"One thing largely unnoticed in Labour’s manifesto: it will give public bodies a legal duty to reduce inequality (by enacting the socio-economic duty in the 2010 Equality Act for the first time). The socio-economic duty would have posed a significant legal obstacle to austerity (one reason the Conservatives never enacted it)."
'Only' a 16 point lead - one assumes therefore an equally high number of very narrow Labour wins here, the lead is 2 points less than the YouGov MRP giving 140 seats to the Tories........
'Only' a 16 point lead - one assumes therefore an equally high number of very narrow Labour wins here, the lead is 2 points less than the YouGov MRP giving 140 seats to the Tories........
I suspect the Tory vote is hugely inefficient. Losing marginals but piling up votes in the few remaining strongholds.
"One thing largely unnoticed in Labour’s manifesto: it will give public bodies a legal duty to reduce inequality (by enacting the socio-economic duty in the 2010 Equality Act for the first time). The socio-economic duty would have posed a significant legal obstacle to austerity (one reason the Conservatives never enacted it)."
Without me looking it up (I will later if necessary), can anyone concisely explain how this different from the Public Sector Equality Duty? PSED is proactive.
It feels like the slight fluctuations in Labour's polling numbers matter little in England, but hugely in Scotland. Those cheering for a downtick in Labour's fortunes are (probably unwittingly) cheering the SNP on to a majority of Scottish seats.
FWIW I think the SNP will not achieve that seat total, but it remains possible.
Then again. If the Tory government seems certain to be ousted, then there's less incentive for folk to desert the SNP.
'Only' a 16 point lead - one assumes therefore an equally high number of very narrow Labour wins here, the lead is 2 points less than the YouGov MRP giving 140 seats to the Tories........
I suspect the Tory vote is hugely inefficient. Losing marginals but piling up votes in the few remaining strongholds.
That assumption is being modelled here, yes, definitely
"One thing largely unnoticed in Labour’s manifesto: it will give public bodies a legal duty to reduce inequality (by enacting the socio-economic duty in the 2010 Equality Act for the first time). The socio-economic duty would have posed a significant legal obstacle to austerity (one reason the Conservatives never enacted it)."
Which means they will likely face a huge economic crises before their first term is out (along the lines of having to raise interest rates significantly to shift gilts and shore up the £). The government is already spending more on interest than defence and education combined).
"One thing largely unnoticed in Labour’s manifesto: it will give public bodies a legal duty to reduce inequality (by enacting the socio-economic duty in the 2010 Equality Act for the first time). The socio-economic duty would have posed a significant legal obstacle to austerity (one reason the Conservatives never enacted it)."
Which means they will likely face a huge economic crises before their first term is out (along the lines of having to raise interest rates significantly to shift gilts and shore up the £). The government is already spending more on interest than defence and education combined).
The worry is you also open the flood gates to the Birmingham style legal challenges (which is what bust it).
Its looking about as good for England in the cricket as the Tories in the GE.
Apparently we can get on the pitch as late as 2146 BST - so plenty of time. The BBC forecaster chap reckons it should clear up later.
5 over game a side is a proper lottery.
True but I’d back us in that scenario. TBH I’d take that now if you offered me if. Seriously worried we are going to left rained out here, and let the Scots through in the bargain. When did we last best them in any major sport? Seems like they have the wood over us.
It feels like the slight fluctuations in Labour's polling numbers matter little in England, but hugely in Scotland. Those cheering for a downtick in Labour's fortunes are (probably unwittingly) cheering the SNP on to a majority of Scottish seats.
FWIW I think the SNP will not achieve that seat total, but it remains possible.
Then again. If the Tory government seems certain to be ousted, then there's less incentive for folk to desert the SNP.
There was a council by-election in West Dunbartonshire a couple of days ago (Clydebank Central), where SLAB got 49.6% of the vote compared to the SNP's 38.9%. Two years previously the SNP had won said seat by a double digit margin. That MRP projection for the SNP is bullshit.
"One thing largely unnoticed in Labour’s manifesto: it will give public bodies a legal duty to reduce inequality (by enacting the socio-economic duty in the 2010 Equality Act for the first time). The socio-economic duty would have posed a significant legal obstacle to austerity (one reason the Conservatives never enacted it)."
Which means they will likely face a huge economic crises before their first term is out (along the lines of having to raise interest rates significantly to shift gilts and shore up the £). The government is already spending more on interest than defence and education combined).
The worst thing won’t be councils going bust.
It would be trying to hand legislation to the courts - something the courts have resisted.
Politicians will become very interested in controlling who is on the Supreme Court.
"One thing largely unnoticed in Labour’s manifesto: it will give public bodies a legal duty to reduce inequality (by enacting the socio-economic duty in the 2010 Equality Act for the first time). The socio-economic duty would have posed a significant legal obstacle to austerity (one reason the Conservatives never enacted it)."
Which means they will likely face a huge economic crises before their first term is out (along the lines of having to raise interest rates significantly to shift gilts and shore up the £). The government is already spending more on interest than defence and education combined).
Really?
You think that provision is going to cause "a huge economic crises"?
I think it's a stupid idea to have public sector bodies focused on anything other than value for money. But the idea that this - rather than say, the inability of the UK to pay its way in the world - is going to cause a huge economic "crises" it's patently absurd.
Reform still 8 points behind the Tories . I’m surprised Labour have gone up after other recent polls.
Soon see if its a trend or noise I guess, but it's a big score compared to others for sure. Tories in the mud in this one, savanta have swung all the way from a 14 point to 25 point lead in 10 days.........
"One thing largely unnoticed in Labour’s manifesto: it will give public bodies a legal duty to reduce inequality (by enacting the socio-economic duty in the 2010 Equality Act for the first time). The socio-economic duty would have posed a significant legal obstacle to austerity (one reason the Conservatives never enacted it)."
Which means they will likely face a huge economic crises before their first term is out (along the lines of having to raise interest rates significantly to shift gilts and shore up the £). The government is already spending more on interest than defence and education combined).
The worry is you also open the flood gates to the Birmingham style legal challenges (which is what bust it).
Yes, it’s a terrible idea, and it would likely sink Labour. That’s a ticking timebomb. People may tolerate jacking up taxes to preserve services. They won’t tolerate local authorities jacking up taxes to reduce inequality.
There seems to be a bit of an air of f##k business / rich people creeping in. Haven't we already had enough of that over the past 5 years?
Tsk. Tax the rich, not fuck the rich. Maximising tax should be the aim. Better for rich people to pay than poor people and there are big bills to cover.
If some people go into tax exile you have probably set the rates correctly for maximum revenue. If everyone does, you need to think again.
Perhaps we should ask why some in our wealthy country are so reliant upon the money of others?
It's a good question. Largely they aren't. It is surprisingly difficult to get data on all tax versus all benefit across the income groups. This data from ten years ago probably hasn't changed much in the meantime. The richest 10% do pay a bit more than their share but not vastly more.
"One thing largely unnoticed in Labour’s manifesto: it will give public bodies a legal duty to reduce inequality (by enacting the socio-economic duty in the 2010 Equality Act for the first time). The socio-economic duty would have posed a significant legal obstacle to austerity (one reason the Conservatives never enacted it)."
Which means they will likely face a huge economic crises before their first term is out (along the lines of having to raise interest rates significantly to shift gilts and shore up the £). The government is already spending more on interest than defence and education combined).
The worry is you also open the flood gates to the Birmingham style legal challenges (which is what bust it).
Yes, it’s a terrible idea, and it would likely sink Labour. That’s a ticking timebomb. People may tolerate jacking up taxes to preserve services. They won’t tolerate local authorities jacking up taxes to reduce inequality.
"One thing largely unnoticed in Labour’s manifesto: it will give public bodies a legal duty to reduce inequality (by enacting the socio-economic duty in the 2010 Equality Act for the first time). The socio-economic duty would have posed a significant legal obstacle to austerity (one reason the Conservatives never enacted it)."
Which means they will likely face a huge economic crises before their first term is out (along the lines of having to raise interest rates significantly to shift gilts and shore up the £). The government is already spending more on interest than defence and education combined).
Really?
You think that provision is going to cause "a huge economic crises"?
I think it's a stupid idea to have public sector bodies focused on anything other than value for money. But the idea that this - rather than say, the inability of the UK to pay its way in the world - is going to cause a huge economic "crises" it's patently absurd.
The question is - how many Birminghams would it create?
"One thing largely unnoticed in Labour’s manifesto: it will give public bodies a legal duty to reduce inequality (by enacting the socio-economic duty in the 2010 Equality Act for the first time). The socio-economic duty would have posed a significant legal obstacle to austerity (one reason the Conservatives never enacted it)."
Which means they will likely face a huge economic crises before their first term is out (along the lines of having to raise interest rates significantly to shift gilts and shore up the £). The government is already spending more on interest than defence and education combined).
The worry is you also open the flood gates to the Birmingham style legal challenges (which is what bust it).
Yes, it’s a terrible idea, and it would likely sink Labour. That’s a ticking timebomb. People may tolerate jacking up taxes to preserve services. They won’t tolerate local authorities jacking up taxes to reduce inequality.
And, they'll probably do it anyway.
Wokery is encoded into their core DNA. And, it's going to prove deeply unpopular.
"One thing largely unnoticed in Labour’s manifesto: it will give public bodies a legal duty to reduce inequality (by enacting the socio-economic duty in the 2010 Equality Act for the first time). The socio-economic duty would have posed a significant legal obstacle to austerity (one reason the Conservatives never enacted it)."
Which means they will likely face a huge economic crises before their first term is out (along the lines of having to raise interest rates significantly to shift gilts and shore up the £). The government is already spending more on interest than defence and education combined).
TBH I don't think I see a huge impact. It is a duty to "consider", not to implement, and it doesn't look retrospective.
Though I would probably try and use it to try and lever a policy to consider pedestrians better onto my Local Highways Authority.
Have to agree with you - SNP and Reform are a buy, Tories a sell.
I wouldn't sell the Tories at 108.
Me neither.
I might buy Reform because of asymmetrical risk reward, but that's about it.
I agree, selling at 108 is high risk, but all the evidence is suggesting they will come in lower than that. Betfair is probably more the more accurate predictor, and that is suggesting 80/90 seats.
"One thing largely unnoticed in Labour’s manifesto: it will give public bodies a legal duty to reduce inequality (by enacting the socio-economic duty in the 2010 Equality Act for the first time). The socio-economic duty would have posed a significant legal obstacle to austerity (one reason the Conservatives never enacted it)."
Which means they will likely face a huge economic crises before their first term is out (along the lines of having to raise interest rates significantly to shift gilts and shore up the £). The government is already spending more on interest than defence and education combined).
I said on here yesterday that SKS could be a one-term PM, and got pilloried for it.
I must say, I'm looking forward to being hailed as a great prophet if (when) it happens.
Ordinarily the right wing media would come to the Tories aid by laying into the party that’s causing it huge problems . But many of those outlets seem quite happy with Reform .
Ordinarily the right wing media would come to the Tories aid by laying into the party that’s causing it huge problems . But many of those outlets seem quite happy with Reform .
The Mail and Telegraph have been putting the boot in, but not as comprehensively as previously.
Which was the election where Hitchens the right was taken off air by the Mail for several weeks during his Conservative Delenda Est phase?
I expect Nige will be very disappionted, because some of these will include fieldwork after the Yougov by now, I expect. Where is the snowball factor of people apparently wanting to jump on the bandwagon, that you might have expected ? If it's not in evidence this weekend, I doubt it will suddenly arrive later on.
FWIW I don't give Survation MRP equal weight with YouGov. Too many rather unlikely results. However, this result is very consistent with their previous one
The SNP score is particularly disappointing for me and I find it hard to relate to what I am seeing on the ground in Scotland. The SNP are almost invisible because they have no money. We have had 1 leaflet from the SNP and 6 from the Tories (neither Labour nor the Lib Dems are wasting their time in this constituency, I am not even sure Reform are standing). This is in an SNP seat.
Will that make a difference, other than to the recycling bins? Who knows, but it is a long time since the SNP have had so little impact in a major election. I will be gutted if they pick up 37 seats, gutted.
FWIW I don't give Survation MRP equal weight with YouGov. Too many rather unlikely results. However, this result is very consistent with their previous one
I expect Nige will be very disappionted, because some of these wil be fieldwork after the Yougov by now, I expect. Where is the snowball factor of people apparently keen to jump on the bandwagon, that you might have expected ? If it's not in evidence this weekend, I doubt it will suddenly arrive later on.
I would like to see the raw figures.
New entries on the block like Reform are tricky to weight.
My gut feel is SNP will do a bit better than expectations. John Swinney has probably done just enough to steady the boat and on the basis nothing further will come out about party finances between now and July 4.
FWIW I don't give Survation MRP equal weight with YouGov. Too many rather unlikely results. However, this result is very consistent with their previous one
You think a 2.200 sample yougov survey beats a 30.000 sample Survation sample in reliability??? 🤔🤔🤔 interesting.
The SNP score is particularly disappointing for me and I find it hard to relate to what I am seeing on the ground in Scotland. The SNP are almost invisible because they have no money. We have had 1 leaflet from the SNP and 6 from the Tories (neither Labour nor the Lib Dems are wasting their time in this constituency, I am not even sure Reform are standing). This is in an SNP seat.
Will that make a difference, other than to the recycling bins? Who knows, but it is a long time since the SNP have had so little impact in a major election. I will be gutted if they pick up 37 seats, gutted.
You find it hard to relate to what you're seeing ground because it isn't going to happen. The SNP would have won more preferences in Clydebank Central a couple of days back if they were on course to win 37 seats. Needless to say, that didn't happen. John Curtice doesn't seem to think the SNP are going to do particularly well, either. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvBXPKl8NUI
Lab ~ 34% (nc) SNP ~ 30% (+1) Con ~ 14% (-2) LD ~ 9% (+1) RUK ~ 7% (+1) Grn ~ 4% (nc) Alba ~ 2% (-1)
According to Sir John Curtice’s analysis, this would see Labour return 28 MPs in Scotland, up from the current two, while the SNP would win 18 seats, compared with its 48 in 2019. The Lib Dems would increase their Scottish contingent of MPs from four to five.
"One thing largely unnoticed in Labour’s manifesto: it will give public bodies a legal duty to reduce inequality (by enacting the socio-economic duty in the 2010 Equality Act for the first time). The socio-economic duty would have posed a significant legal obstacle to austerity (one reason the Conservatives never enacted it)."
Which means they will likely face a huge economic crises before their first term is out (along the lines of having to raise interest rates significantly to shift gilts and shore up the £). The government is already spending more on interest than defence and education combined).
I said on here yesterday that SKS could be a one-term PM, and got pilloried for it.
I must say, I'm looking forward to being hailed as a great prophet if (when) it happens.
And I said that this is because rather than face the reality of the present you are creating an illusory future. It’s classic flight reaction.
The longer it goes without a reform/con crossover poll the more Farage will look like a hubristic bellend on the back of that one poll the other day. Looking forward to a journalist asking him about the 4000 polls putting reform behind the Tories and if he still thinks they are the opposition.
That may be an outlier but it could be that the media attention around the various manifesto launches is now coming out of the system and we return to how we were, roughly, ten days ago?
Comments
My photo for the day.
Hardwick Hall, "More Glass than Wall". My local large National Trust property, which you see from the M1 between Junctions 28 and 29.
An Elizabethan "progidy house", designed by an architect called ... drumroll ... Robert Smythson, who also did Longleat and Wollaton Hall.
Thanks x
https://x.com/georgeeaton/status/1801968518243439000
Ashfield
Clacton
Exmouth & Exeter East
Great Yarmouth
Mid Leicestershire
North West Norfolk
South Suffolk
Have to agree with you - SNP and Reform are a buy, Tories a sell.
I am looking at Lincolnshire, Essex, and East Anglia.
Not the Red Wall.
Edit. See it's there. And I'm pretty much right.
https://x.com/Savanta_UK/status/1802030811421564970
And isn't the Exmouth one a function of the Claire (?) Wright vote?
She isn't standing. And her voters certainly aren't Faragists.
@Telegraph
📈25pt Labour lead
📉Lowest Con vote share since May 2019
🌹Lab 46 (+2)
🌳Con 21 (-4)
➡️Reform 13 (+3)
🔶LD 11 (+2)
🌍Green 5 (+1)
🎗️SNP 2 (-1)
⬜️Other 3 (-1)
2,045 UK adults, 12-14 June
(chg from 7-9 June)
https://x.com/Savanta_UK/status/1802030811421564970
Hmm. Interesting.
That MRP projection for the SNP is bullshit.
Sample size?
This Savanta poll is a standard VI poll.
It would be trying to hand legislation to the courts - something the courts have resisted.
Politicians will become very interested in controlling who is on the Supreme Court.
These are giving a picture shrivelled of a Tory party, not an apocalypse.
You think that provision is going to cause "a huge economic crises"?
I think it's a stupid idea to have public sector bodies focused on anything other than value for money. But the idea that this - rather than say, the inability of the UK to pay its way in the world - is going to cause a huge economic "crises" it's patently absurd.
King and Kate's appearance at TTC.
Followed by Kevin Campbell.
Then the runaway cow.
Finally the E coli outbreak.
Followed by an advert which began "You don't need us to tell you there's a General Election coming."
Apparently we don't.
I might buy Reform because of asymmetrical risk reward, but that's about it.
But.
Almost every Tory I know won't be voting Tory this time.
I'd take 108 any day. Suspect reality could be a lot worse.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/14853/economics/income-inequality-by-income-decile/
Wokery is encoded into their core DNA. And, it's going to prove deeply unpopular.
Though I would probably try and use it to try and lever a policy to consider pedestrians better onto my Local Highways Authority.
Reform is definitely a buy. So too LDs, probably.
Yes, we've undoubtedly lost some. But not half, as the polls are saying.
I must say, I'm looking forward to being hailed as a great prophet if (when) it happens.
It's the media to blame.
Very kind of you to delete your comment so that I am now first.
FIRST !!!!
I don't like how SPIN run them.
https://x.com/faqtories/status/1802035568555028795?s=46
Meanwhile reports of cross-over by Reform seem rather exaggerated
Which was the election where Hitchens the right was taken off air by the Mail for several weeks during his Conservative Delenda Est phase?
I expect Nige will be very disappionted, because some of these will include fieldwork after the Yougov by now, I expect. Where is the snowball factor of people apparently wanting to jump on the bandwagon, that you might have expected ? If it's not in evidence this weekend, I doubt it will suddenly arrive later on.
Will that make a difference, other than to the recycling bins? Who knows, but it is a long time since the SNP have had so little impact in a major election. I will be gutted if they pick up 37 seats, gutted.
New entries on the block like Reform are tricky to weight.
https://x.com/JohnRentoul/status/1801915023414997137
Edit- SCOTTISH KLAXON!
Lab ~ 34% (nc)
SNP ~ 30% (+1)
Con ~ 14% (-2)
LD ~ 9% (+1)
RUK ~ 7% (+1)
Grn ~ 4% (nc)
Alba ~ 2% (-1)
They said they intend to switch to a ballot prompt method but it’s not clear whether that’s happened for this poll.
https://x.com/MattCartoonist/status/1801997816752963835
https://www.survation.com/survation-mrp-labour-set-for-record-breaking-majority/
Lab 521
LD 51
Con 30
Ref 2
GRN 1
SNP 21
PC 4
Majority of 392.
John Curtice doesn't seem to think the SNP are going to do particularly well, either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvBXPKl8NUI
Lab ~ 34% (nc)
SNP ~ 30% (+1)
Con ~ 14% (-2)
LD ~ 9% (+1)
RUK ~ 7% (+1)
Grn ~ 4% (nc)
Alba ~ 2% (-1)
According to Sir John Curtice’s analysis, this would see Labour return 28 MPs in Scotland, up from the current two, while the SNP would win 18 seats, compared with its 48 in 2019. The Lib Dems would increase their Scottish contingent of MPs from four to five.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/tory-voters-switching-to-reform-add-to-pressure-on-douglas-ross-mk962nlf5
That may be an outlier but it could be that the media attention around the various manifesto launches is now coming out of the system and we return to how we were, roughly, ten days ago?