of a pitch on the doorstep.
Munira Wilson also commits the Lib Dems to not raising VAT after the election, in line with a pledge made by Labour and the Conservatives earlier. She says the party would not hike the sales tax - or income tax and National Insurance.
Fag paper between them all.
Which means raising corporation tax. There are four main sources of revenue for the government. If income tax, VAT and NI are excluded, it just leaves corporation tax, the smallest of the four, to plug the fiscal black hole left by the current government.
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
Wow? Our "imaginary" army is getting on with delivering a mountain of leaflets. Whether they have much impact, we will see. But you keep thinking the deal is sealed, and I'll keep working on the basis that there are a vast number of previous Tory voters out there who can be motivated to return, rather than sit on their hands.
The debates will be interesting. I've seen Rishi work a room. A little hyper-active, but people who watch might be surprised at how well he engages. He will make a good pitch to previous Tory voters is my assessment.
"...people who watch might be surprised at how well he engages"
Is this the same Rishi Sunak who was comprehensively trounced by Lettuce Liz in the leadership debates or have they brought in a new model from California when we haven't been looking?
Voters may be furious with the Tories but glimpses of Starmer’s team and its policies are making some think again
"What feels so different from 1997 is that the chief emotion of those switching their votes isn’t hope. But that doesn’t mean they’re apathetic. On the contrary, this is an election fuelled by anger and anxiety. Many people are furious about what’s been done to them. They have been scalded by the broken promises and failures of the past 14 years.<\b> They want something better, but they know how stretched public spending will be, and that the competition over who pays and who benefits will be intense. They are fearful about what’s to come.
But that fear also means the switch against the Conservatives may not be as solid as it looks. A handful of the previously lost Tories I talked to have been unexpectedly spooked by what they have seen of Labour in the past week. Disillusioned as they are, they’re wary of making a further mistake.
A landowner was totally taken aback by what he felt was Starmer’s relish about introducing VAT on school fees immediately and in full. This seemed ill-planned as a sudden change, possibly plunging both private and state schools into chaos, and wrecking the hopes not of the rich but of striving parents. Why didn’t he implement it over three or four years? “It’s made me wonder, is this man a class warrior in disguise? For a year I’ve been certain I’d vote Labour. Now I’m thinking again.”
Bit in bold. Those many furious people who have been scalded by broken promises and failures of the last 14 years are not going to change their mind in the next few weeks and think "Actually I will vote to give them another 4 years"!
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
I think they are too, and Labour are now being scrutinised some of their supporters are squealing like a little piggy, Mexicanpete here was moaning about it yesterday and crying BBC bias.
However I still think that people will give labour a working majority and, deservedly so, our benign growth since 2010 alone means they deserve that,
Munira Wilson also commits the Lib Dems to not raising VAT after the election, in line with a pledge made by Labour and the Conservatives earlier. She says the party would not hike the sales tax - or income tax and National Insurance.
Fag paper between them all.
Which means raising corporation tax. There are four main sources of revenue for the government. If income tax, VAT and NI are excluded, it just leaves corporation tax, the smallest of the four, to plug the fiscal black hole left by the current government.
No. What all the parties do is say they aren’t going to raise the rate of income tax, NI and VAT, but they don’t rule out fiddling with the income tax/NI thresholds and changes in what VAT applies to.
Most of the tax rise we’ve seen lately under the Conservatives has been by not raising income tax thresholds.
We are rapidly losing options for tax rises (if we believe their promises). IFS says without tax rises there are already big cuts programmed in. I can't see Labour going all austerity. From Labour I presume messing with IHT threshold and total size of pension pots.
Of course the Tories are being equally dishonest. Aspiration to scrap NI, which is super expensive thing to do, with no plan on how to fund that.
They will come for your pension pot.
If that remotely becomes a narrative, sell Labour seats. It will be worse than Theresa May's campaign woes in 2017. And it is very easy for Rishi to say he won't come for your pension pot. How about you, Labour?
There is a big problem at the heart of Labour's campaign. They are going to be delivering better services than the Tories - but by spending no more money than the Tories. Something there doesn't connect. The vox pops I heard yesterday on improving the NHS were skeptical at best. Tens of thousands of extra appointments a week provided by coming down hard on non-doms? By having more efficient tax enforcement? Give me a break. Labour hammering the internationally mobile rich is going 100% in the wrong direction. If you want the world's best health service, attract billionaires here. Have them pay property taxes, have them pay VAT on each new Ferrari. Money fleeing will be the first obvious sign of a Labour government.
Which means Labour will be either delivering no better services - or their words on not raising taxes will ring very hollow within the year. This being Labour, I kinda expect both to be true.
What does connect, though, is the notion that the tories are the epitome of bad governance. Proper leadership, change management, coordination, implementation, planning and stability are absolutely key for organizational performance and the tories have provided the absolute opposite of that. If you want to see how the tories have run the country look no further than to how disorganised and amateurish their GE campaign has been, because it is the same thing. Money is not the be all and end all of market performance... look at Elon musk's takeover of Twitter... his abysmal leadership destroyed the company. In contrast, Steve Jobs approach saved Apple.
When has Labour ever delivered great governance?
Exhibit A: every Labour government has left office with more unemployed than it inherited.
Starmer has run a large organisation with success. And when I look at how efficiently their campaign is being rolled out I am actually hopeful. And if you want to look at good governance then look at the Blair years. You may not have liked his foreign policy, but domestically labour were very strong: longest unbroken period of growth in british history. NHS performance was second to none etc. People look back on those years with nostalgia now. I am just not buying your chicken little approach to labour... 1) the party you are scared of disappeared in the 70s and 80s, 2) the far left agitators and momentum types largely became popcons, erg and reform voters after 2010. Those idealistic radical voters are largely the torie's problem. Sure there is an old guard left, like abbott and corbyn) but they are marginalized, kicked out or simply at the end of the line due to old age. Just a few years ago 30p Lee was campaigning for eu hating corbyn you know.
The Blair/Brown government were fortunate to be governing in one of the most benign periods in modern history. Around the world most governments of the period did pretty well as there wasn’t the type of economic squalls that made economic management harder for prior administrations. Obviously the 2008 subprime lending crisis and the more recent situations have exposed the less savoury implications of that long period of economic calm. I’m not sure that it is any longer possible to just let the economy run itself with minor tinkering at the margins but that seems to be the assumption underlying both main parties. I think Reeves could come seriously unstuck if she sticks to her current stance, as has been suggested her hyper cautious approach and ruling out of significant tax options are hostages to fortune. Hard to see her being able to avoid all the unpalatable choices she has said she can, and having pledged to avoid austerity and large scale tax hikes she has created a situation where political strategy and economic strategy are going to work against each other.
Or they'll just ignore some of their pre-election statements (which seems quite likely).
"We've now had a chance to examine the books, and we are horrified about what we have found..."
Yes, it's an easy out to ditching any commitments they make now - even if it's already obvious to anyone with half a brain how parlous the country's finances are.
Ben Bradshaw outgoing Labour MP was interviewed this morning live on German Radio (Deutschlandfunk) in German.
Na und ?
You seem to be pushing this idea that anyone vaguely competent in a foreign language has great gifts. It's simply a reflection that brits are too lazy to learn.
It is something much prized in the UK because so few have a second language. It falls down a bit when you visit somewhere like Lebanon and you find almost an entire population who are tri lingual and often use all three languages in one sentence.
We are rapidly losing options for tax rises (if we believe their promises). IFS says without tax rises there are already big cuts programmed in. I can't see Labour going all austerity. From Labour I presume messing with IHT threshold and total size of pension pots.
Of course the Tories are being equally dishonest. Aspiration to scrap NI, which is super expensive thing to do, with no plan on how to fund that.
They will come for your pension pot.
If that remotely becomes a narrative, sell Labour seats. It will be worse than Theresa May's campaign woes in 2017. And it is very easy for Rishi to say he won't come for your pension pot. How about you, Labour?
There is a big problem at the heart of Labour's campaign. They are going to be delivering better services than the Tories - but by spending no more money than the Tories. Something there doesn't connect. The vox pops I heard yesterday on improving the NHS were skeptical at best. Tens of thousands of extra appointments a week provided by coming down hard on non-doms? By having more efficient tax enforcement? Give me a break. Labour hammering the internationally mobile rich is going 100% in the wrong direction. If you want the world's best health service, attract billionaires here. Have them pay property taxes, have them pay VAT on each new Ferrari. Money fleeing will be the first obvious sign of a Labour government.
Which means Labour will be either delivering no better services - or their words on not raising taxes will ring very hollow within the year. This being Labour, I kinda expect both to be true.
What does connect, though, is the notion that the tories are the epitome of bad governance. Proper leadership, change management, coordination, implementation, planning and stability are absolutely key for organizational performance and the tories have provided the absolute opposite of that. If you want to see how the tories have run the country look no further than to how disorganised and amateurish their GE campaign has been, because it is the same thing. Money is not the be all and end all of market performance... look at Elon musk's takeover of Twitter... his abysmal leadership destroyed the company. In contrast, Steve Jobs approach saved Apple.
When has Labour ever delivered great governance?
Exhibit A: every Labour government has left office with more unemployed than it inherited.
Starmer has run a large organisation with success. And when I look at how efficiently their campaign is being rolled out I am actually hopeful. And if you want to look at good governance then look at the Blair years. You may not have liked his foreign policy, but domestically labour were very strong: longest unbroken period of growth in british history. NHS performance was second to none etc. People look back on those years with nostalgia now. I am just not buying your chicken little approach to labour... 1) the party you are scared of disappeared in the 70s and 80s, 2) the far left agitators and momentum types largely became popcons, erg and reform voters after 2010. Those idealistic radical voters are largely the torie's problem. Sure there is an old guard left, like abbott and corbyn) but they are marginalized, kicked out or simply at the end of the line due to old age. Just a few years ago 30p Lee was campaigning for eu hating corbyn you know.
The Blair/Brown government were fortunate to be governing in one of the most benign periods in modern history. Around the world most governments of the period did pretty well as there wasn’t the type of economic squalls that made economic management harder for prior administrations. Obviously the 2008 subprime lending crisis and the more recent situations have exposed the less savoury implications of that long period of economic calm. I’m not sure that it is any longer possible to just let the economy run itself with minor tinkering at the margins but that seems to be the assumption underlying both main parties. I think Reeves could come seriously unstuck if she sticks to her current stance, as has been suggested her hyper cautious approach and ruling out of significant tax options are hostages to fortune. Hard to see her being able to avoid all the unpalatable choices she has said she can, and having pledged to avoid austerity and large scale tax hikes she has created a situation where political strategy and economic strategy are going to work against each other.
Or they'll just ignore some of their pre-election statements (which seems quite likely).
"We've now had a chance to examine the books, and we are horrified about what we have found..."
Yes, it's an easy out to ditching any commitments they make now - even if it's already obvious to anyone with half a brain how parlous the country's finances are.
It's even easier when you have made any commitments in the first place.
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
Wow? Our "imaginary" army is getting on with delivering a mountain of leaflets. Whether they have much impact, we will see. But you keep thinking the deal is sealed, and I'll keep working on the basis that there are a vast number of previous Tory voters out there who can be motivated to return, rather than sit on their hands.
The debates will be interesting. I've seen Rishi work a room. A little hyper-active, but people who watch might be surprised at how well he engages. He will make a good pitch to previous Tory voters is my assessment.
"...people who watch might be surprised at how well he engages"
Is this the same Rishi Sunak who was comprehensively trounced by Lettuce Liz in the leadership debates or have they brought in a new model from California when we haven't been looking?
He wasn't though. She never laid a glove on him. The match was scored by a jury of semi ambulant vegetables with life limiting attention and comprehension deficits, was the problem.
Ben Bradshaw outgoing Labour MP was interviewed this morning live on German Radio (Deutschlandfunk) in German.
Na und ?
You seem to be pushing this idea that anyone vaguely competent in a foreign language has great gifts. It's simply a reflection that brits are too lazy to learn.
Actually, it is because we do not start to teach kids a second language until too late. If kids are exposed to any foreign language at pre-school, their later academic outcomes in foreign languages are dramatically better. If their first exposure is after the age of 12, the outcomes are dramatically worse.
Then there are morons like Daniel Krawcynski who think that you can teach kids level 4 or 5 languages like Japanese or Mandarin from the age of 12, without any prior exposure to a level 1 or 2 language like French, Spanish or German. He may speak Polish, because he was taught it from birth at home. I speak Polish because I could already speak French which I was taught from the age of 7.
Unless we change our mind about how kids learn foreign languages, then outcomes will continue to be poor.
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
The polling doesn’t show that.
What the polling does show is a large number of older voters who might switch back to the Tories from Reform. So Casino's jingoism might be quite an effective strategy.
Otoh, Labour has an enormous lead with working and younger people, groups with relatively low turnout. What that means is a small percentage increase in turnout for that group will lead to more absolute votes compared with a similar change for older votes.
Swing voters - good for the Tories. Any change in differential turnout - good for Labour.
Speaking to my younger relatives at the weekend Natty Serves is going to drive turnout by the young.
Eek twin b asked me last night what the rules of voting were because she was in a pub and it was being discussed.
So I told them you can only vote in 1 place, little point voting in Leeds (sorry Hillary but I don't think you are at risk) so you may as well go home and a postal vote is easier
Andrew Neil: Why is it right to wear a Maoist t-shirt, but obviously wrong, because it is, to wear a Hitler t-shirt?
Diane Abbott: I suppose that some people would judge that on balance Mao did more good than harm...
That caused a big stir years ago. Diana's a crazy old leftie and shouldn't be anywhere near power, I think everyone can agree on that.
But that doesn't mean she shouldn't be an MP because she DOES represent a strand of opinion within the public and she is, by all accounts, quite a good constituency MP.
I think she WAS a good constituency MP. But she’s clearly got dementia.
Are you a medically qualified practitioner as well as your other, undoubted, talents when it comes to the exciting topic of phone masts ?
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
I think they are too, and Labour are now being scrutinised some of their supporters are squealing like a little piggy, Mexicanpete here was moaning about it yesterday and crying BBC bias.
However I still think that people will give labour a working majority and, deservedly so, our benign growth since 2010 alone means they deserve that,
"Benign growth" in the sense of relatively harmless cancer?
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
I think they are too, and Labour are now being scrutinised some of their supporters are squealing like a little piggy, Mexicanpete here was moaning about it yesterday and crying BBC bias.
However I still think that people will give labour a working majority and, deservedly so, our benign growth since 2010 alone means they deserve that,
I really thought the National Service/Quadruple lock thing would see a material shift in the polls. So yes - jitters.
But it hasn't. With 5 weeks left, what does have Sunak have left? Switching to a competence "plan" based campaign, with Cameron/Hunt/Cleverly sounding sensible on the radio, does not work any more.
And the budget set for various departments by the Government have built in further cuts and austerity, and leave institutions from Universities to Councils to Hospital Trusts on the verge of financial collapse.
Yet all the talk is of tax cuts or freezes, paid for by mythical crackdowns on tax dodging.
No party is being honest about the dire state of the countries finances or proposing realistic solutions.
I was appalled by the April borrowing figure at the time and still believe it was that that triggered the July election because it made it obvious that any idea of a tax cutting budget in the Autumn was completely off the table. The Autumn budget, under Reeves, will further increase the tax burden and yet still look to reduce spending in almost all areas except possibly health.
If, by a miracle that makes the loaves and fishes feeding the masses look like child play, the Tories were to win the budget would still increase taxes and cut spending. That is what you have to do when borrowing well over £100bn a year.
Looking forward we have the challenge of trying to find funds for investment to boost growth and future tax revenues. Once again this means cuts in current expenditure. There are no other options. The real challenge is to get better value for money on the money already spent, that is by boosting public sector productivity. So, of course, no one is talking about that.
I'm sorry Faiza Shaheen is sad to not be the candidate but her defence for liking an anti-Semitic Tweet seems to be that we can't trust her to not like random Tweets on Twitter.
Is that much of an excuse, really?
Without seeing the example hard to say. People often claim it is oh so complicated to avoid anti-semitic remarks and comments, but it is usually not so complicated as they make out.
Her defence is that she only watched the video and she liked the Tweet for that reason.
It is very easy to throw around accusations of anti semitism that are baseless. Some would say you were anti semitic due to your stance on the Israeli regimes war in Gaza. I wouldn't say you were but some would.
So accusing people like Shaheen or Abbott of anti semitism purely for political purposes is not a nice look
Ben Bradshaw outgoing Labour MP was interviewed this morning live on German Radio (Deutschlandfunk) in German.
Na und ?
You seem to be pushing this idea that anyone vaguely competent in a foreign language has great gifts. It's simply a reflection that brits are too lazy to learn.
It is something much prized in the UK because so few have a second language. It falls down a bit when you visit somewhere like Lebanon and you find almost an entire population who are tri lingual and often use all three languages in one sentence.
There's no reason to accept it though Roger. Ive been talking German this morning with a lawyer, my general manager and a Property guy. It doesnt give me special powers. Likewise its very Europecentric . Our PM could rattle off an indian language or two and get no credit for it. Likewise lots of people across Parliament the same. my outgoing MP speaks Kurdish and Arabic. Brits just need their arses kicked on learning languages.
Ben Bradshaw outgoing Labour MP was interviewed this morning live on German Radio (Deutschlandfunk) in German.
Na und ?
You seem to be pushing this idea that anyone vaguely competent in a foreign language has great gifts. It's simply a reflection that brits are too lazy to learn.
Ben Bradshaw outgoing Labour MP was interviewed this morning live on German Radio (Deutschlandfunk) in German.
Na und ?
You seem to be pushing this idea that anyone vaguely competent in a foreign language has great gifts. It's simply a reflection that brits are too lazy to learn.
Just pointing out that some retiring Labour MPs still have all their marbles. You're uncharacteristically combative this morning.
Andrew Neil: Why is it right to wear a Maoist t-shirt, but obviously wrong, because it is, to wear a Hitler t-shirt?
Diane Abbott: I suppose that some people would judge that on balance Mao did more good than harm...
That caused a big stir years ago. Diana's a crazy old leftie and shouldn't be anywhere near power, I think everyone can agree on that.
But that doesn't mean she shouldn't be an MP because she DOES represent a strand of opinion within the public and she is, by all accounts, quite a good constituency MP.
I think she WAS a good constituency MP. But she’s clearly got dementia.
Are you a medically qualified practitioner as well as your other, undoubted, talents when it comes to the exciting topic of phone masts ?
Half of PB was conducting diagnosis over the internet last night.
We are rapidly losing options for tax rises (if we believe their promises). IFS says without tax rises there are already big cuts programmed in. I can't see Labour going all austerity. From Labour I presume messing with IHT threshold and total size of pension pots.
Of course the Tories are being equally dishonest. Aspiration to scrap NI, which is super expensive thing to do, with no plan on how to fund that.
They will come for your pension pot.
If that remotely becomes a narrative, sell Labour seats. It will be worse than Theresa May's campaign woes in 2017. And it is very easy for Rishi to say he won't come for your pension pot. How about you, Labour?
There is a big problem at the heart of Labour's campaign. They are going to be delivering better services than the Tories - but by spending no more money than the Tories. Something there doesn't connect. The vox pops I heard yesterday on improving the NHS were skeptical at best. Tens of thousands of extra appointments a week provided by coming down hard on non-doms? By having more efficient tax enforcement? Give me a break. Labour hammering the internationally mobile rich is going 100% in the wrong direction. If you want the world's best health service, attract billionaires here. Have them pay property taxes, have them pay VAT on each new Ferrari. Money fleeing will be the first obvious sign of a Labour government.
Which means Labour will be either delivering no better services - or their words on not raising taxes will ring very hollow within the year. This being Labour, I kinda expect both to be true.
What does connect, though, is the notion that the tories are the epitome of bad governance. Proper leadership, change management, coordination, implementation, planning and stability are absolutely key for organizational performance and the tories have provided the absolute opposite of that. If you want to see how the tories have run the country look no further than to how disorganised and amateurish their GE campaign has been, because it is the same thing. Money is not the be all and end all of market performance... look at Elon musk's takeover of Twitter... his abysmal leadership destroyed the company. In contrast, Steve Jobs approach saved Apple.
When has Labour ever delivered great governance?
Exhibit A: every Labour government has left office with more unemployed than it inherited.
Starmer has run a large organisation with success. And when I look at how efficiently their campaign is being rolled out I am actually hopeful. And if you want to look at good governance then look at the Blair years. You may not have liked his foreign policy, but domestically labour were very strong: longest unbroken period of growth in british history. NHS performance was second to none etc. People look back on those years with nostalgia now. I am just not buying your chicken little approach to labour... 1) the party you are scared of disappeared in the 70s and 80s, 2) the far left agitators and momentum types largely became popcons, erg and reform voters after 2010. Those idealistic radical voters are largely the torie's problem. Sure there is an old guard left, like abbott and corbyn) but they are marginalized, kicked out or simply at the end of the line due to old age. Just a few years ago 30p Lee was campaigning for eu hating corbyn you know.
The Blair/Brown government were fortunate to be governing in one of the most benign periods in modern history. Around the world most governments of the period did pretty well as there wasn’t the type of economic squalls that made economic management harder for prior administrations. Obviously the 2008 subprime lending crisis and the more recent situations have exposed the less savoury implications of that long period of economic calm. I’m not sure that it is any longer possible to just let the economy run itself with minor tinkering at the margins but that seems to be the assumption underlying both main parties. I think Reeves could come seriously unstuck if she sticks to her current stance, as has been suggested her hyper cautious approach and ruling out of significant tax options are hostages to fortune. Hard to see her being able to avoid all the unpalatable choices she has said she can, and having pledged to avoid austerity and large scale tax hikes she has created a situation where political strategy and economic strategy are going to work against each other.
Or they'll just ignore some of their pre-election statements (which seems quite likely).
"We've now had a chance to examine the books, and we are horrified about what we have found..."
Yes, it's an easy out to ditching any commitments they make now - even if it's already obvious to anyone with half a brain how parlous the country's finances are.
It's even easier when you have made any commitments in the first place.
Munira Wilson also commits the Lib Dems to not raising VAT after the election, in line with a pledge made by Labour and the Conservatives earlier. She says the party would not hike the sales tax - or income tax and National Insurance.
Fag paper between them all.
Which means raising corporation tax. There are four main sources of revenue for the government. If income tax, VAT and NI are excluded, it just leaves corporation tax, the smallest of the four, to plug the fiscal black hole left by the current government.
No. What all the parties do is say they aren’t going to raise the rate of income tax, NI and VAT, but they don’t rule out fiddling with the income tax/NI thresholds and changes in what VAT applies to.
Most of the tax rise we’ve seen lately under the Conservatives has been by not raising income tax thresholds.
Undoubtedly some of that, but not enough to plug the gap, and I think fiddling with exemptions and thresholds is getting more visible and less rewarding for the government.
The art of taxation as the 17C French finance minister put it, is plucking the most feathers from the goose with the fewest squawks. You could put VAT on certain types of food for example but expect lots of squawks. See the reaction to VAT on private education. You would find it easier just raising the rates.
Over the last few days, I have delivered a very large number of glossy 8-page leaflets in favour of my current MP, soon to be candidate. (Couldn't be delivered after midnight just gone - thanks for dumping those on us CCHQ, just before the election was announced!) As a result, I can report the following state of play in the nation's gardens:
Only 8 garden gnomes spotted (5 of those in one garden skewing the numbers, two more almost entirely buried in a raised bed)
Zero meerkats. They were quite the ubiqitous thing in 2017, on the wane by 2019, now seemingly extinct.
One unicorn.
Lots of pottery hedghogs.
Undoubtedly the best spot was two VERY LARGE elephants.
I am also astonished by the sheer number of small wellington boots some families have in their porch. Rainbows, Toy Story, unicorns, single vibrant colours. Rarely green or black.
[Memo to self: after the election, set up an online wellies store. The gaudier the stock in tiny sizes, the greater the possibilities...]
How did you feel about the rainbow wellies? (I know there are some on the right of politics who might have found them triggering).
Ben Bradshaw outgoing Labour MP was interviewed this morning live on German Radio (Deutschlandfunk) in German.
Na und ?
You seem to be pushing this idea that anyone vaguely competent in a foreign language has great gifts. It's simply a reflection that brits are too lazy to learn.
Just pointing out that some retiring Labour MPs still have all their marbles. You're uncharacteristically combative this morning.
Ive been in Germany most of the week, I have to get back to lazy English me ne frego ways. Ill be fine by lunchtime.
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
I think they are too, and Labour are now being scrutinised some of their supporters are squealing like a little piggy, Mexicanpete here was moaning about it yesterday and crying BBC bias.
However I still think that people will give labour a working majority and, deservedly so, our benign growth since 2010 alone means they deserve that,
I really thought the National Service/Quadruple lock thing would see a material shift in the polls. So yes - jitters.
But it hasn't. With 5 weeks left, what does have Sunak have left? Switching to a competence "plan" based campaign, with Cameron/Hunt/Cleverly sounding sensible on the radio, does not work any more.
The four most seriously damaging policies in living memory were supported by both Con and Labour : net zero, lock down, mrna and mass immigration. If Sunak wants to shift the polls he would need to deliver something on them. Obviously the issues related to historic events would involve coming clean and preventing such action in the future.
I'm sorry Faiza Shaheen is sad to not be the candidate but her defence for liking an anti-Semitic Tweet seems to be that we can't trust her to not like random Tweets on Twitter.
Is that much of an excuse, really?
Without seeing the example hard to say. People often claim it is oh so complicated to avoid anti-semitic remarks and comments, but it is usually not so complicated as they make out.
Her defence is that she only watched the video and she liked the Tweet for that reason.
It is very easy to throw around accusations of anti semitism that are baseless. Some would say you were anti semitic due to your stance on the Israeli regimes war in Gaza. I wouldn't say you were but some would.
So accusing people like Shaheen or Abbott of anti semitism purely for political purposes is not a nice look
It's also ridiculous. Jon Stewart is a jewish comedian and the last person you would describe as anti semitic. He just doesn't approve of Israelis killing Palestinians and says so in joke form. Who cfould not 'like' what he's saying?
I read this morning that all the parties have ruled out increases in income tax rates, NI and VAT but also no reductions in public spending, and we wonder why the public are so disillusioned with politics and whilst Labour will win there is little enthusiasm for them other than they are the better of a bad bunch
A Labour spokesperson said this morning all our spending is fully costed, and we are not planning to cut services , but then the dependence on vat on private schools raising more than it costs is very optimistic and recovering unpaid taxes has always been the go to when all else fails
I am sure the country is weary of this charade and yearns for honesty and any party who lays it bear and says taxes have to rise, especially on unearned income including a wealth tax would benefit enormously
On Diane Abbott if she has been accepted into the Labour party then of course she should be able to stand
I would also gently say that to state she has dementia is very unkind, as she is aging and listening to her she seems very determined and single minded
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
I think they are too, and Labour are now being scrutinised some of their supporters are squealing like a little piggy, Mexicanpete here was moaning about it yesterday and crying BBC bias.
However I still think that people will give labour a working majority and, deservedly so, our benign growth since 2010 alone means they deserve that,
I really thought the National Service/Quadruple lock thing would see a material shift in the polls. So yes - jitters.
But it hasn't. With 5 weeks left, what does have Sunak have left? Switching to a competence "plan" based campaign, with Cameron/Hunt/Cleverly sounding sensible on the radio, does not work any more.
Competency? - the issue there is that we haven't seen much of that in the last 18 months Change? we've seen multiple changes in the past 5 years many of which were not what (most) people voted for and also wrecked the economy..
Rishi's best hope is that the Labour party implodes or issues policies that scare voters away - and I just don't see that, Labour's policies are steady as you go unless you dig into the detail...
But I really do dislike the promise of new tax increases in XYZ, I don't think the money exists to avoid some tax increases.
Based on current vote intention, Tory and Labour voters have exactly the same sentiments towards a Tory or Labour victory, respectively. +31/-30.
What's interesting is that levels of unhappiness for a Trump victory are not miles apart (-16/-23). But not for Reform voters (+7), who would actually welcome it. It's a dangerous game trying to court them I think.
And the budget set for various departments by the Government have built in further cuts and austerity, and leave institutions from Universities to Councils to Hospital Trusts on the verge of financial collapse.
Yet all the talk is of tax cuts or freezes, paid for by mythical crackdowns on tax dodging.
No party is being honest about the dire state of the countries finances or proposing realistic solutions.
I was appalled by the April borrowing figure at the time and still believe it was that that triggered the July election because it made it obvious that any idea of a tax cutting budget in the Autumn was completely off the table. The Autumn budget, under Reeves, will further increase the tax burden and yet still look to reduce spending in almost all areas except possibly health.
If, by a miracle that makes the loaves and fishes feeding the masses look like child play, the Tories were to win the budget would still increase taxes and cut spending. That is what you have to do when borrowing well over £100bn a year.
Looking forward we have the challenge of trying to find funds for investment to boost growth and future tax revenues. Once again this means cuts in current expenditure. There are no other options. The real challenge is to get better value for money on the money already spent, that is by boosting public sector productivity. So, of course, no one is talking about that.
Several catches.
First is that a lot of government spending, especially welfare payments, is just a cash transfer. There's no way of making the state pension, say, more productive.
Next is that the state has tended to get lumbered with the tasks where it's harder to engineer productivity gains. Personal services of various sorts.
Finally, the transition to an improvement in long term productivity will cost on the short term. Backing out of the 99% capacity inefficiency will cost. The sort of capital investment needed costs in the short term, even if it saves money and improves things eventually.
But saying any of this out loud would cost the election. Which is why those NI cuts were so blooming irresponsible.
I read this morning that all the parties have ruled out increases in income tax rates, NI and VAT but also no reductions in public spending, and we wonder why the public are so disillusioned with politics and whilst Labour will win there is little enthusiasm for them other than they are the better of a bad bunch
A Labour spokesperson said this morning all our spending is fully costed, and we are not planning to cut services , but then the dependence on vat on private schools raising more than it costs is very optimistic and recovering unpaid taxes has always been the go to when all else fails
I am sure the country is weary of this charade and yearns for honesty and any party who lays it bear and says taxes have to rise, especially on unearned income including a wealth tax would benefit enormously
On Diane Abbott if she has been accepted into the Labour party then of course she should be able to stand
I would also gently say that to state she has dementia is very unkind, as she is aging and listening to her she seems very determined and single minded
My viewpoint on Diane is that she should be retiring on age and health grounds - how you do that seems to have been scuppered by someone elsewhere in Labour...
I read this morning that all the parties have ruled out increases in income tax rates, NI and VAT but also no reductions in public spending, and we wonder why the public are so disillusioned with politics and whilst Labour will win there is little enthusiasm for them other than they are the better of a bad bunch
A Labour spokesperson said this morning all our spending is fully costed, and we are not planning to cut services , but then the dependence on vat on private schools raising more than it costs is very optimistic and recovering unpaid taxes has always been the go to when all else fails
I am sure the country is weary of this charade and yearns for honesty and any party who lays it bear and says taxes have to rise, especially on unearned income including a wealth tax would benefit enormously
On Diane Abbott if she has been accepted into the Labour party then of course she should be able to stand
I would also gently say that to state she has dementia is very unkind, as she is aging and listening to her she seems very determined and single minded
My viewpoint on Diane is that she should be retiring on age and health grounds - how you do that seems to have been scuppered by someone elsewhere in Labour...
I would agree but as you say it has been a lesson on how not to do it
The tories in this thread are flying on wishful thinking. Wow. That is not what I expected from a betting site 🤯🤯🤯🤯 you guys are moving imaginary armies around on a map.
You mean we intend to give you a fight, rather than just give up and surrender now?
Get used to it. We're not French.
That kind of attitude sums it all up really. The Dunkirk evacuation only happened because the French managed to hold off 7 German divisions at Lille. And Verdun?
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
Chortle. What I find hilarious is how jittery Labour posters get when their aura of invincibility is challenged for even a second.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
I think they are too, and Labour are now being scrutinised some of their supporters are squealing like a little piggy, Mexicanpete here was moaning about it yesterday and crying BBC bias.
However I still think that people will give labour a working majority and, deservedly so, our benign growth since 2010 alone means they deserve that,
I really thought the National Service/Quadruple lock thing would see a material shift in the polls. So yes - jitters.
But it hasn't. With 5 weeks left, what does have Sunak have left? Switching to a competence "plan" based campaign, with Cameron/Hunt/Cleverly sounding sensible on the radio, does not work any more.
The four most seriously damaging policies in living memory were supported by both Con and Labour : net zero, lock down, mrna and mass immigration. If Sunak wants to shift the polls he would need to deliver something on them. Obviously the issues related to historic events would involve coming clean and preventing such action in the future.
Love to know how Rishi can reverse lock down and mrna?
Although equally your mention of lock down and mrna does allow me to ask what's the weather in Moscow like this morning?
We're still in the phony war stage of the general election. People are not paying close attention. That will change when candidates are finalised and manifestos are published. Then the real battle begins.
I do not think for one minute that Labour will win by anything like 20 points. I am a very firm believer in the maxim that the worst poll for Labour is the most accurate because that's generally how it has turned out in the past. The final JLP poll is likely to be the most accurate. However, I also think that tactical voting means a huge poll lead may not be as necessary as it may otherwise have been. We will have to see.
So far, there's nothing in either campaign that makes me think the Tories can win. It's very noticeable what they are not talking about - the NHS, the cost of living, public services, transport, housing etc. VAT on schools, national service, small bungs to pensioners etc is core vote stuff.
Basically, I remain where I have been all along - the most important result is that this destructive, incompetent government loses power. Anything else is a bonus.
And the budget set for various departments by the Government have built in further cuts and austerity, and leave institutions from Universities to Councils to Hospital Trusts on the verge of financial collapse.
Yet all the talk is of tax cuts or freezes, paid for by mythical crackdowns on tax dodging.
No party is being honest about the dire state of the countries finances or proposing realistic solutions.
I was appalled by the April borrowing figure at the time and still believe it was that that triggered the July election because it made it obvious that any idea of a tax cutting budget in the Autumn was completely off the table. The Autumn budget, under Reeves, will further increase the tax burden and yet still look to reduce spending in almost all areas except possibly health.
If, by a miracle that makes the loaves and fishes feeding the masses look like child play, the Tories were to win the budget would still increase taxes and cut spending. That is what you have to do when borrowing well over £100bn a year.
Looking forward we have the challenge of trying to find funds for investment to boost growth and future tax revenues. Once again this means cuts in current expenditure. There are no other options. The real challenge is to get better value for money on the money already spent, that is by boosting public sector productivity. So, of course, no one is talking about that.
Several catches.
First is that a lot of government spending, especially welfare payments, is just a cash transfer. There's no way of making the state pension, say, more productive.
Next is that the state has tended to get lumbered with the tasks where it's harder to engineer productivity gains. Personal services of various sorts.
Finally, the transition to an improvement in long term productivity will cost on the short term. Backing out of the 99% capacity inefficiency will cost. The sort of capital investment needed costs in the short term, even if it saves money and improves things eventually.
But saying any of this out loud would cost the election. Which is why those NI cuts were so blooming irresponsible.
Hunt on R4 just now was promising an annual 2% productivity improvement in public services if re-elected.
Ben Bradshaw outgoing Labour MP was interviewed this morning live on German Radio (Deutschlandfunk) in German.
Na und ?
You seem to be pushing this idea that anyone vaguely competent in a foreign language has great gifts. It's simply a reflection that brits are too lazy to learn.
It is something much prized in the UK because so few have a second language. It falls down a bit when you visit somewhere like Lebanon and you find almost an entire population who are tri lingual and often use all three languages in one sentence.
There's no reason to accept it though Roger. Ive been talking German this morning with a lawyer, my general manager and a Property guy. It doesnt give me special powers. Likewise its very Europecentric . Our PM could rattle off an indian language or two and get no credit for it. Likewise lots of people across Parliament the same. my outgoing MP speaks Kurdish and Arabic. Brits just need their arses kicked on learning languages.
We need to learn our own grammar as a matter of routine. I am pretty sure that German grammar is taught in German schools, for example. I went to a grammar school in the 1970s. We did not ever do grammar. Unless you are totally immersed in a language, you need to know how your own one works before you can learn how others do.
And the budget set for various departments by the Government have built in further cuts and austerity, and leave institutions from Universities to Councils to Hospital Trusts on the verge of financial collapse.
Yet all the talk is of tax cuts or freezes, paid for by mythical crackdowns on tax dodging.
No party is being honest about the dire state of the countries finances or proposing realistic solutions.
I was appalled by the April borrowing figure at the time and still believe it was that that triggered the July election because it made it obvious that any idea of a tax cutting budget in the Autumn was completely off the table. The Autumn budget, under Reeves, will further increase the tax burden and yet still look to reduce spending in almost all areas except possibly health.
If, by a miracle that makes the loaves and fishes feeding the masses look like child play, the Tories were to win the budget would still increase taxes and cut spending. That is what you have to do when borrowing well over £100bn a year.
Looking forward we have the challenge of trying to find funds for investment to boost growth and future tax revenues. Once again this means cuts in current expenditure. There are no other options. The real challenge is to get better value for money on the money already spent, that is by boosting public sector productivity. So, of course, no one is talking about that.
Several catches.
First is that a lot of government spending, especially welfare payments, is just a cash transfer. There's no way of making the state pension, say, more productive.
Next is that the state has tended to get lumbered with the tasks where it's harder to engineer productivity gains. Personal services of various sorts.
Finally, the transition to an improvement in long term productivity will cost on the short term. Backing out of the 99% capacity inefficiency will cost. The sort of capital investment needed costs in the short term, even if it saves money and improves things eventually.
But saying any of this out loud would cost the election. Which is why those NI cuts were so blooming irresponsible.
I was really interested in the pilots where hospitals focused on single treatments over a weekend with dramatic results in the waiting times. It suggested to me that there were other ways in which the NHS could work that might be better, although I take your point that the 99% capacity thing makes this exceptionally difficult.
Everyone can see the need for this. But politicians seem to think all we want to know is how much they are going to spend. The poverty of the public debate is depressing.
Comments
Get used to it. We're not French.
https://x.com/WhoTargetsMe
The debates will be interesting. I've seen Rishi work a room. A little hyper-active, but people who watch might be surprised at how well he engages. He will make a good pitch to previous Tory voters is my assessment.
There, I fixed it for you.
I suppose the alternative history has battalions of Boomers bounding through the bocage.
PS: Think they would clear my overdraft.
Why?
Because they know it's built on sand. They know that their support may be a mile wide but it's an inch deep. They know the strategy is to allow voters to project onto SKS whatever they like. They know they don't really know what Starmer plans to do when he gets in office. And they know that their best hope to keep their coalition together is to keep the focus entirely on the Tories and keep them entirely and totally demoralised so they win by default.
We know your game plan, and increasingly voters are waking up to it too.
For what it's worth, I sometimes watch YouTube videos on my PS5 and have seen ads for both Labour (the world is awful, evil Tories) and Conservatives (Starmer changes his mind [bit Dave the Chameleon]).
Labour is winging it and to be fair getting away with it. But thats election time, if in government we get to see what Reeves can do. Not much I would hazard.
For all of Sunaks frantic presidential style campaign for a week there has been no discernable change in polling. Five weeks to go.
I was hoping we would experience electoral history, but not like that.
LibDem "abolition of tuition fees". Ahem.
Your capital is always at risk but history of trackers over time is always up, just when you sell that matters.
Fidelity Index World P Acc GB00BJS8SJ34
HSBC Global Strategy Balanced C Acc GB00B76WP695
HSBC S&P 500 UCITS ETF HSPX
iShares Core MSCI World ETF USD Acc SWDA
JPMorgan Global Growth & Income JGGI
L&G Global 100 Index I Acc GB00B0CNH056
@DecrepitJohnL
NOT ADVICE, merely a talking point
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/24354075.general-election-brighton-mp-lloyd-russell-moyle-will-not-stand/
Little sympathy for him, suspicion over Labour motives (shoo-in for Labour Council Leader?) and the Greens have picked a dud.
Otoh, Labour has an enormous lead with working and younger people, groups with relatively low turnout. What that means is a small percentage increase in turnout for that group will lead to more absolute votes compared with a similar change for older votes.
Swing voters - good for the Tories. Any change in differential turnout - good for Labour.
We borrowed £20 billion in April this year, one of the highest borrowings on records.
https://x.com/ONS/status/1793161630291054767?t=EElio2BVDYSr5MmERtuCSw&s=19
And the budget set for various departments by the Government have built in further cuts and austerity, and leave institutions from Universities to Councils to Hospital Trusts on the verge of financial collapse.
Yet all the talk is of tax cuts or freezes, paid for by mythical crackdowns on tax dodging.
No party is being honest about the dire state of the countries finances or proposing realistic solutions.
You have to be optimistic when campaigning, but when betting, realism is needed.
You can't run on your record because its shit. You can't run on "look at Rishi and all his new ideas" because you've had 14 years and haven't done them, and you can't run on "trust us" because Cameron / Boris / May / Truss / Sunak in rapid succession - and look what Truss did to us.
I applaud all candidates and all activists - we need participatory politics. But it may be an uphill battle for you, no?
Debates? As warm and personable as he is in person (and I know), he was awful in the leadership debates, is awful doing "normal", and has a skin so thin you can see his blood boil as anyone criticises him.
https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/london-playbook/labours-anti-socialist-behavior-crackdown/
It brings to mind the statement by a former boss of mine that whilst he wanted to wean himself off cigarettes, he didn’t want to try vapes because “nobody knows what the long term side effects might be”.
Me pointing out that the principal long term side effect of cigarettes - death - is well known didn’t dissuade him.
1. They'll abolish the Rwanda nonsense
2. Their Leader was against the Brexit debacle
3. They would never have appointed Patel or Braverman as Home Secretary.
There are several more of course but if I find myself angry at their pusillanimous attitude to the Israelis or their mean spirited tratment of Diane Abbott and think I might give July 4th a miss these are three things that will drag me back.
You seem to be pushing this idea that anyone vaguely competent in a foreign language has great gifts. It's simply a reflection that brits are too lazy to learn.
One senior Tory official messaged to say that Starmer’s “shambolic attempt to ditch” Abbott made it look more like a “night of the blunt knives.”….
…..More decisions from the NEC are expected today but so far it’s been the march of the Starmtroopers with the approvals of fast-tracked candidacies in seats where a shortlist wasn’t possible because, for instance, MPs quit late in the day.
Yes. Labour cut spending, I know chortle.
Is this the same Rishi Sunak who was comprehensively trounced by Lettuce Liz in the leadership debates or have they brought in a new model from California when we haven't been looking?
Those many furious people who have been scalded by broken promises and failures of the last 14 years are not going to change their mind in the next few weeks and think "Actually I will vote to give them another 4 years"!
However I still think that people will give labour a working majority and, deservedly so, our benign growth since 2010 alone means they deserve that,
Most of the tax rise we’ve seen lately under the Conservatives has been by not raising income tax thresholds.
Security services say spate of fires and infrastructure attacks could be part of systemic attempt by Russia to destabilise continent
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/30/europe-on-high-alert-after-suspected-moscow-linked-arson-and-sabotage
Then there are morons like Daniel Krawcynski who think that you can teach kids level 4 or 5 languages like Japanese or Mandarin from the age of 12, without any prior exposure to a level 1 or 2 language like French, Spanish or German. He may speak Polish, because he was taught it from birth at home. I speak Polish because I could already speak French which I was taught from the age of 7.
Unless we change our mind about how kids learn foreign languages, then outcomes will continue to be poor.
So I told them you can only vote in 1 place, little point voting in Leeds (sorry Hillary but I don't think you are at risk) so you may as well go home and a postal vote is easier
But it hasn't. With 5 weeks left, what does have Sunak have left? Switching to a competence "plan" based campaign, with Cameron/Hunt/Cleverly sounding sensible on the radio, does not work any more.
If, by a miracle that makes the loaves and fishes feeding the masses look like child play, the Tories were to win the budget would still increase taxes and cut spending. That is what you have to do when borrowing well over £100bn a year.
Looking forward we have the challenge of trying to find funds for investment to boost growth and future tax revenues. Once again this means cuts in current expenditure. There are no other options. The real challenge is to get better value for money on the money already spent, that is by boosting public sector productivity. So, of course, no one is talking about that.
So accusing people like Shaheen or Abbott of anti semitism purely for political purposes is not a nice look
Sunak rejects Farage’s offer of electoral deal with Reform party
Brexit campaigner suggested he and prime minister should ‘have a conversation’ after favours he had done Tories over the years
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/29/sunak-rejects-farages-offer-of-electoral-deal-with-reform-party
Quite what favour Farage has ever done for anyone is also a mystery.
You're uncharacteristically combative this morning.
The art of taxation as the 17C French finance minister put it, is plucking the most feathers from the goose with the fewest squawks. You could put VAT on certain types of food for example but expect lots of squawks. See the reaction to VAT on private education. You would find it easier just raising the rates.
https://x.com/cchqpress/status/1796057310327959856?s=61
I read this morning that all the parties have ruled out increases in income tax rates, NI and VAT but also no reductions in public spending, and we wonder why the public are so disillusioned with politics and whilst Labour will win there is little enthusiasm for them other than they are the better of a bad bunch
A Labour spokesperson said this morning all our spending is fully costed, and we are not planning to cut services , but then the dependence on vat on private schools raising more than it costs is very optimistic and recovering unpaid taxes has always been the go to when all else fails
I am sure the country is weary of this charade and yearns for honesty and any party who lays it bear and says taxes have to rise, especially on unearned income including a wealth tax would benefit enormously
On Diane Abbott if she has been accepted into the Labour party then of course she should be able to stand
I would also gently say that to state she has dementia is very unkind, as she is aging and listening to her she seems very determined and single minded
Change? we've seen multiple changes in the past 5 years many of which were not what (most) people voted for and also wrecked the economy..
Rishi's best hope is that the Labour party implodes or issues policies that scare voters away - and I just don't see that, Labour's policies are steady as you go unless you dig into the detail...
But I really do dislike the promise of new tax increases in XYZ, I don't think the money exists to avoid some tax increases.
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1796075704292905149
Based on current vote intention, Tory and Labour voters have exactly the same sentiments towards a Tory or Labour victory, respectively. +31/-30.
What's interesting is that levels of unhappiness for a Trump victory are not miles apart (-16/-23). But not for Reform voters (+7), who would actually welcome it. It's a dangerous game trying to court them I think.
First is that a lot of government spending, especially welfare payments, is just a cash transfer. There's no way of making the state pension, say, more productive.
Next is that the state has tended to get lumbered with the tasks where it's harder to engineer productivity gains. Personal services of various sorts.
Finally, the transition to an improvement in long term productivity will cost on the short term. Backing out of the 99% capacity inefficiency will cost. The sort of capital investment needed costs in the short term, even if it saves money and improves things eventually.
But saying any of this out loud would cost the election. Which is why those NI cuts were so blooming irresponsible.
NEW THREAD
Although equally your mention of lock down and mrna does allow me to ask what's the weather in Moscow like this morning?
I do not think for one minute that Labour will win by anything like 20 points. I am a very firm believer in the maxim that the worst poll for Labour is the most accurate because that's generally how it has turned out in the past. The final JLP poll is likely to be the most accurate. However, I also think that tactical voting means a huge poll lead may not be as necessary as it may otherwise have been. We will have to see.
So far, there's nothing in either campaign that makes me think the Tories can win. It's very noticeable what they are not talking about - the NHS, the cost of living, public services, transport, housing etc. VAT on schools, national service, small bungs to pensioners etc is core vote stuff.
Basically, I remain where I have been all along - the most important result is that this destructive, incompetent government loses power. Anything else is a bonus.
LOL.
https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1796025203853512799?s=61
https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1796023389586354506?s=12
Many equipment losses for the enemy yesterday, and ATACMS are now targeting the road and rail that run up to the Kerch Bridge on the Crimean side.
I was really interested in the pilots where hospitals focused on single treatments over a weekend with dramatic results in the waiting times. It suggested to me that there were other ways in which the NHS could work that might be better, although I take your point that the 99% capacity thing makes this exceptionally difficult.
Everyone can see the need for this. But politicians seem to think all we want to know is how much they are going to spend. The poverty of the public debate is depressing.