Caroline Lucas has just said on Newsnight that her ideal election result is a hung Parliament with the LibDems holding the balance of power… because then they’d get PR introduced.
And cut their number of seats in half!
The LibDems are currently polling at about 10%. There are 632 GB seats. 10% of that would be 63 seats. That’s slightly more than current predictions give them.
True, apologies - for some reason I was working on 326 (to win). Actually their projected share is pretty proportional under FPP though.
Excellent news for the public finances. That’s £500 per deposit from a good chunk of them.
I wonder if £500 actually covers the associated admin costs? I rather doubt it.
It's £500 per candidate, not per seat. There are six candidates in my seat. That's a lovely fat kerching of £3,000, of which only £500 will need to be returned by Sefton council.
Sure, you're probably right even £3k won't cover it, but the fee is simply to stop idiots and chancers running.
You don't know how much of it will be returned. Candidates only lose their deposit if they get less than 5% of the vote. If you have Labour, Tory and Lib Dem standing I would expect it to be likely they would all get more than 5%. Maybe even Greens and Reform depending on the seat. So it could in theory be only one deposit lost.
It's worth noting what does not seem to have happened in Islington North:
1. The local Labour party has not collapsed and remains largely intact.
2. There has been no flood of pro-Corbyn volunteers descending on the constituency to help his campaign.
What that probably means is that he does not have the level of organisation and manpower that the Labour candidate has at his disposal. What he does have, of course, is name recognition. But I wonder how many people in Islington North actually realise he is no longer in the Labour party. When they look at the ballot paper will they search for his name or the Labour one?
Excellent news for the public finances. That’s £500 per deposit from a good chunk of them.
I wonder if £500 actually covers the associated admin costs? I rather doubt it.
It's £500 per candidate, not per seat. There are six candidates in my seat. That's a lovely fat kerching of £3,000, of which only £500 will need to be returned by Sefton council.
Sure, you're probably right even £3k won't cover it, but the fee is simply to stop idiots and chancers running.
Why will only £500 need to be returned? I thought anyone who got >5% got their deposit back?
Well....... I..... errr..... yes. You're right.
I make no secret of my seat. It's Bootle. 100%-100% (total votes minus Labour share) means there isn't enough to get to 5%.
I am sure this has been done, but Reform's economic policy press conference is genuinely exciting (Tice's beginning part, not Nigel coming on and doing his politics, which is fine, but we've seen it all). Ending a £40bn PA bung to the city each year and ending the Banks QT programme costing further 10s of billions a year, are hugely radical policies, and should excite everyone here - especially those who claim to be socialists and for working people.
Even if it were true that there was a £40bn bung to the city (presumably in the form of a lender of last resort free of charge) it would be by far the most profitable and tax generating money the government spends by an order of magnitude. God knows, thing are not great now but if we managed to screw the profit, employment and tax generating centre that is the City we could have people genuinely starving in the streets.
They survived without the £40bn when the base rate was nearly zero, so I'm not sure how or why they're going to be starving on the street without it now.
If it's linked to the base rate, how can they use it to cut taxes?
I'm certain that every time I've taken out a mortgage, the adviser has been very clear that rates can go up and down. I'm sure Tice has been told the same?
They are suggesting ending the interest payments from HMG so there would be no future impact of the base rate rising or falling. It is costing £40bn pa now, so ending it would make a very big difference to the public accounts at a time when the Government is extremely hard pressed to meet its commitments and get the economy growing.
Perhaps you could answer why the Bank is so keen to pay this interest, when the whole purpose of its elevation of the base rate is to remove money from the economy to reduce demand. How does paying £40bn into Banks reduce demand and cool the economy down? Or is demand reduction just meant to mean poor people buying less bags of crisps in Tesco?
Backed Conservatives down to 1.4 in Richmond and Northallerton. It remains backable there, £50 keeps appearing.
My general betting - and masturbatory - position is "Tory wipeout" so this is in some ways a hedge, but I think it's value by itself as well. Equates to 53 Tory Seats on Electoral Calculus for the PM to lose. Plenty of independents and binface etc to split the anti-Sunak vote. And if he loses I'll be overjoyed and not care about the £100 lost anyway which would be overtaken by other gains.
Of course the risk here is Sunak pulls out but that would be megalolz.
I am also continuing to lay Corbyn and of the opinion he's a great lay down at below 1.5 area as he is - indeed I still think he should be trading above evens. But I'm not in Islington. I base this solely on intuition and welcome input, especially from the guy whose screename I've forgotten beginning with A who responded previously.
I'd also add that I don't thinking rejoining the single market would be good for the country. Partly because of my views on the EU, partly as it risks undermining efforts to regain public trust on immigration and partly because I am not convinced about reopening that national wound.
On written constitutions, I worry about them fixing in time political principles and policies that limit future government's from changing direction. An extreme example, but the US 2nd amendment on arms worries me about how decisions made well over a century can be limited when the world around them is fundamentally different (hear weapons tech).
So, my views are also grounded in my analysis of the greater good, even if my original post did not capture that very well.
Caroline Lucas has just said on Newsnight that her ideal election result is a hung Parliament with the LibDems holding the balance of power… because then they’d get PR introduced.
Didn’t work last time.*
*I know, I know, it wasn’t proper PR.
I know, I know. I think her presumption is that a Lab/LD arrangement would be different.
Still not convinced. Would presume a referendum? The public used to like FPTP ( and the major two parties still do, although the Tories might be about to change their minds).
There is no realistic route to FPP being binned IMO, because it favours Labour.
Excellent news for the public finances. That’s £500 per deposit from a good chunk of them.
I wonder if £500 actually covers the associated admin costs? I rather doubt it.
It seems to have been £500 for as long as I can remember. Is fiscal drag pulling in hundreds more no-hopers into the fray?
I'm not really against it. There probably is a net cost to no hopers standing, even with forfeited deposit taken into account. But it's incredibly modest. Visibly free and fair elections matter, and the cost of a low barrier to entry is pretty trivial.
It is ridiculous that we are not even halfway through the general election campaign. Six weeks is far too long.
Are you not entertained....
On one level absolutely. On another level I am beyond bored. We have another 23 days of this and it's like watching paint dry. And I am actually interested in all this. What must normal people think about it all?
I think normal people just switch off to most of it.
Still haven't had a single person mention it at work.
Excellent news for the public finances. That’s £500 per deposit from a good chunk of them.
I wonder if £500 actually covers the associated admin costs? I rather doubt it.
It's £500 per candidate, not per seat. There are six candidates in my seat. That's a lovely fat kerching of £3,000, of which only £500 will need to be returned by Sefton council.
Sure, you're probably right even £3k won't cover it, but the fee is simply to stop idiots and chancers running.
I can't remember an election in a constituency where only one candidate saved their deposit.
It is ridiculous that we are not even halfway through the general election campaign. Six weeks is far too long.
Are you not entertained....
On one level absolutely. On another level I am beyond bored. We have another 23 days of this and it's like watching paint dry. And I am actually interested in all this. What must normal people think about it all?
I’m entertained by the wheels falling off the Tory wagon (it’s been a long time coming and, a few notable exceptions aside, it couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch). But the coverage is woeful, and the debates have been absolute bilge. 3 weeks of campaigning before manifestos drop is also far too long.
Excellent news for the public finances. That’s £500 per deposit from a good chunk of them.
I wonder if £500 actually covers the associated admin costs? I rather doubt it.
It's £500 per candidate, not per seat. There are six candidates in my seat. That's a lovely fat kerching of £3,000, of which only £500 will need to be returned by Sefton council.
Sure, you're probably right even £3k won't cover it, but the fee is simply to stop idiots and chancers running.
I can't remember an election in a constituency where only one candidate saved their deposit.
Yes. I joke a little. Checking the recent results, Labour obviously get their deposit back. In 2019 two others (Con + Brexit) and in 2017 only Con made the 5%.
Nethertheless, the Merseyside councils must love GE. Loads of candidates and only 2 or 3 per seat need their deposits back.
Backed Conservatives down to 1.4 in Richmond and Northallerton. It remains backable there, £50 keeps appearing.
My general betting - and masturbatory - position is "Tory wipeout" so this is in some ways a hedge, but I think it's value by itself as well. Equates to 53 Tory Seats on Electoral Calculus for the PM to lose. Plenty of independents and binface etc to split the anti-Sunak vote. And if he loses I'll be overjoyed and not care about the £100 lost anyway which would be overtaken by other gains.
Of course the risk here is Sunak pulls out but that would be megalolz.
I am also continuing to lay Corbyn and of the opinion he's a great lay down at below 1.5 area as he is - indeed I still think he should be trading above evens. But I'm not in Islington. I base this solely on intuition and welcome input, especially from the guy whose screename I've forgotten beginning with A who responded previously.
Corbyn is a fantastic lay.
(stop sniggering at the back)
I was going to have a look, but can’t find the constituency markets on BX anymore. Don’t suppose you have a link by any chance?
They are still up.
Bet365 haven't updated following closre of nominations, no chance yet to back Vaz in Leicester East.
It is ridiculous that we are not even halfway through the general election campaign. Six weeks is far too long.
Are you not entertained....
On one level absolutely. On another level I am beyond bored. We have another 23 days of this and it's like watching paint dry. And I am actually interested in all this. What must normal people think about it all?
I think normal people just switch off to most of it.
Still haven't had a single person mention it at work.
You work at Conservative Central Office don't you?
Backed Conservatives down to 1.4 in Richmond and Northallerton. It remains backable there, £50 keeps appearing.
My general betting - and masturbatory - position is "Tory wipeout" so this is in some ways a hedge, but I think it's value by itself as well. Equates to 53 Tory Seats on Electoral Calculus for the PM to lose. Plenty of independents and binface etc to split the anti-Sunak vote. And if he loses I'll be overjoyed and not care about the £100 lost anyway which would be overtaken by other gains.
Of course the risk here is Sunak pulls out but that would be megalolz.
I am also continuing to lay Corbyn and of the opinion he's a great lay down at below 1.5 area as he is - indeed I still think he should be trading above evens. But I'm not in Islington. I base this solely on intuition and welcome input, especially from the guy whose screename I've forgotten beginning with A who responded previously.
Corbyn is a fantastic lay.
(stop sniggering at the back)
I was going to have a look, but can’t find the constituency markets on BX anymore. Don’t suppose you have a link by any chance?
They are still up.
Bet365 haven't updated following closre of nominations, no chance yet to back Vaz in Leicester East.
I can follow the links but I can’t see them on the phone app. Probably user error!
It is ridiculous that we are not even halfway through the general election campaign. Six weeks is far too long.
Are you not entertained....
On one level absolutely. On another level I am beyond bored. We have another 23 days of this and it's like watching paint dry. And I am actually interested in all this. What must normal people think about it all?
I think normal people just switch off to most of it.
Still haven't had a single person mention it at work.
It is ridiculous that we are not even halfway through the general election campaign. Six weeks is far too long.
Are you not entertained....
On one level absolutely. On another level I am beyond bored. We have another 23 days of this and it's like watching paint dry. And I am actually interested in all this. What must normal people think about it all?
I’m entertained by the wheels falling off the Tory wagon (it’s been a long time coming and, a few notable exceptions aside, it couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch). But the coverage is woeful, and the debates have been absolute bilge. 3 weeks of campaigning before manifestos drop is also far too long.
Should be 4 week long campaigns, tops.
Imagine being American.
I believe TSE said it best. The United States is never not in election mode. President elected, then sworn in the January after? Well, it's only then eighteen months to the mid-terms so it all starts again!
Caroline Lucas has just said on Newsnight that her ideal election result is a hung Parliament with the LibDems holding the balance of power… because then they’d get PR introduced.
And cut their number of seats in half!
The LibDems are currently polling at about 10%. There are 632 GB seats. 10% of that would be 63 seats. That’s slightly more than current predictions give them.
True, apologies - for some reason I was working on 326 (to win). Actually their projected share is pretty proportional under FPP though.
Am I wrong in remembering that Corbyn 2017 hit almost exactly a proportional share? 40% of the vote and 40% of the MP's?
Excellent news for the public finances. That’s £500 per deposit from a good chunk of them.
I wonder if £500 actually covers the associated admin costs? I rather doubt it.
It's £500 per candidate, not per seat. There are six candidates in my seat. That's a lovely fat kerching of £3,000, of which only £500 will need to be returned by Sefton council.
Sure, you're probably right even £3k won't cover it, but the fee is simply to stop idiots and chancers running.
You don't know how much of it will be returned. Candidates only lose their deposit if they get less than 5% of the vote. If you have Labour, Tory and Lib Dem standing I would expect it to be likely they would all get more than 5%. Maybe even Greens and Reform depending on the seat. So it could in theory be only one deposit lost.
In Glasgow South West in 2015, FIVE candidates lost their deposit: Con, Ukip, Green, Lib Dem, and Scottish Socialist.
It's worth noting what does not seem to have happened in Islington North:
1. The local Labour party has not collapsed and remains largely intact.
2. There has been no flood of pro-Corbyn volunteers descending on the constituency to help his campaign.
What that probably means is that he does not have the level of organisation and manpower that the Labour candidate has at his disposal. What he does have, of course, is name recognition. But I wonder how many people in Islington North actually realise he is no longer in the Labour party. When they look at the ballot paper will they search for his name or the Labour one?
Depends. It will be alphabetical so he will come first.
It is ridiculous that we are not even halfway through the general election campaign. Six weeks is far too long.
Are you not entertained....
On one level absolutely. On another level I am beyond bored. We have another 23 days of this and it's like watching paint dry. And I am actually interested in all this. What must normal people think about it all?
I think normal people just switch off to most of it.
Still haven't had a single person mention it at work.
You work at Conservative Central Office don't you?
Your observation doesn't surprise me.
Yes. I am the mastermind behind this stellar campaign which has so far achieved every single one of my objectives. Hire me.
Given the election now feels Labour's to lose (people have stopped listening to the Tories, or at least most people have), I think Labour manifesto launch on Thursday is the major remaining potential wild card. I assume they have played it safe, but any missteps or bolder policies could shift things.
It's worth noting what does not seem to have happened in Islington North:
1. The local Labour party has not collapsed and remains largely intact.
2. There has been no flood of pro-Corbyn volunteers descending on the constituency to help his campaign.
What that probably means is that he does not have the level of organisation and manpower that the Labour candidate has at his disposal. What he does have, of course, is name recognition. But I wonder how many people in Islington North actually realise he is no longer in the Labour party. When they look at the ballot paper will they search for his name or the Labour one?
Depends. It will be alphabetical so he will come first.
Bootle has given Labour between 75% and 85% of the votes in the last few elections. The weakest performance was a mere 66% in 2010. Opposition in Bootle tends (strangely) to the Conservatives recently, it used to be the Lib Dems in 2010 and earlier.
I do look at my seat this time and expect Labour will do very well. The Conservative candidate is a paper candidate from London, and the Lib Dems are making no effort at all. Reform and the Workers party may make a showing, but I could also see them doing badly too.
I guess someone else will clear the 5%, but I wouldn't know who (probably Reform) but I'd be surprised if anyone other than Labour and one other save their deposit here........
It's worth noting what does not seem to have happened in Islington North:
1. The local Labour party has not collapsed and remains largely intact.
2. There has been no flood of pro-Corbyn volunteers descending on the constituency to help his campaign.
What that probably means is that he does not have the level of organisation and manpower that the Labour candidate has at his disposal. What he does have, of course, is name recognition. But I wonder how many people in Islington North actually realise he is no longer in the Labour party. When they look at the ballot paper will they search for his name or the Labour one?
Depends. It will be alphabetical so he will come first.
But when people go to vote do they search for the candidate name on the ballot paper or the party one? I think it will be close and won't call it either way but I think that structurally Labour have a far greater advantage than might have been anticipated.
It is ridiculous that we are not even halfway through the general election campaign. Six weeks is far too long.
Are you not entertained....
On one level absolutely. On another level I am beyond bored. We have another 23 days of this and it's like watching paint dry. And I am actually interested in all this. What must normal people think about it all?
Backed Conservatives down to 1.4 in Richmond and Northallerton. It remains backable there, £50 keeps appearing.
My general betting - and masturbatory - position is "Tory wipeout" so this is in some ways a hedge, but I think it's value by itself as well. Equates to 53 Tory Seats on Electoral Calculus for the PM to lose. Plenty of independents and binface etc to split the anti-Sunak vote. And if he loses I'll be overjoyed and not care about the £100 lost anyway which would be overtaken by other gains.
Of course the risk here is Sunak pulls out but that would be megalolz.
I am also continuing to lay Corbyn and of the opinion he's a great lay down at below 1.5 area as he is - indeed I still think he should be trading above evens. But I'm not in Islington. I base this solely on intuition and welcome input, especially from the guy whose screename I've forgotten beginning with A who responded previously.
Corbyn is a fantastic lay.
(stop sniggering at the back)
I was going to have a look, but can’t find the constituency markets on BX anymore. Don’t suppose you have a link by any chance?
They are still up.
Bet365 haven't updated following closre of nominations, no chance yet to back Vaz in Leicester East.
Bet365 refuse to take my bets for some reason and tell me that I can't appeal. I am in the green with every major bookie based on my political betting. Do they share data?
I am sure this has been done, but Reform's economic policy press conference is genuinely exciting (Tice's beginning part, not Nigel coming on and doing his politics, which is fine, but we've seen it all). Ending a £40bn PA bung to the city each year and ending the Banks QT programme costing further 10s of billions a year, are hugely radical policies, and should excite everyone here - especially those who claim to be socialists and for working people.
Even if it were true that there was a £40bn bung to the city (presumably in the form of a lender of last resort free of charge) it would be by far the most profitable and tax generating money the government spends by an order of magnitude. God knows, thing are not great now but if we managed to screw the profit, employment and tax generating centre that is the City we could have people genuinely starving in the streets.
They survived without the £40bn when the base rate was nearly zero, so I'm not sure how or why they're going to be starving on the street without it now.
If it's linked to the base rate, how can they use it to cut taxes?
I'm certain that every time I've taken out a mortgage, the adviser has been very clear that rates can go up and down. I'm sure Tice has been told the same?
They are suggesting ending the interest payments from HMG so there would be no future impact of the base rate rising or falling. It is costing £40bn pa now, so ending it would make a very big difference to the public accounts at a time when the Government is extremely hard pressed to meet its commitments and get the economy growing.
Perhaps you could answer why the Bank is so keen to pay this interest, when the whole purpose of its elevation of the base rate is to remove money from the economy to reduce demand. How does paying £40bn into Banks reduce demand and cool the economy down? Or is demand reduction just meant to mean poor people buying less bags of crisps in Tesco?
Perhaps you would like to explain what the net number is to HMG, as the Bank of England currently pays its profits out as dividends to... errr... HMG.
It's worth noting what does not seem to have happened in Islington North:
1. The local Labour party has not collapsed and remains largely intact.
2. There has been no flood of pro-Corbyn volunteers descending on the constituency to help his campaign.
What that probably means is that he does not have the level of organisation and manpower that the Labour candidate has at his disposal. What he does have, of course, is name recognition. But I wonder how many people in Islington North actually realise he is no longer in the Labour party. When they look at the ballot paper will they search for his name or the Labour one?
Depends. It will be alphabetical so he will come first.
But when people go to vote do they search for the candidate name on the ballot paper or the party one? I think it will be close and won't call it either way but I think that structurally Labour have a far greater advantage than might have been anticipated.
I think too that not all Labour voters in Islington back Corbyn. I think Lab is value there, as is Con in Clacton, the only place in Britain where I would vote Conservative this election.
It's worth noting what does not seem to have happened in Islington North:
1. The local Labour party has not collapsed and remains largely intact.
2. There has been no flood of pro-Corbyn volunteers descending on the constituency to help his campaign.
What that probably means is that he does not have the level of organisation and manpower that the Labour candidate has at his disposal. What he does have, of course, is name recognition. But I wonder how many people in Islington North actually realise he is no longer in the Labour party. When they look at the ballot paper will they search for his name or the Labour one?
Depends. It will be alphabetical so he will come first.
But when people go to vote do they search for the candidate name on the ballot paper or the party one? I think it will be close and won't call it either way but I think that structurally Labour have a far greater advantage than might have been anticipated.
I have never had a “celebrity” MP but if I was really was voting for them and not their Party, the name might draw my eye if it was high up.
It is ridiculous that we are not even halfway through the general election campaign. Six weeks is far too long.
Are you not entertained....
On one level absolutely. On another level I am beyond bored. We have another 23 days of this and it's like watching paint dry. And I am actually interested in all this. What must normal people think about it all?
Election? What election?
The news outlets love it, but most people won't even think about it until the last week. More attention will be turning to the Euros starting Friday.
Excellent news for the public finances. That’s £500 per deposit from a good chunk of them.
I wonder if £500 actually covers the associated admin costs? I rather doubt it.
It's £500 per candidate, not per seat. There are six candidates in my seat. That's a lovely fat kerching of £3,000, of which only £500 will need to be returned by Sefton council.
Sure, you're probably right even £3k won't cover it, but the fee is simply to stop idiots and chancers running.
You don't know how much of it will be returned. Candidates only lose their deposit if they get less than 5% of the vote. If you have Labour, Tory and Lib Dem standing I would expect it to be likely they would all get more than 5%. Maybe even Greens and Reform depending on the seat. So it could in theory be only one deposit lost.
In Glasgow South West in 2015, FIVE candidates lost their deposit: Con, Ukip, Green, Lib Dem, and Scottish Socialist.
I am sure this has been done, but Reform's economic policy press conference is genuinely exciting (Tice's beginning part, not Nigel coming on and doing his politics, which is fine, but we've seen it all). Ending a £40bn PA bung to the city each year and ending the Banks QT programme costing further 10s of billions a year, are hugely radical policies, and should excite everyone here - especially those who claim to be socialists and for working people.
Even if it were true that there was a £40bn bung to the city (presumably in the form of a lender of last resort free of charge) it would be by far the most profitable and tax generating money the government spends by an order of magnitude. God knows, thing are not great now but if we managed to screw the profit, employment and tax generating centre that is the City we could have people genuinely starving in the streets.
They survived without the £40bn when the base rate was nearly zero, so I'm not sure how or why they're going to be starving on the street without it now.
If it's linked to the base rate, how can they use it to cut taxes?
I'm certain that every time I've taken out a mortgage, the adviser has been very clear that rates can go up and down. I'm sure Tice has been told the same?
They are suggesting ending the interest payments from HMG so there would be no future impact of the base rate rising or falling. It is costing £40bn pa now, so ending it would make a very big difference to the public accounts at a time when the Government is extremely hard pressed to meet its commitments and get the economy growing.
Perhaps you could answer why the Bank is so keen to pay this interest, when the whole purpose of its elevation of the base rate is to remove money from the economy to reduce demand. How does paying £40bn into Banks reduce demand and cool the economy down? Or is demand reduction just meant to mean poor people buying less bags of crisps in Tesco?
Perhaps you would like to explain what the net number is to HMG, as the Bank of England currently pays its profits out as dividends to... errr... HMG.
It is a branch of HMG, so who else would it be paying them to? Every other department is accountable (vaguely) for the money it spends (or indeed makes). The Bank is able to chart its own course without the encumbrance of public accountability, whether they're recklessly printing £800bn or recklessly selling UK bonds at a loss and getting the taxpayer to foot the £150bn shortfall. BOE independence was meant to improve the stability of the Banks policy-making - can anyone say that that's been successful?
Excellent news for the public finances. That’s £500 per deposit from a good chunk of them.
I wonder if £500 actually covers the associated admin costs? I rather doubt it.
It's £500 per candidate, not per seat. There are six candidates in my seat. That's a lovely fat kerching of £3,000, of which only £500 will need to be returned by Sefton council.
Sure, you're probably right even £3k won't cover it, but the fee is simply to stop idiots and chancers running.
I can't remember an election in a constituency where only one candidate saved their deposit.
Yes. I joke a little. Checking the recent results, Labour obviously get their deposit back. In 2019 two others (Con + Brexit) and in 2017 only Con made the 5%.
Nethertheless, the Merseyside councils must love GE. Loads of candidates and only 2 or 3 per seat need their deposits back.
It probably happened more often when 12.5% was needed to save a deposit, which was the case until 1985.
It's worth noting what does not seem to have happened in Islington North:
1. The local Labour party has not collapsed and remains largely intact.
2. There has been no flood of pro-Corbyn volunteers descending on the constituency to help his campaign.
What that probably means is that he does not have the level of organisation and manpower that the Labour candidate has at his disposal. What he does have, of course, is name recognition. But I wonder how many people in Islington North actually realise he is no longer in the Labour party. When they look at the ballot paper will they search for his name or the Labour one?
Plus as I have stated a few times it's worth looking at the demographics in Islington North. I don't have local knowledge but it seems relatively itinerant so there's a ceiling on "he's been a great constituency MP for me" plus there also isn't a particularly large by London standards Muslim population to protest vote about Gaza.
Of course I cannot guarantee how many of said itinerant voters will vote but the odds don't make sense to me at all.
Instinctively I'm much happier laying below 1.5 in Islington than I am backing 1.4 in Richmond ofc....
It is ridiculous that we are not even halfway through the general election campaign. Six weeks is far too long.
Are you not entertained....
On one level absolutely. On another level I am beyond bored. We have another 23 days of this and it's like watching paint dry. And I am actually interested in all this. What must normal people think about it all?
I’m entertained by the wheels falling off the Tory wagon (it’s been a long time coming and, a few notable exceptions aside, it couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch). But the coverage is woeful, and the debates have been absolute bilge. 3 weeks of campaigning before manifestos drop is also far too long.
Should be 4 week long campaigns, tops.
Imagine being American.
Or French. Their system with two rounds of voting for both the parliament and the president means they effectively have four national elections per cycle.
Incidentally, this is the growth in the number of seats for Le Pen's party:
2007: 0 (Last election with Jean-Marie as leader) 2012: 2 2017: 8 2022: 89
It's worth noting what does not seem to have happened in Islington North:
1. The local Labour party has not collapsed and remains largely intact.
2. There has been no flood of pro-Corbyn volunteers descending on the constituency to help his campaign.
What that probably means is that he does not have the level of organisation and manpower that the Labour candidate has at his disposal. What he does have, of course, is name recognition. But I wonder how many people in Islington North actually realise he is no longer in the Labour party. When they look at the ballot paper will they search for his name or the Labour one?
Depends. It will be alphabetical so he will come first.
But when people go to vote do they search for the candidate name on the ballot paper or the party one? I think it will be close and won't call it either way but I think that structurally Labour have a far greater advantage than might have been anticipated.
I think too that not all Labour voters in Islington back Corbyn. I think Lab is value there, as is Con in Clacton, the only place in Britain where I would vote Conservative this election.
Am wondering if the Labour vote there might be squeezed? I dunno. But I'd be certainly considering it just in case?
I am sure this has been done, but Reform's economic policy press conference is genuinely exciting (Tice's beginning part, not Nigel coming on and doing his politics, which is fine, but we've seen it all). Ending a £40bn PA bung to the city each year and ending the Banks QT programme costing further 10s of billions a year, are hugely radical policies, and should excite everyone here - especially those who claim to be socialists and for working people.
Even if it were true that there was a £40bn bung to the city (presumably in the form of a lender of last resort free of charge) it would be by far the most profitable and tax generating money the government spends by an order of magnitude. God knows, thing are not great now but if we managed to screw the profit, employment and tax generating centre that is the City we could have people genuinely starving in the streets.
They survived without the £40bn when the base rate was nearly zero, so I'm not sure how or why they're going to be starving on the street without it now.
If it's linked to the base rate, how can they use it to cut taxes?
I'm certain that every time I've taken out a mortgage, the adviser has been very clear that rates can go up and down. I'm sure Tice has been told the same?
They are suggesting ending the interest payments from HMG so there would be no future impact of the base rate rising or falling. It is costing £40bn pa now, so ending it would make a very big difference to the public accounts at a time when the Government is extremely hard pressed to meet its commitments and get the economy growing.
Perhaps you could answer why the Bank is so keen to pay this interest, when the whole purpose of its elevation of the base rate is to remove money from the economy to reduce demand. How does paying £40bn into Banks reduce demand and cool the economy down? Or is demand reduction just meant to mean poor people buying less bags of crisps in Tesco?
Perhaps you would like to explain what the net number is to HMG, as the Bank of England currently pays its profits out as dividends to... errr... HMG.
It is a branch of HMG, so who else would it be paying them to? Every other department is accountable (vaguely) for the money it spends (or indeed makes). The Bank is able to chart its own course without the encumbrance of public accountability, whether they're recklessly printing £800bn or recklessly selling UK bonds at a loss and getting the taxpayer to foot the £150bn shortfall. BOE independence was meant to improve the stability of the Banks policy-making - can anyone say that that's been successful?
So you understand, then, that the interest payments are paid to themselves, and there is no free money, right?
I am sure this has been done, but Reform's economic policy press conference is genuinely exciting (Tice's beginning part, not Nigel coming on and doing his politics, which is fine, but we've seen it all). Ending a £40bn PA bung to the city each year and ending the Banks QT programme costing further 10s of billions a year, are hugely radical policies, and should excite everyone here - especially those who claim to be socialists and for working people.
Even if it were true that there was a £40bn bung to the city (presumably in the form of a lender of last resort free of charge) it would be by far the most profitable and tax generating money the government spends by an order of magnitude. God knows, thing are not great now but if we managed to screw the profit, employment and tax generating centre that is the City we could have people genuinely starving in the streets.
They survived without the £40bn when the base rate was nearly zero, so I'm not sure how or why they're going to be starving on the street without it now.
If it's linked to the base rate, how can they use it to cut taxes?
I'm certain that every time I've taken out a mortgage, the adviser has been very clear that rates can go up and down. I'm sure Tice has been told the same?
They are suggesting ending the interest payments from HMG so there would be no future impact of the base rate rising or falling. It is costing £40bn pa now, so ending it would make a very big difference to the public accounts at a time when the Government is extremely hard pressed to meet its commitments and get the economy growing.
Perhaps you could answer why the Bank is so keen to pay this interest, when the whole purpose of its elevation of the base rate is to remove money from the economy to reduce demand. How does paying £40bn into Banks reduce demand and cool the economy down? Or is demand reduction just meant to mean poor people buying less bags of crisps in Tesco?
Perhaps you would like to explain what the net number is to HMG, as the Bank of England currently pays its profits out as dividends to... errr... HMG.
It is a branch of HMG, so who else would it be paying them to? Every other department is accountable (vaguely) for the money it spends (or indeed makes). The Bank is able to chart its own course without the encumbrance of public accountability, whether they're recklessly printing £800bn or recklessly selling UK bonds at a loss and getting the taxpayer to foot the £150bn shortfall. BOE independence was meant to improve the stability of the Banks policy-making - can anyone say that that's been successful?
So you understand, then, that the interest payments are paid to themselves, and there is no free money, right?
The argument is that they can cut interest payments to commercial banks.
I am sure this has been done, but Reform's economic policy press conference is genuinely exciting (Tice's beginning part, not Nigel coming on and doing his politics, which is fine, but we've seen it all). Ending a £40bn PA bung to the city each year and ending the Banks QT programme costing further 10s of billions a year, are hugely radical policies, and should excite everyone here - especially those who claim to be socialists and for working people.
Even if it were true that there was a £40bn bung to the city (presumably in the form of a lender of last resort free of charge) it would be by far the most profitable and tax generating money the government spends by an order of magnitude. God knows, thing are not great now but if we managed to screw the profit, employment and tax generating centre that is the City we could have people genuinely starving in the streets.
They survived without the £40bn when the base rate was nearly zero, so I'm not sure how or why they're going to be starving on the street without it now.
If it's linked to the base rate, how can they use it to cut taxes?
I'm certain that every time I've taken out a mortgage, the adviser has been very clear that rates can go up and down. I'm sure Tice has been told the same?
They are suggesting ending the interest payments from HMG so there would be no future impact of the base rate rising or falling. It is costing £40bn pa now, so ending it would make a very big difference to the public accounts at a time when the Government is extremely hard pressed to meet its commitments and get the economy growing.
Perhaps you could answer why the Bank is so keen to pay this interest, when the whole purpose of its elevation of the base rate is to remove money from the economy to reduce demand. How does paying £40bn into Banks reduce demand and cool the economy down? Or is demand reduction just meant to mean poor people buying less bags of crisps in Tesco?
I'm not totally against the idea - and I wouldn't be surprised if Labour adopt it in some way.
I assume the point you're making about the base rate is that, once no interest is paid, then the rate makes no difference. 5% of nothing, being nothing. That does make some sense.
However it doesn't account for it being an additional cost, that is already having an impact on spending elsewhere. Converting it into tax cuts, when it's at its highest level, commits that additional cost permanently, even though it would likely have come down later this year.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies have also challenged it today, and said it won't raise anything like £40b, and they also argue that the 'savings' fluctuate due to the base rate, as do plenty of other economists.
Never heard of Rabharta party before. One downside of PR is the plethora of parties.
Daly is running 7th in a 4-seat constituency. Daly's 2,500 votes short of Labour but with Social Democrat and Solidarity-PBP votes to dish out first (42,000) I guess that she won't make that gap up and 4,000 gap behind the Greens looks too much to overtake. My assumption is 1 FF, 1 FG, 1 INDIRL and either SF or Labour for the 4th seat.
It has and hasnt. Last few years aside when its figures were very high, the party in the south is still politically more relevant than it has been in a long time. The current drop in real results has been somewhat mirrored in the direction of the opinion polls in recent weeks and can be explained perhaps by: Overall I suspect a lot of people down there are happy with their lot at the moment Some of the working class part of its base has had concerns about immigration and SF has found it itself caught out by its position Mary Lou MCDonald has failed to set out consistent positions and has shifted round a bit too much The nature of the elections, its plausible that they will do much better in a GE. If their GE results were within 2-3% points of the above May Lou McDonald would be out on her arse and I havent seen anyone suggesting they would be that low at a GE
Secondly SFs power base is still in Northern Ireland and the border counties and it remains in decent shape there so its not complete doom.
I am sure this has been done, but Reform's economic policy press conference is genuinely exciting (Tice's beginning part, not Nigel coming on and doing his politics, which is fine, but we've seen it all). Ending a £40bn PA bung to the city each year and ending the Banks QT programme costing further 10s of billions a year, are hugely radical policies, and should excite everyone here - especially those who claim to be socialists and for working people.
Even if it were true that there was a £40bn bung to the city (presumably in the form of a lender of last resort free of charge) it would be by far the most profitable and tax generating money the government spends by an order of magnitude. God knows, thing are not great now but if we managed to screw the profit, employment and tax generating centre that is the City we could have people genuinely starving in the streets.
They survived without the £40bn when the base rate was nearly zero, so I'm not sure how or why they're going to be starving on the street without it now.
If it's linked to the base rate, how can they use it to cut taxes?
I'm certain that every time I've taken out a mortgage, the adviser has been very clear that rates can go up and down. I'm sure Tice has been told the same?
They are suggesting ending the interest payments from HMG so there would be no future impact of the base rate rising or falling. It is costing £40bn pa now, so ending it would make a very big difference to the public accounts at a time when the Government is extremely hard pressed to meet its commitments and get the economy growing.
Perhaps you could answer why the Bank is so keen to pay this interest, when the whole purpose of its elevation of the base rate is to remove money from the economy to reduce demand. How does paying £40bn into Banks reduce demand and cool the economy down? Or is demand reduction just meant to mean poor people buying less bags of crisps in Tesco?
Perhaps you would like to explain what the net number is to HMG, as the Bank of England currently pays its profits out as dividends to... errr... HMG.
It is a branch of HMG, so who else would it be paying them to? Every other department is accountable (vaguely) for the money it spends (or indeed makes). The Bank is able to chart its own course without the encumbrance of public accountability, whether they're recklessly printing £800bn or recklessly selling UK bonds at a loss and getting the taxpayer to foot the £150bn shortfall. BOE independence was meant to improve the stability of the Banks policy-making - can anyone say that that's been successful?
So you understand, then, that the interest payments are paid to themselves, and there is no free money, right?
The argument is that they can cut interest payments to commercial banks.
I am sure this has been done, but Reform's economic policy press conference is genuinely exciting (Tice's beginning part, not Nigel coming on and doing his politics, which is fine, but we've seen it all). Ending a £40bn PA bung to the city each year and ending the Banks QT programme costing further 10s of billions a year, are hugely radical policies, and should excite everyone here - especially those who claim to be socialists and for working people.
Even if it were true that there was a £40bn bung to the city (presumably in the form of a lender of last resort free of charge) it would be by far the most profitable and tax generating money the government spends by an order of magnitude. God knows, thing are not great now but if we managed to screw the profit, employment and tax generating centre that is the City we could have people genuinely starving in the streets.
They survived without the £40bn when the base rate was nearly zero, so I'm not sure how or why they're going to be starving on the street without it now.
If it's linked to the base rate, how can they use it to cut taxes?
I'm certain that every time I've taken out a mortgage, the adviser has been very clear that rates can go up and down. I'm sure Tice has been told the same?
They are suggesting ending the interest payments from HMG so there would be no future impact of the base rate rising or falling. It is costing £40bn pa now, so ending it would make a very big difference to the public accounts at a time when the Government is extremely hard pressed to meet its commitments and get the economy growing.
Perhaps you could answer why the Bank is so keen to pay this interest, when the whole purpose of its elevation of the base rate is to remove money from the economy to reduce demand. How does paying £40bn into Banks reduce demand and cool the economy down? Or is demand reduction just meant to mean poor people buying less bags of crisps in Tesco?
Perhaps you would like to explain what the net number is to HMG, as the Bank of England currently pays its profits out as dividends to... errr... HMG.
It is a branch of HMG, so who else would it be paying them to? Every other department is accountable (vaguely) for the money it spends (or indeed makes). The Bank is able to chart its own course without the encumbrance of public accountability, whether they're recklessly printing £800bn or recklessly selling UK bonds at a loss and getting the taxpayer to foot the £150bn shortfall. BOE independence was meant to improve the stability of the Banks policy-making - can anyone say that that's been successful?
So you understand, then, that the interest payments are paid to themselves, and there is no free money, right?
The argument is that they can cut interest payments to commercial banks.
I am sure this has been done, but Reform's economic policy press conference is genuinely exciting (Tice's beginning part, not Nigel coming on and doing his politics, which is fine, but we've seen it all). Ending a £40bn PA bung to the city each year and ending the Banks QT programme costing further 10s of billions a year, are hugely radical policies, and should excite everyone here - especially those who claim to be socialists and for working people.
Even if it were true that there was a £40bn bung to the city (presumably in the form of a lender of last resort free of charge) it would be by far the most profitable and tax generating money the government spends by an order of magnitude. God knows, thing are not great now but if we managed to screw the profit, employment and tax generating centre that is the City we could have people genuinely starving in the streets.
They survived without the £40bn when the base rate was nearly zero, so I'm not sure how or why they're going to be starving on the street without it now.
If it's linked to the base rate, how can they use it to cut taxes?
I'm certain that every time I've taken out a mortgage, the adviser has been very clear that rates can go up and down. I'm sure Tice has been told the same?
They are suggesting ending the interest payments from HMG so there would be no future impact of the base rate rising or falling. It is costing £40bn pa now, so ending it would make a very big difference to the public accounts at a time when the Government is extremely hard pressed to meet its commitments and get the economy growing.
Perhaps you could answer why the Bank is so keen to pay this interest, when the whole purpose of its elevation of the base rate is to remove money from the economy to reduce demand. How does paying £40bn into Banks reduce demand and cool the economy down? Or is demand reduction just meant to mean poor people buying less bags of crisps in Tesco?
Perhaps you would like to explain what the net number is to HMG, as the Bank of England currently pays its profits out as dividends to... errr... HMG.
It is a branch of HMG, so who else would it be paying them to? Every other department is accountable (vaguely) for the money it spends (or indeed makes). The Bank is able to chart its own course without the encumbrance of public accountability, whether they're recklessly printing £800bn or recklessly selling UK bonds at a loss and getting the taxpayer to foot the £150bn shortfall. BOE independence was meant to improve the stability of the Banks policy-making - can anyone say that that's been successful?
So you understand, then, that the interest payments are paid to themselves, and there is no free money, right?
The argument is that they can cut interest payments to commercial banks.
I am sure this has been done, but Reform's economic policy press conference is genuinely exciting (Tice's beginning part, not Nigel coming on and doing his politics, which is fine, but we've seen it all). Ending a £40bn PA bung to the city each year and ending the Banks QT programme costing further 10s of billions a year, are hugely radical policies, and should excite everyone here - especially those who claim to be socialists and for working people.
Even if it were true that there was a £40bn bung to the city (presumably in the form of a lender of last resort free of charge) it would be by far the most profitable and tax generating money the government spends by an order of magnitude. God knows, thing are not great now but if we managed to screw the profit, employment and tax generating centre that is the City we could have people genuinely starving in the streets.
They survived without the £40bn when the base rate was nearly zero, so I'm not sure how or why they're going to be starving on the street without it now.
If it's linked to the base rate, how can they use it to cut taxes?
I'm certain that every time I've taken out a mortgage, the adviser has been very clear that rates can go up and down. I'm sure Tice has been told the same?
They are suggesting ending the interest payments from HMG so there would be no future impact of the base rate rising or falling. It is costing £40bn pa now, so ending it would make a very big difference to the public accounts at a time when the Government is extremely hard pressed to meet its commitments and get the economy growing.
Perhaps you could answer why the Bank is so keen to pay this interest, when the whole purpose of its elevation of the base rate is to remove money from the economy to reduce demand. How does paying £40bn into Banks reduce demand and cool the economy down? Or is demand reduction just meant to mean poor people buying less bags of crisps in Tesco?
Perhaps you would like to explain what the net number is to HMG, as the Bank of England currently pays its profits out as dividends to... errr... HMG.
It is a branch of HMG, so who else would it be paying them to? Every other department is accountable (vaguely) for the money it spends (or indeed makes). The Bank is able to chart its own course without the encumbrance of public accountability, whether they're recklessly printing £800bn or recklessly selling UK bonds at a loss and getting the taxpayer to foot the £150bn shortfall. BOE independence was meant to improve the stability of the Banks policy-making - can anyone say that that's been successful?
So you understand, then, that the interest payments are paid to themselves, and there is no free money, right?
The argument is that they can cut interest payments to commercial banks.
Yes, there are definitely savings there to be had, but I'd be staggered if it's more than £2-3bn/year.
This seems remarkably easy based on that article, which means its feels suspect
The article makes a number of factual errors, including confusing commercial banks reserves with the BOE's reserves.
Commercial banks are required to deposit a small portion of their capital with the BOE.
But the amount they deposit there, rather than in short term government bonds, is largely at the discretion of bank management.
If they no longer earned interest on those reserves, the first thing they would do is keep less capital there! It's not complicated. Commercial banks are profit seeking organizations. So, the idea you could just stop paying interest on deposits and there would be no impact on got level of deposits is just bonkers.
Never heard of Rabharta party before. One downside of PR is the plethora of parties.
Re: Clare Daly, she's still in the hunt for one of the five Dublin seats.
Looks like counting has been suspended until tomorrow, when first order of business will be distribution of a SFer's (accumulated) votes, of which goodly % will go to the top SF hopeful.
FF and FG both good bets to win a seat each. As for the other 3, will depend on transfer patterns AND order of elimination.
ADDENDUM - my guess is that SF will also win one seat, plus one or perhaps two left candidates, if only one then one seat will go to Independent conservative (sorta) shock jock.
I am sure this has been done, but Reform's economic policy press conference is genuinely exciting (Tice's beginning part, not Nigel coming on and doing his politics, which is fine, but we've seen it all). Ending a £40bn PA bung to the city each year and ending the Banks QT programme costing further 10s of billions a year, are hugely radical policies, and should excite everyone here - especially those who claim to be socialists and for working people.
Even if it were true that there was a £40bn bung to the city (presumably in the form of a lender of last resort free of charge) it would be by far the most profitable and tax generating money the government spends by an order of magnitude. God knows, thing are not great now but if we managed to screw the profit, employment and tax generating centre that is the City we could have people genuinely starving in the streets.
They survived without the £40bn when the base rate was nearly zero, so I'm not sure how or why they're going to be starving on the street without it now.
If it's linked to the base rate, how can they use it to cut taxes?
I'm certain that every time I've taken out a mortgage, the adviser has been very clear that rates can go up and down. I'm sure Tice has been told the same?
They are suggesting ending the interest payments from HMG so there would be no future impact of the base rate rising or falling. It is costing £40bn pa now, so ending it would make a very big difference to the public accounts at a time when the Government is extremely hard pressed to meet its commitments and get the economy growing.
Perhaps you could answer why the Bank is so keen to pay this interest, when the whole purpose of its elevation of the base rate is to remove money from the economy to reduce demand. How does paying £40bn into Banks reduce demand and cool the economy down? Or is demand reduction just meant to mean poor people buying less bags of crisps in Tesco?
Perhaps you would like to explain what the net number is to HMG, as the Bank of England currently pays its profits out as dividends to... errr... HMG.
It is a branch of HMG, so who else would it be paying them to? Every other department is accountable (vaguely) for the money it spends (or indeed makes). The Bank is able to chart its own course without the encumbrance of public accountability, whether they're recklessly printing £800bn or recklessly selling UK bonds at a loss and getting the taxpayer to foot the £150bn shortfall. BOE independence was meant to improve the stability of the Banks policy-making - can anyone say that that's been successful?
So you understand, then, that the interest payments are paid to themselves, and there is no free money, right?
The argument is that they can cut interest payments to commercial banks.
Yes, there are definitely savings there to be had, but I'd be staggered if it's more than £2-3bn/year.
This seems remarkably easy based on that article, which means its feels suspect
The article makes a number of factual errors, including confusing commercial banks reserves with the BOE's reserves.
Commercial banks are required to deposit a small portion of their capital with the BOE.
But the amount they deposit there, rather than in short term government bonds, is largely at the discretion of bank management.
If they no longer earned interest on those reserves, the first thing they would do is keep less capital there! It's not complicated. Commercial banks are profit seeking organizations. So, the idea you could just stop paying interest on deposits and there would be no impact on got level of deposits is just bonkers.
I am sure this has been done, but Reform's economic policy press conference is genuinely exciting (Tice's beginning part, not Nigel coming on and doing his politics, which is fine, but we've seen it all). Ending a £40bn PA bung to the city each year and ending the Banks QT programme costing further 10s of billions a year, are hugely radical policies, and should excite everyone here - especially those who claim to be socialists and for working people.
Even if it were true that there was a £40bn bung to the city (presumably in the form of a lender of last resort free of charge) it would be by far the most profitable and tax generating money the government spends by an order of magnitude. God knows, thing are not great now but if we managed to screw the profit, employment and tax generating centre that is the City we could have people genuinely starving in the streets.
They survived without the £40bn when the base rate was nearly zero, so I'm not sure how or why they're going to be starving on the street without it now.
If it's linked to the base rate, how can they use it to cut taxes?
I'm certain that every time I've taken out a mortgage, the adviser has been very clear that rates can go up and down. I'm sure Tice has been told the same?
They are suggesting ending the interest payments from HMG so there would be no future impact of the base rate rising or falling. It is costing £40bn pa now, so ending it would make a very big difference to the public accounts at a time when the Government is extremely hard pressed to meet its commitments and get the economy growing.
Perhaps you could answer why the Bank is so keen to pay this interest, when the whole purpose of its elevation of the base rate is to remove money from the economy to reduce demand. How does paying £40bn into Banks reduce demand and cool the economy down? Or is demand reduction just meant to mean poor people buying less bags of crisps in Tesco?
Perhaps you would like to explain what the net number is to HMG, as the Bank of England currently pays its profits out as dividends to... errr... HMG.
It is a branch of HMG, so who else would it be paying them to? Every other department is accountable (vaguely) for the money it spends (or indeed makes). The Bank is able to chart its own course without the encumbrance of public accountability, whether they're recklessly printing £800bn or recklessly selling UK bonds at a loss and getting the taxpayer to foot the £150bn shortfall. BOE independence was meant to improve the stability of the Banks policy-making - can anyone say that that's been successful?
So you understand, then, that the interest payments are paid to themselves, and there is no free money, right?
The argument is that they can cut interest payments to commercial banks.
Yes, there are definitely savings there to be had, but I'd be staggered if it's more than £2-3bn/year.
This seems remarkably easy based on that article, which means its feels suspect
The article makes a number of factual errors, including confusing commercial banks reserves with the BOE's reserves.
Commercial banks are required to deposit a small portion of their capital with the BOE.
But the amount they deposit there, rather than in short term government bonds, is largely at the discretion of bank management.
If they no longer earned interest on those reserves, the first thing they would do is keep less capital there! It's not complicated. Commercial banks are profit seeking organizations. So, the idea you could just stop paying interest on deposits and there would be no impact on got level of deposits is just bonkers.
Just to add to this: the BOE acts like any other bank with deposits it takes, it lends them out. So it's not like it loses money on those deposits from commercial banks, on the contrary it invests them in Government bonds.
I am sure this has been done, but Reform's economic policy press conference is genuinely exciting (Tice's beginning part, not Nigel coming on and doing his politics, which is fine, but we've seen it all). Ending a £40bn PA bung to the city each year and ending the Banks QT programme costing further 10s of billions a year, are hugely radical policies, and should excite everyone here - especially those who claim to be socialists and for working people.
Even if it were true that there was a £40bn bung to the city (presumably in the form of a lender of last resort free of charge) it would be by far the most profitable and tax generating money the government spends by an order of magnitude. God knows, thing are not great now but if we managed to screw the profit, employment and tax generating centre that is the City we could have people genuinely starving in the streets.
They survived without the £40bn when the base rate was nearly zero, so I'm not sure how or why they're going to be starving on the street without it now.
If it's linked to the base rate, how can they use it to cut taxes?
I'm certain that every time I've taken out a mortgage, the adviser has been very clear that rates can go up and down. I'm sure Tice has been told the same?
They are suggesting ending the interest payments from HMG so there would be no future impact of the base rate rising or falling. It is costing £40bn pa now, so ending it would make a very big difference to the public accounts at a time when the Government is extremely hard pressed to meet its commitments and get the economy growing.
Perhaps you could answer why the Bank is so keen to pay this interest, when the whole purpose of its elevation of the base rate is to remove money from the economy to reduce demand. How does paying £40bn into Banks reduce demand and cool the economy down? Or is demand reduction just meant to mean poor people buying less bags of crisps in Tesco?
Perhaps you would like to explain what the net number is to HMG, as the Bank of England currently pays its profits out as dividends to... errr... HMG.
It is a branch of HMG, so who else would it be paying them to? Every other department is accountable (vaguely) for the money it spends (or indeed makes). The Bank is able to chart its own course without the encumbrance of public accountability, whether they're recklessly printing £800bn or recklessly selling UK bonds at a loss and getting the taxpayer to foot the £150bn shortfall. BOE independence was meant to improve the stability of the Banks policy-making - can anyone say that that's been successful?
So you understand, then, that the interest payments are paid to themselves, and there is no free money, right?
The argument is that they can cut interest payments to commercial banks.
Yes, there are definitely savings there to be had, but I'd be staggered if it's more than £2-3bn/year.
This seems remarkably easy based on that article, which means its feels suspect
The article makes a number of factual errors, including confusing commercial banks reserves with the BOE's reserves.
Commercial banks are required to deposit a small portion of their capital with the BOE.
But the amount they deposit there, rather than in short term government bonds, is largely at the discretion of bank management.
If they no longer earned interest on those reserves, the first thing they would do is keep less capital there! It's not complicated. Commercial banks are profit seeking organizations. So, the idea you could just stop paying interest on deposits and there would be no impact on got level of deposits is just bonkers.
Just to add to this: the BOE acts like any other bank with deposits it takes, it lends them out. So it's not like it loses money on those deposits from commercial banks, on the contrary it invests them in Government bonds.
I am sure this has been done, but Reform's economic policy press conference is genuinely exciting (Tice's beginning part, not Nigel coming on and doing his politics, which is fine, but we've seen it all). Ending a £40bn PA bung to the city each year and ending the Banks QT programme costing further 10s of billions a year, are hugely radical policies, and should excite everyone here - especially those who claim to be socialists and for working people.
Even if it were true that there was a £40bn bung to the city (presumably in the form of a lender of last resort free of charge) it would be by far the most profitable and tax generating money the government spends by an order of magnitude. God knows, thing are not great now but if we managed to screw the profit, employment and tax generating centre that is the City we could have people genuinely starving in the streets.
They survived without the £40bn when the base rate was nearly zero, so I'm not sure how or why they're going to be starving on the street without it now.
If it's linked to the base rate, how can they use it to cut taxes?
I'm certain that every time I've taken out a mortgage, the adviser has been very clear that rates can go up and down. I'm sure Tice has been told the same?
They are suggesting ending the interest payments from HMG so there would be no future impact of the base rate rising or falling. It is costing £40bn pa now, so ending it would make a very big difference to the public accounts at a time when the Government is extremely hard pressed to meet its commitments and get the economy growing.
Perhaps you could answer why the Bank is so keen to pay this interest, when the whole purpose of its elevation of the base rate is to remove money from the economy to reduce demand. How does paying £40bn into Banks reduce demand and cool the economy down? Or is demand reduction just meant to mean poor people buying less bags of crisps in Tesco?
Perhaps you would like to explain what the net number is to HMG, as the Bank of England currently pays its profits out as dividends to... errr... HMG.
It is a branch of HMG, so who else would it be paying them to? Every other department is accountable (vaguely) for the money it spends (or indeed makes). The Bank is able to chart its own course without the encumbrance of public accountability, whether they're recklessly printing £800bn or recklessly selling UK bonds at a loss and getting the taxpayer to foot the £150bn shortfall. BOE independence was meant to improve the stability of the Banks policy-making - can anyone say that that's been successful?
So you understand, then, that the interest payments are paid to themselves, and there is no free money, right?
The argument is that they can cut interest payments to commercial banks.
Yes, there are definitely savings there to be had, but I'd be staggered if it's more than £2-3bn/year.
This seems remarkably easy based on that article, which means its feels suspect
The article makes a number of factual errors, including confusing commercial banks reserves with the BOE's reserves.
Commercial banks are required to deposit a small portion of their capital with the BOE.
But the amount they deposit there, rather than in short term government bonds, is largely at the discretion of bank management.
If they no longer earned interest on those reserves, the first thing they would do is keep less capital there! It's not complicated. Commercial banks are profit seeking organizations. So, the idea you could just stop paying interest on deposits and there would be no impact on got level of deposits is just bonkers.
Just to add to this: the BOE acts like any other bank with deposits it takes, it lends them out. So it's not like it loses money on those deposits from commercial banks, on the contrary it invests them in Government bonds.
Who pays the interest on the government bonds?
The government.
But the bonds would exist irrespective, because they are created by the government spending more then they bring in in taxation.
The US does not have a single justice system. Let me repeat: The US does not have a single justice system. To begin with, there are the different systems in the 50 states, DC, and the federal government. For example: In some states adultery is still legal, though seldom enforced. The federal government long ago passed the Mann act -- which is actually about women. And so on, and on.
American cities also often have their own policies, and ordinances.
As often do the Indian tribes. Which can lead to difficult jurisdictional questions. For example, this one from Tony Hillerman's "Dance Hall of the Dead", describing a problem Navajo detective Joe Leaphorn sees no way to solve:
'An old Singer had complained that he had given a neighbor woman eight hundred dollars to take into Gallup and make a down payment on a pickup truck, and the woman had spent his money. Some of the facts had been easy enough to establish. The woman had retrieved almost eight hudred dollars of her pawn on the day in question and she hadn't given any money to the car lot owner. So it should have been simple, but it wasn't. The woman said the Singer owed her the money, and that the Singer was a witch, a Navajo Wolf. And then there was the question of which side of the boundary fence they'd been standing on when the money changed hands. If she was standing where she said she had been, they were on Navajo reservation land and under tribal-federal jurisdiction. But if they stood where the Singer claimed, they were over on nonreservation allocation land and the case would probably be tried under the New Mexico embezzlement law.' (pp. 8-9)
(In the Hillerman Navajo detective novels, the FBI has jurisdiction over more serious offenses on the reservations, the DEA handles drug problems, the Border Patrol tries to protect the border, and the tribal police have the rest, with each tribe having its own force. In that novel, all of them get involved, except the Border Patrol. And, of course, the state police have a small part to play, too.)
As Brian O'Neil on Slugger O'Toole puts it, "It is also interesting that the far right swing did not materialise, proving once again that the internet is not real life."
My first post since the 2005 GE, (when you could post without signing in). Not sure why anyone is describing this election as boring. While some or all of these probably will not happen, there are lots of possible outcomes that could have a huge impact on politics over the coming years - ELE for the Tories, Farage (finally) winning a seat in the Commons. Recovery of the Lib Dems after many years of pain. Huge Labour majority. The Greens winning a seat outside of Brighton. Big defeat for the SNP. None of these are inevitable, and some are far more likely than others. But all could shape British politics for the next decade.
As Brian O'Neil on Slugger O'Toole puts it, "It is also interesting that the far right swing did not materialise, proving once again that the internet is not real life."
This is a gross oversimplification on a number of counts and, seriously, drop your comfort blankets of nonsense. You dont have go out and vote for a party on the hard right to see it as a concern. Surveys tell you its more of political issue now than in some time.
If long term migrants or the next generation of long term migrants increase within the population, logic would dictate that some of them will get involved in electoral politics which means of course there are going to be more elected than 20 years ago when there were less long term migrants within the population. Its a reflection of the population not some massive rejection of a certain politics.
Secondly Brian O'Neill there is talking through his hat. How many parties that had a strong focus on curbing immigration existed in Ireland, contested elections 10 or 15 years ago and even registered on the tallies if they did? A lot less than now. They were never going to suddenly get 20% of the vote but they do exist and they have grown versus say 10 years ago.
Thirdly some of the larger parties have hardened their postion, at least rheorically regarding certain types of immigration. Fine Gael, the party of the Taoiseach, which is vaying for largest party status based on the election results, has done just that. Why? Because its a live issue. They have moved to meet the issue.
Fourth, its not a pure rightist issue. Aontu, an economically left wing and socially conservative on socal issues party has made immigration and greater control a central plank of its manifesto.
As Brian O'Neil on Slugger O'Toole puts it, "It is also interesting that the far right swing did not materialise, proving once again that the internet is not real life."
This is a gross oversimplification on a number of counts and, seriously, drop your comfort blankets of nonsense. You dont have go out and vote for a party on the hard right to see it as a concern. Surveys tell you its more of political issue now than in some time.
If long term migrants or the next generation of long term migrants increase within the population, logic would dictate that some of them will get involved in electoral politics which means of course there are going to be more elected than 20 years ago when there were less long term migrants within the population. Its a reflection of the population not some massive rejection of a certain politics.
Secondly Brian O'Neill there is talking through his hat. How many parties that had a strong focus on curbing immigration existed in Ireland, contested elections 10 or 15 years ago and even registered on the tallies if they did? A lot less than now. They were never going to suddenly get 20% of the vote but they do exist and they have grown versus say 10 years ago.
Thirdly some of the larger parties have hardened their postion, at least rheorically regarding certain types of immigration. Fine Gael, the party of the Taoiseach, which is vaying for largest party status based on the election results, has done just that. Why? Because its a live issue. They have moved to meet the issue.
Fourth, its not a pure rightist issue. Aontu, an economically left wing and socially conservative on socal issues party has made immigration and greater control a central plank of its manifesto.
Could you please name the "many parties" in Ireland that currently have a "strong focus" on curbing immigration" and contested 2024 local & Euro elections? Along with the number & percent of 1st-preference votes they got and seats they're winning?
As Brian O'Neil on Slugger O'Toole puts it, "It is also interesting that the far right swing did not materialise, proving once again that the internet is not real life."
This is a gross oversimplification on a number of counts and, seriously, drop your comfort blankets of nonsense. You dont have go out and vote for a party on the hard right to see it as a concern. Surveys tell you its more of political issue now than in some time.
If long term migrants or the next generation of long term migrants increase within the population, logic would dictate that some of them will get involved in electoral politics which means of course there are going to be more elected than 20 years ago when there were less long term migrants within the population. Its a reflection of the population not some massive rejection of a certain politics.
Secondly Brian O'Neill there is talking through his hat. How many parties that had a strong focus on curbing immigration existed in Ireland, contested elections 10 or 15 years ago and even registered on the tallies if they did? A lot less than now. They were never going to suddenly get 20% of the vote but they do exist and they have grown versus say 10 years ago.
Thirdly some of the larger parties have hardened their postion, at least rheorically regarding certain types of immigration. Fine Gael, the party of the Taoiseach, which is vaying for largest party status based on the election results, has done just that. Why? Because its a live issue. They have moved to meet the issue.
Fourth, its not a pure rightist issue. Aontu, an economically left wing and socially conservative on socal issues party has made immigration and greater control a central plank of its manifesto.
Almost double the amount of "candidates from migrant backgrounds have won seats in the local elections" compared to 5 years ago, not 20 years ago.
I take your other points but Brian O'Neil is essentially correct in that, despite all the fury and racism online, despite all the scare stories in the news and the physical violence against immigrant accommodation the anti-immigrant candidates did not make a significant breakthrough in these elections.
My first post since the 2005 GE, (when you could post without signing in). Not sure why anyone is describing this election as boring. While some or all of these probably will not happen, there are lots of possible outcomes that could have a huge impact on politics over the coming years - ELE for the Tories, Farage (finally) winning a seat in the Commons. Recovery of the Lib Dems after many years of pain. Huge Labour majority. The Greens winning a seat outside of Brighton. Big defeat for the SNP. None of these are inevitable, and some are far more likely than others. But all could shape British politics for the next decade.
Have you been reading posts on here since then? The site was only a year old at the time of the 2005 election I believe. Welcome back.
As Brian O'Neil on Slugger O'Toole puts it, "It is also interesting that the far right swing did not materialise, proving once again that the internet is not real life."
This is a gross oversimplification on a number of counts and, seriously, drop your comfort blankets of nonsense. You dont have go out and vote for a party on the hard right to see it as a concern. Surveys tell you its more of political issue now than in some time.
If long term migrants or the next generation of long term migrants increase within the population, logic would dictate that some of them will get involved in electoral politics which means of course there are going to be more elected than 20 years ago when there were less long term migrants within the population. Its a reflection of the population not some massive rejection of a certain politics.
Secondly Brian O'Neill there is talking through his hat. How many parties that had a strong focus on curbing immigration existed in Ireland, contested elections 10 or 15 years ago and even registered on the tallies if they did? A lot less than now. They were never going to suddenly get 20% of the vote but they do exist and they have grown versus say 10 years ago.
Thirdly some of the larger parties have hardened their postion, at least rheorically regarding certain types of immigration. Fine Gael, the party of the Taoiseach, which is vaying for largest party status based on the election results, has done just that. Why? Because its a live issue. They have moved to meet the issue.
Fourth, its not a pure rightist issue. Aontu, an economically left wing and socially conservative on socal issues party has made immigration and greater control a central plank of its manifesto.
Could you please name the "many parties" in Ireland that currently have a "strong focus" on curbing immigration" and contested 2024 local & Euro elections? Along with the number & percent of 1st-preference votes they got and seats they're winning?
Read it carefully, I didnt say 'many parties', I said 'how many parties' vs 10 years ago were putting a focus on immigration.
Aontu & Independent Ireland have put the immigration issue high up on their political agenda. If you pick your way through 100% Independents you will get some more. Aontu is about 3.8% first preferences, Independent Ireland harder to tally because a lot of the figures seem to lump them under Others or Independents. Who knows what it adds upto but I dont recall anywhere between 7-10% of the 1st preference vote going to parties or independents in Irish elections where controlling immigration was a notable plank of their manifesto.
And I point out again, one of the governing parties has been putting out a hardened stance in recent months on the issue, talking about the fact that 'local communities havent been heard' when it comes to immigrant/asylum seeker populations. Why is that? Because they know its an issue
The idea that 7-10% of a vote for minor parties majoring on immigration equals not a problem is fanciful or else the big parties would ignore it, which they havent and there is plenty of analysis suggesting Sinn Fein paid amongst a certain part of its supposed constituency for not taking a stronger stance. Just because such smaller parties didnt get a massive vote doesnt mean people dont have problems with elements of immigration in Ireland
Inheritance tax will not be cut or abolished in the Conservative Party election manifesto despite pressure from senior MPs, multiple Tory campaign insiders have told The Telegraph.
Tax cut for landlords, but no change to iHT. Are we sure the people advising Sunak aren't Labour plants. Nobody likes landlords and IHT ain't very popular either.
Although nominations have obviously closed, it would still be theoretically possible for Sunak and Farage to do a deal with each other's parties, by saying that particular candidates are no longer officially seeking votes for their parties, even though they remain on the ballot paper. No chance of it happening in reality.
Just to finish this immigration thing off re: elections in Ireland. According to the RTE article, it was estimated 17 or 18 candidates from migrant backgrounds would be elected, out of well over 900 local councillor positions, less than 2% of councillors. Population resident in Ireland not born in Ireland, c20%..., that doesnt include children of those who were born in Ireland
So migrant background population is massively under represented amongst elected officials even if you work on the assumption that quite a slice of that not born in Ireland category are maybe relatively short term residents of 10 years or less.
Notably, the greater success in absolute numbers may also come from the fact a greater proportion stood with a party badge than previously.
Its not exactly worth the massive trumpet is it? What its suggests is considerable under repesentation not some glorious change.
Although nominations have obviously closed, it would still be theoretically possible for Sunak and Farage to do a deal with each other's parties, by saying that particular candidates are no longer officially seeking votes for their parties, even though they remain on the ballot paper. No chance of it happening in reality.
And nor should it happen. Every party has its nutcases and dodgepots but Reform will have plenty of specialists in that field, it will come out over time and thats beyond the 1939 appeasement merchants and the Putin shills.
Inheritance tax will not be cut or abolished in the Conservative Party election manifesto despite pressure from senior MPs, multiple Tory campaign insiders have told The Telegraph.
Tax cut for landlords, but no change to iHT. Are we sure the people advising Sunak aren't Labour plants. Nobody likes landlords and IHT ain't very popular either.
Given the way the country has been governed, one ought not, on reflection, to expect the Tory manifesto to be anything but a clueless and incoherent mess either.
I am sure this has been done, but Reform's economic policy press conference is genuinely exciting (Tice's beginning part, not Nigel coming on and doing his politics, which is fine, but we've seen it all). Ending a £40bn PA bung to the city each year and ending the Banks QT programme costing further 10s of billions a year, are hugely radical policies, and should excite everyone here - especially those who claim to be socialists and for working people.
Even if it were true that there was a £40bn bung to the city (presumably in the form of a lender of last resort free of charge) it would be by far the most profitable and tax generating money the government spends by an order of magnitude. God knows, thing are not great now but if we managed to screw the profit, employment and tax generating centre that is the City we could have people genuinely starving in the streets.
They survived without the £40bn when the base rate was nearly zero, so I'm not sure how or why they're going to be starving on the street without it now.
If it's linked to the base rate, how can they use it to cut taxes?
I'm certain that every time I've taken out a mortgage, the adviser has been very clear that rates can go up and down. I'm sure Tice has been told the same?
They are suggesting ending the interest payments from HMG so there would be no future impact of the base rate rising or falling. It is costing £40bn pa now, so ending it would make a very big difference to the public accounts at a time when the Government is extremely hard pressed to meet its commitments and get the economy growing.
Perhaps you could answer why the Bank is so keen to pay this interest, when the whole purpose of its elevation of the base rate is to remove money from the economy to reduce demand. How does paying £40bn into Banks reduce demand and cool the economy down? Or is demand reduction just meant to mean poor people buying less bags of crisps in Tesco?
Perhaps you would like to explain what the net number is to HMG, as the Bank of England currently pays its profits out as dividends to... errr... HMG.
It is a branch of HMG, so who else would it be paying them to? Every other department is accountable (vaguely) for the money it spends (or indeed makes). The Bank is able to chart its own course without the encumbrance of public accountability, whether they're recklessly printing £800bn or recklessly selling UK bonds at a loss and getting the taxpayer to foot the £150bn shortfall. BOE independence was meant to improve the stability of the Banks policy-making - can anyone say that that's been successful?
So you understand, then, that the interest payments are paid to themselves, and there is no free money, right?
The argument is that they can cut interest payments to commercial banks.
Yes, there are definitely savings there to be had, but I'd be staggered if it's more than £2-3bn/year.
This seems remarkably easy based on that article, which means its feels suspect
The article makes a number of factual errors, including confusing commercial banks reserves with the BOE's reserves.
Commercial banks are required to deposit a small portion of their capital with the BOE.
But the amount they deposit there, rather than in short term government bonds, is largely at the discretion of bank management.
If they no longer earned interest on those reserves, the first thing they would do is keep less capital there! It's not complicated. Commercial banks are profit seeking organizations. So, the idea you could just stop paying interest on deposits and there would be no impact on got level of deposits is just bonkers.
The amount of money which government might save is probably, at most, what the EU manages. (Note the £55bn headline figure is the maximum - and highly unlikely scenario - over a full parliament).
...A 1% reserve requirement, equal to the policy implemented at the European Central Bank would save the government £1.3bn a year. A 2.5% reserve requirement would save the government £3.3bn a year, enough to fund a mass insulation programme for 7m homes over five years. Such reserve requirements are common place in Switzerland. A 5% reserve requirement would save the government £6.6bn a year, enough to fund repairs for crumbling schools and hospitals over the next five years. Such reserve requirements are lower than those used by China this summer. A 10% reserve requirement would save the government £11.5bn a year, enough to implement all the above policies. Such reserve requirements would be lower than in the UK in the 1970s...
The authors don't seem to have asked themselves why Switzerland might be able to attract capital at a lower cost than the UK; what is different about China's political economy from that of the UK; and the massive difference between UK banking in the 1970s (anyone, for example recall exchange controls ?) and now.
The bottom line is that we run large fiscal and trade deficits. We have to finance that through borrowing, and making it less attractive to place capital in the UK would make that more difficult.
It's possible we might be able to shave the odd billion at the margin. But there is no special free lunch for the UK.
The only way we sort our finances, is the hard way. (Though smart pro growth policies might make it a little less hard in the medium term.)
My first post since the 2005 GE, (when you could post without signing in). Not sure why anyone is describing this election as boring. While some or all of these probably will not happen, there are lots of possible outcomes that could have a huge impact on politics over the coming years - ELE for the Tories, Farage (finally) winning a seat in the Commons. Recovery of the Lib Dems after many years of pain. Huge Labour majority. The Greens winning a seat outside of Brighton. Big defeat for the SNP. None of these are inevitable, and some are far more likely than others. But all could shape British politics for the next decade.
Certainly the most exciting election I can remember, although for all the wrong reasons if you’re a Conservative supporter.
Backed Conservatives down to 1.4 in Richmond and Northallerton. It remains backable there, £50 keeps appearing.
My general betting - and masturbatory - position is "Tory wipeout" so this is in some ways a hedge, but I think it's value by itself as well. Equates to 53 Tory Seats on Electoral Calculus for the PM to lose. Plenty of independents and binface etc to split the anti-Sunak vote. And if he loses I'll be overjoyed and not care about the £100 lost anyway which would be overtaken by other gains.
Of course the risk here is Sunak pulls out but that would be megalolz.
I am also continuing to lay Corbyn and of the opinion he's a great lay down at below 1.5 area as he is - indeed I still think he should be trading above evens. But I'm not in Islington. I base this solely on intuition and welcome input, especially from the guy whose screename I've forgotten beginning with A who responded previously.
Corbyn was not odds-on according to your linked article, which was published at 2am the morning after the election, so punters were responding to the exit poll and perhaps early results. It gives Corbyn 2.48 and May 2.58 (implying a combined 80 per cent probability one of the two will be Prime Minister) but suggests May is no longer favourite only because punters are also backing other Conservatives, such as Boris, in the expectation Theresa May would step down. There is a remote chance the reporter meant both Corbyn and May were odds-on at 1.48 and 1.58 respectively but that seems unlikely in an active market.
FWIW, while it's far from perfect, Apple still seems to be just about the only big tech company that still takes its customers' data privacy semi-seriously.
So Apple has introduced a new system called “Private Cloud Compute” that allows your phone to offload complex (typically AI) tasks to specialized secure devices in the cloud. I’m still trying to work out what I think about this. So here’s a thread. 1/ https://x.com/matthew_d_green/status/1800291897245835616
It's worth noting what does not seem to have happened in Islington North:
1. The local Labour party has not collapsed and remains largely intact.
2. There has been no flood of pro-Corbyn volunteers descending on the constituency to help his campaign.
What that probably means is that he does not have the level of organisation and manpower that the Labour candidate has at his disposal. What he does have, of course, is name recognition. But I wonder how many people in Islington North actually realise he is no longer in the Labour party. When they look at the ballot paper will they search for his name or the Labour one?
I have a good friend who lives in his seat, and she doesn’t reckon he will win. Yes, he is a diligent constituency MP who has helped a lot of people, but then his seat has a lot of transient population and also the type of person who needs an MP’s help is often an unreliable voter. She reckons the middle class Labour folk in Islington, of whom there are many at the southern end of his seat, are focused on getting rid of the Tories and won’t entertain Corbyn’s little diversion. Remember, the SDP did very well in Islington, even back then (it’s gone much more upmarket since).
It is ridiculous that we are not even halfway through the general election campaign. Six weeks is far too long.
Are you not entertained....
On one level absolutely. On another level I am beyond bored. We have another 23 days of this and it's like watching paint dry. And I am actually interested in all this. What must normal people think about it all?
I’m entertained by the wheels falling off the Tory wagon (it’s been a long time coming and, a few notable exceptions aside, it couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch). But the coverage is woeful, and the debates have been absolute bilge. 3 weeks of campaigning before manifestos drop is also far too long.
Should be 4 week long campaigns, tops.
Imagine being American.
Or French. Their system with two rounds of voting for both the parliament and the president means they effectively have four national elections per cycle.
Incidentally, this is the growth in the number of seats for Le Pen's party:
2007: 0 (Last election with Jean-Marie as leader) 2012: 2 2017: 8 2022: 89
The two rounds is of course the explanation for Macron’s gamble, which has a lot of people puzzled. Macron is banking on LP’s strong performance having given moderates, from left to right, enough of a scare that they will come together to back the non-extremist candidate in the second round, and therefore quickly he can stop the momentum that the far right could otherwise keep through to the next presidential.
Labour has dropped a plan to reintroduce a cap on how much people are allowed to save into their pensions before paying tax.
Under the pensions lifetime allowance, pension pots over £1.07m faced an annual tax of £40,000 on average.
The cap was scrapped in April but Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves had vowed to bring it back, saying it could raise £800m a year.
However, her party has now reversed the decision ahead of the release of its manifesto on Thursday, reportedly because the cap would add uncertainty for savers and be complex to reintroduce.
I am sure this has been done, but Reform's economic policy press conference is genuinely exciting (Tice's beginning part, not Nigel coming on and doing his politics, which is fine, but we've seen it all). Ending a £40bn PA bung to the city each year and ending the Banks QT programme costing further 10s of billions a year, are hugely radical policies, and should excite everyone here - especially those who claim to be socialists and for working people.
The only so-called “socialists” who would get excited by Reform are those who stick “National” in front of their name. You can’t take Reform policies a la carte.
It's worth noting what does not seem to have happened in Islington North:
1. The local Labour party has not collapsed and remains largely intact.
2. There has been no flood of pro-Corbyn volunteers descending on the constituency to help his campaign.
What that probably means is that he does not have the level of organisation and manpower that the Labour candidate has at his disposal. What he does have, of course, is name recognition. But I wonder how many people in Islington North actually realise he is no longer in the Labour party. When they look at the ballot paper will they search for his name or the Labour one?
I have a good friend who lives in his seat, and she doesn’t reckon he will win. Yes, he is a diligent constituency MP who has helped a lot of people, but then his seat has a lot of transient population and also the type of person who needs an MP’s help is often an unreliable voter. She reckons the middle class Labour folk in Islington, of whom there are many at the southern end of his seat, are focused on getting rid of the Tories and won’t entertain Corbyn’s little diversion. Remember, the SDP did very well in Islington, even back then (it’s gone much more upmarket since).
Name recognition of candidates at General Elections - when the government is at stake - is almost always massively overblown. No matter who big you are, and it's hubristic to suggest anything otherwise. Margaret Thatcher would have been beaten by the official Conservative candidate in 1992. And so would Churchill in 1951.
I think Corbyn will be soundly beaten by the official Labour candidate, and it won't even be close.
Comments
1. The local Labour party has not collapsed and remains largely intact.
2. There has been no flood of pro-Corbyn volunteers descending on the constituency to help his campaign.
What that probably means is that he does not have the level of organisation and manpower that the Labour candidate has at his disposal. What he does have, of course, is name recognition. But I wonder how many people in Islington North actually realise he is no longer in the Labour party. When they look at the ballot paper will they search for his name or the Labour one?
I make no secret of my seat. It's Bootle. 100%-100% (total votes minus Labour share) means there isn't enough to get to 5%.
Perhaps you could answer why the Bank is so keen to pay this interest, when the whole purpose of its elevation of the base rate is to remove money from the economy to reduce demand. How does paying £40bn into Banks reduce demand and cool the economy down? Or is demand reduction just meant to mean poor people buying less bags of crisps in Tesco?
A fair question - and OBR has published the answer. Taxes will rise £175bn to £1,191 in 2028/29. So £3,019 'per working household' over 4yrs.
https://x.com/FraserNelson/status/1800175436392984640
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC2pgcagyRk
Corbyn was odds-on to be UK PM in June 2017.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-prime-minister-labour-results-election-latest-betfair-exchange-odds-a7780431.html
On written constitutions, I worry about them fixing in time political principles and policies that limit future government's from changing direction. An extreme example, but the US 2nd amendment on arms worries me about how decisions made well over a century can be limited when the world around them is fundamentally different (hear weapons tech).
So, my views are also grounded in my analysis of the greater good, even if my original post did not capture that very well.
Nethertheless, the Merseyside councils must love GE. Loads of candidates and only 2 or 3 per seat need their deposits back.
Bet365 haven't updated following closre of nominations, no chance yet to back Vaz in Leicester East.
Your observation doesn't surprise me.
FG: 20.8% (-8.8)
FF: 20.4% (+3.8)
SF: 11.1% (-0.6)
INDIRL: 6.2% (new)
GP: 5.4% (-6.0)
I4C: 4.6% (-2.8)
AON: 3.8% (new)
LAB: 3.4% (+0.3)
https://x.com/Ireland_Votes/status/1800286567673512119
President elected, then sworn in the January after? Well, it's only then eighteen months to the mid-terms so it all starts again!
40% of the vote and 40% of the MP's?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_South_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
I am the mastermind behind this stellar campaign which has so far achieved every single one of my objectives.
Hire me.
Bootle has given Labour between 75% and 85% of the votes in the last few elections. The weakest performance was a mere 66% in 2010.
Opposition in Bootle tends (strangely) to the Conservatives recently, it used to be the Lib Dems in 2010 and earlier.
I do look at my seat this time and expect Labour will do very well. The Conservative candidate is a paper candidate from London, and the Lib Dems are making no effort at all.
Reform and the Workers party may make a showing, but I could also see them doing badly too.
I guess someone else will clear the 5%, but I wouldn't know who (probably Reform) but I'd be surprised if anyone other than Labour and one other save their deposit here........
But you’re right, I am not sure.
More attention will be turning to the Euros starting Friday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uxbridge_and_South_Ruislip_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2020s
Of course I cannot guarantee how many of said itinerant voters will vote but the odds don't make sense to me at all.
Instinctively I'm much happier laying below 1.5 in Islington than I am backing 1.4 in Richmond ofc....
Incidentally, this is the growth in the number of seats for Le Pen's party:
2007: 0 (Last election with Jean-Marie as leader)
2012: 2
2017: 8
2022: 89
Never heard of Rabharta party before. One downside of PR is the plethora of parties.
I dunno. But I'd be certainly considering it just in case?
https://neweconomics.org/2023/11/government-could-save-55bn-over-next-five-years-by-limiting-bank-of-englands-interest-payments-to-commercial-banks
I assume the point you're making about the base rate is that, once no interest is paid, then the rate makes no difference. 5% of nothing, being nothing. That does make some sense.
However it doesn't account for it being an additional cost, that is already having an impact on spending elsewhere. Converting it into tax cuts, when it's at its highest level, commits that additional cost permanently, even though it would likely have come down later this year.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies have also challenged it today, and said it won't raise anything like £40b, and they also argue that the 'savings' fluctuate due to the base rate, as do plenty of other economists.
Overall I suspect a lot of people down there are happy with their lot at the moment
Some of the working class part of its base has had concerns about immigration and SF has found it itself caught out by its position
Mary Lou MCDonald has failed to set out consistent positions and has shifted round a bit too much
The nature of the elections, its plausible that they will do much better in a GE. If their GE results were within 2-3% points of the above May Lou McDonald would be out on her arse and I havent seen anyone suggesting they would be that low at a GE
Secondly SFs power base is still in Northern Ireland and the border counties and it remains in decent shape there so its not complete doom.
Commercial banks are required to deposit a small portion of their capital with the BOE.
But the amount they deposit there, rather than in short term government bonds, is largely at the discretion of bank management.
If they no longer earned interest on those reserves, the first thing they would do is keep less capital there! It's not complicated. Commercial banks are profit seeking organizations. So, the idea you could just stop paying interest on deposits and there would be no impact on got level of deposits is just bonkers.
Looks like counting has been suspended until tomorrow, when first order of business will be distribution of a SFer's (accumulated) votes, of which goodly % will go to the top SF hopeful.
FF and FG both good bets to win a seat each. As for the other 3, will depend on transfer patterns AND order of elimination.
ADDENDUM - my guess is that SF will also win one seat, plus one or perhaps two left candidates, if only one then one seat will go to Independent conservative (sorta) shock jock.
RTE - Record number of migrant candidates elected to councils
https://www.rte.ie/news/elections-2024/2024/0610/1454057-migrant-councillors/
But the bonds would exist irrespective, because they are created by the government spending more then they bring in in taxation.
All that changes is who owns them.
American cities also often have their own policies, and ordinances.
As often do the Indian tribes. Which can lead to difficult jurisdictional questions. For example, this one from Tony Hillerman's "Dance Hall of the Dead", describing a problem Navajo detective Joe Leaphorn sees no way to solve:
'An old Singer had complained that he had given a neighbor woman eight hundred dollars to take into Gallup and make a down payment on a pickup truck, and the woman had spent his money. Some of the facts had been easy enough to establish. The woman had retrieved almost eight hudred dollars of her pawn on the day in question and she hadn't given any money to the car lot owner. So it should have been simple, but it wasn't. The woman said the Singer owed her the money, and that the Singer was a witch, a Navajo Wolf. And then there was the question of which side of the boundary fence they'd been standing on when the money changed hands. If she was standing where she said she had been, they were on Navajo reservation land and under tribal-federal jurisdiction. But if they stood where the Singer claimed, they were over on nonreservation allocation land and the case would probably be tried under the New Mexico embezzlement law.' (pp. 8-9)
(In the Hillerman Navajo detective novels, the FBI has jurisdiction over more serious offenses on the reservations, the DEA handles drug problems, the Border Patrol tries to protect the border, and the tribal police have the rest, with each tribe having its own force. In that novel, all of them get involved, except the Border Patrol. And, of course, the state police have a small part to play, too.)
As Brian O'Neil on Slugger O'Toole puts it, "It is also interesting that the far right swing did not materialise, proving once again that the internet is not real life."
https://sluggerotoole.com/2024/06/10/a-resurgent-fine-gael-and-fianna-fail-stop-the-sinn-fein-advance/
Lab majority 300
Lab 475
Con 75
LD 61
SNP 16
PC 3
Grn 2
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html
You dont have go out and vote for a party on the hard right to see it as a concern. Surveys tell you its more of political issue now than in some time.
If long term migrants or the next generation of long term migrants increase within the population, logic would dictate that some of them will get involved in electoral politics which means of course there are going to be more elected than 20 years ago when there were less long term migrants within the population. Its a reflection of the population not some massive rejection of a certain politics.
Secondly Brian O'Neill there is talking through his hat. How many parties that had a strong focus on curbing immigration existed in Ireland, contested elections 10 or 15 years ago and even registered on the tallies if they did? A lot less than now. They were never going to suddenly get 20% of the vote but they do exist and they have grown versus say 10 years ago.
Thirdly some of the larger parties have hardened their postion, at least rheorically regarding certain types of immigration. Fine Gael, the party of the Taoiseach, which is vaying for largest party status based on the election results, has done just that. Why? Because its a live issue. They have moved to meet the issue.
Fourth, its not a pure rightist issue. Aontu, an economically left wing and socially conservative on socal issues party has made immigration and greater control a central plank of its manifesto.
A laundry list of motherhood and apple pies, designed to appeal to middle-aged Karens.
The constitutional stuff is badly thought out. You’d have hoped they’d learned a lesson after the AV debacle.
Yet, I will still vote for them.
I take your other points but Brian O'Neil is essentially correct in that, despite all the fury and racism online, despite all the scare stories in the news and the physical violence against immigrant accommodation the anti-immigrant candidates did not make a significant breakthrough in these elections.
Aontu & Independent Ireland have put the immigration issue high up on their political agenda. If you pick your way through 100% Independents you will get some more. Aontu is about 3.8% first preferences, Independent Ireland harder to tally because a lot of the figures seem to lump them under Others or Independents. Who knows what it adds upto but I dont recall anywhere between 7-10% of the 1st preference vote going to parties or independents in Irish elections where controlling immigration was a notable plank of their manifesto.
And I point out again, one of the governing parties has been putting out a hardened stance in recent months on the issue, talking about the fact that 'local communities havent been heard' when it comes to immigrant/asylum seeker populations. Why is that? Because they know its an issue
The idea that 7-10% of a vote for minor parties majoring on immigration equals not a problem is fanciful or else the big parties would ignore it, which they havent and there is plenty of analysis suggesting Sinn Fein paid amongst a certain part of its supposed constituency for not taking a stronger stance. Just because such smaller parties didnt get a massive vote doesnt mean people dont have problems with elements of immigration in Ireland
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/10/tory-manifesto-not-have-inheritance-tax-cut-jeremy-hunt/
Tax cut for landlords, but no change to iHT. Are we sure the people advising Sunak aren't Labour plants. Nobody likes landlords and IHT ain't very popular either.
So migrant background population is massively under represented amongst elected officials even if you work on the assumption that quite a slice of that not born in Ireland category are maybe relatively short term residents of 10 years or less.
Notably, the greater success in absolute numbers may also come from the fact a greater proportion stood with a party badge than previously.
Its not exactly worth the massive trumpet is it? What its suggests is considerable under repesentation not some glorious change.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxx91d9eppo
Given the BBC way of reporting, I think we can make some guesses here. If it kicks off again like last year, I can't see that being good for Macron.
Times Radio"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRn68iid0_o
...A 1% reserve requirement, equal to the policy implemented at the European Central Bank would save the government £1.3bn a year.
A 2.5% reserve requirement would save the government £3.3bn a year, enough to fund a mass insulation programme for 7m homes over five years. Such reserve requirements are common place in Switzerland.
A 5% reserve requirement would save the government £6.6bn a year, enough to fund repairs for crumbling schools and hospitals over the next five years. Such reserve requirements are lower than those used by China this summer.
A 10% reserve requirement would save the government £11.5bn a year, enough to implement all the above policies. Such reserve requirements would be lower than in the UK in the 1970s...
The authors don't seem to have asked themselves why Switzerland might be able to attract capital at a lower cost than the UK; what is different about China's political economy from that of the UK; and the massive difference between UK banking in the 1970s (anyone, for example recall exchange controls ?) and now.
The bottom line is that we run large fiscal and trade deficits. We have to finance that through borrowing, and making it less attractive to place capital in the UK would make that more difficult.
It's possible we might be able to shave the odd billion at the margin.
But there is no special free lunch for the UK.
The only way we sort our finances, is the hard way. (Though smart pro growth policies might make it a little less hard in the medium term.)
On that basis, you go with the syphilis.
FWIW, while it's far from perfect, Apple still seems to be just about the only big tech company that still takes its customers' data privacy semi-seriously.
So Apple has introduced a new system called “Private Cloud Compute” that allows your phone to offload complex (typically AI) tasks to specialized secure devices in the cloud. I’m still trying to work out what I think about this. So here’s a thread. 1/
https://x.com/matthew_d_green/status/1800291897245835616
Meanwhile, it’s worth using up my photo allowance for this gem from today’s Daily Telegraph. They really don’t like him very much, do they?!
Rightwing Tories plan ‘rebel manifesto’ if Sunak’s policy launch falls flat
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/10/tory-right-plans-to-present-sunak-with-set-of-demands-if-manifesto-falls-flat
I think Corbyn will be soundly beaten by the official Labour candidate, and it won't even be close.